Vote dashes Bush immigration plan (on BBC)
It is unfortunate that in the one issue where Bush is acting in a non-partisan manner, where his views are balanced and his actions tempered, he is torpedoed by his own party. In the one issue where there is a tinge of the "compassionate conservative" in him, the, um, uncompassionate conservatives win the day. Too bad, he lost so much political capital over Iraq that he can't even get his good policies out.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Anti-Americanism explained
The BBC is having a series on anti-Americanism to be aired over Radio 4 in the UK. Based to the article, it seems to challenge the concept of anti-Americanism as a reaction to American foreign policy, putting it in the same hate box as anti-Semitism or racism. The correspondent, Jim Webb, "argues anti-Americanism is often a cover for hatreds with little justification in fact". He travels to Paris, Caracas, Cairo, and Washington to study this phenomenon. Too bad I don't get Radio 4 in this part of the world-- it would've been good to listen in.
It is apparent in the article that the series has a benign veiw of America, attributing anti-Americanism in Paris as a reaction to America's "kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness" (i.e., the elitist and cultured French aristocrat versus the egalitarian but uncouth American cowboy). But whatever the etiology of French anti-American sentiment is, what I'm more concerned about is the sentiment as a reaction to American foreign policy-- is it well placed? Webb discusses it early on in the article. After seeing an anti-American protest in London, he observes:
"A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. "
What Webb fails to comprehend is that this strong reaction to America's "tiniest indiscretion" is actually an acknowledgement that it is expected to have moral ascendancy. The world demands more of America and is very disappointed when it acts like other thuggish countries.
More than any other country in the world and more than any other superpower in history, America has trumpeted itself as the beacon of democracy and human rights. The British never claimed to spread democracy in India-- it was honest that it's all about expanding the British Empire. America, on the other hand, never owned up to its imperial past, pointing to Manifest Destiny as the reason for denying the nascent Filipino government its independence.
America prides itself in its democratic ideals and its wide open arms to all peoples. It claims to defend human rights and civil liberties, and promises to defend the world against oppressive regimes. And, to a large extent, the world believed that. That is why the world bristles at America's "tiniest indiscretions"-- it cannot claim to defend democracy and human rights and democracy while destroying them with its actions. America has proclaimed itself to be the good guy, the defender of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Its actions have shown us otherwise. That is why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world-- it's a reaction against hypocrisy. That is why America is so easily condemned for its "tiniest indiscretions".
There is one thing the world hates more than murderers, dictators, and thieves. It is self-righteous murderers, dictators, and thieves.
It is apparent in the article that the series has a benign veiw of America, attributing anti-Americanism in Paris as a reaction to America's "kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness" (i.e., the elitist and cultured French aristocrat versus the egalitarian but uncouth American cowboy). But whatever the etiology of French anti-American sentiment is, what I'm more concerned about is the sentiment as a reaction to American foreign policy-- is it well placed? Webb discusses it early on in the article. After seeing an anti-American protest in London, he observes:
"A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. "
What Webb fails to comprehend is that this strong reaction to America's "tiniest indiscretion" is actually an acknowledgement that it is expected to have moral ascendancy. The world demands more of America and is very disappointed when it acts like other thuggish countries.
More than any other country in the world and more than any other superpower in history, America has trumpeted itself as the beacon of democracy and human rights. The British never claimed to spread democracy in India-- it was honest that it's all about expanding the British Empire. America, on the other hand, never owned up to its imperial past, pointing to Manifest Destiny as the reason for denying the nascent Filipino government its independence.
America prides itself in its democratic ideals and its wide open arms to all peoples. It claims to defend human rights and civil liberties, and promises to defend the world against oppressive regimes. And, to a large extent, the world believed that. That is why the world bristles at America's "tiniest indiscretions"-- it cannot claim to defend democracy and human rights and democracy while destroying them with its actions. America has proclaimed itself to be the good guy, the defender of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Its actions have shown us otherwise. That is why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world-- it's a reaction against hypocrisy. That is why America is so easily condemned for its "tiniest indiscretions".
There is one thing the world hates more than murderers, dictators, and thieves. It is self-righteous murderers, dictators, and thieves.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Re: Filipino Theory of Value
My good friend Out in Four had an interesting thesis in his blog. I wrote this as a comment, but it got too long so I'll just it post here.
---
It is always interesting when anthro and econ meet. A few comments:
1. Material conditions and language do not work in a single direction (i.e., material conditions affecting language); it's more of a two-way interaction. Material conditions do affect the language (e.g., our many words for rice-- palay, bigas, sinaing, bahaw), but the language also affects the way we perceive the world (e.g., our word for sickness is sakit, which is also pain, so mental health is often neglected or trivialised). And this is most true for abstract concepts. Therefore, even if you find significant correlations, it will be difficult to establish causality. Did the language develop because they traded, or did trading develop because the people were open to it?
2. Note that most of pre-Hispanic trade was barter rather than in money, so "expensive" might be a very different concept for the early Filipinos (it would be more akin to marginal rates of substitution rather than actually being "expensive").
3. In any study of culture you will always find exceptions, so explaining them within the theory would be very difficult. And unlike other statistical anomalies, it wouldn't be possible to explain them away as outliers-- how does one consider a language or culture as an "outlier"? Could we disregard an entire Weltanschauung because it isn't like any in the rest of the world?
4. Filipino (i.e., Tagalog) is part of the Austronesian family of languages, so a lot of our words would be the same with, say, Bahasa; however, trading circumstances would be vastly different across groups. In many cases, there is more diversity between languages within the Philippines than between other countries (e.g., compare Ivatan and Panggalatok vs. Tagalog and Bahasa). So the results will be driven by how the sample is selected. The results will be different if we compare the different Austronesian languages or if we include, say, Indo-Eurpoean languages into the mix. Not to mention that a lot of our words came from Chinese and Indian (including mahal), so the lines get even more blurred. Cross-section analysis can't be done on data where the supposedly random samples are talking to and influencing each other.
5. Also consider the case of the Maranaos and the Maguindanaos-- almost identical languages, religions, social structures, etc., but the former are prolific traders and the latter are not.
Bottomline, your thesis is interesting, but very difficult to test. Obviously, I'm very much into the study of econ and anthro (the two extremes of the social sciences, actually) and have given this some thought-- studying both makes one aware of the limitations of each. The way I see it, Economics has a long way to go before it is crowned Queen of the Social Sciences.
---
It is always interesting when anthro and econ meet. A few comments:
1. Material conditions and language do not work in a single direction (i.e., material conditions affecting language); it's more of a two-way interaction. Material conditions do affect the language (e.g., our many words for rice-- palay, bigas, sinaing, bahaw), but the language also affects the way we perceive the world (e.g., our word for sickness is sakit, which is also pain, so mental health is often neglected or trivialised). And this is most true for abstract concepts. Therefore, even if you find significant correlations, it will be difficult to establish causality. Did the language develop because they traded, or did trading develop because the people were open to it?
2. Note that most of pre-Hispanic trade was barter rather than in money, so "expensive" might be a very different concept for the early Filipinos (it would be more akin to marginal rates of substitution rather than actually being "expensive").
3. In any study of culture you will always find exceptions, so explaining them within the theory would be very difficult. And unlike other statistical anomalies, it wouldn't be possible to explain them away as outliers-- how does one consider a language or culture as an "outlier"? Could we disregard an entire Weltanschauung because it isn't like any in the rest of the world?
4. Filipino (i.e., Tagalog) is part of the Austronesian family of languages, so a lot of our words would be the same with, say, Bahasa; however, trading circumstances would be vastly different across groups. In many cases, there is more diversity between languages within the Philippines than between other countries (e.g., compare Ivatan and Panggalatok vs. Tagalog and Bahasa). So the results will be driven by how the sample is selected. The results will be different if we compare the different Austronesian languages or if we include, say, Indo-Eurpoean languages into the mix. Not to mention that a lot of our words came from Chinese and Indian (including mahal), so the lines get even more blurred. Cross-section analysis can't be done on data where the supposedly random samples are talking to and influencing each other.
5. Also consider the case of the Maranaos and the Maguindanaos-- almost identical languages, religions, social structures, etc., but the former are prolific traders and the latter are not.
Bottomline, your thesis is interesting, but very difficult to test. Obviously, I'm very much into the study of econ and anthro (the two extremes of the social sciences, actually) and have given this some thought-- studying both makes one aware of the limitations of each. The way I see it, Economics has a long way to go before it is crowned Queen of the Social Sciences.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Deep in the Heart of Texas
US crowd beats passenger to death (BBC)
Angry crowd kills passenger in car that struck child (CNN)
Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hit Girl (CBS)
I wonder if the same would've happened if the passenger weren't Hispanic.
Angry crowd kills passenger in car that struck child (CNN)
Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hit Girl (CBS)
I wonder if the same would've happened if the passenger weren't Hispanic.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Lakbayan: World Edition
Countries I've Visited
(That's 16 countries, or 7% of the total, according to the website.)
create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands
(That's 16 countries, or 7% of the total, according to the website.)
create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands
Lakbayan
Found this nice test c/o cyberlaundry. Yes, I have a measly grade of D. Ergo, I should be spending more time on vacation. A LOT more time.
My Lakbayan grade is D!
How much of the Philippines have you visited? Find out atLakbayan!
Created by Eugene Villar.Monday, June 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)