Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
PS: somebody suggested that it is a spoof. Is it? I noticed that the Wharton website has a disclaimer about one of the speakers.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
1) A rightist movement funded by Hariri inc, but is too embarrassed to admit it is actually Rightist (the Yasar Dimuqrati, so-called).
2) A Leftist movement that is embarrassed by its Leftism (Lebanese Communist Party).
3) Individuals and groups who are embarrassed by Yasar Dimuqrati and embarrassed by the Lebanese Communist Party--like Bila Hudud who are getting closer to Hariri Inc these days. The most abstract theoretical text of this group is Che's Motorcycle Diaries. Oh, yeah. Those really like Che and love to wear him on their t-shirts. They think he is cool.
"Too tired, to begin with, to check his facts. Rights of Man (not The Rights of Man, as Hitchens persistently calls it) was written as an answer to Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Hitchens tells us that among others who wrote replies to Burke, along with Joseph Priestley and Mary Wollstonecraft, was William Godwin, which he wasn’t. He says that, unlike Paine, Wollstonecraft advocated votes for women, which she didn’t. Paine himself, Hitchens says, was not discouraged from writing Part One of Rights of Man by the rough treatment he received at the hands of a Parisian crowd following Louis XVI’s flight to Varennes. Nor should he have been, for Part One was published several months before the king fled and Paine was manhandled. According to Hitchens, Part Two was produced partly to explain to Dr Johnson the need for a written constitution, and partly to endorse Ricardo’s views on commerce and free trade, but when it was written Johnson had been dead for seven years and Ricardo, not yet 20, had published no views that required endorsing. Paine was charged with seditious libel for publishing Part Two, and to escape arrest he fled to France, accompanied by the Wykehamist gentleman-lawyer John Frost, described by Hitchens as secretary of the London Corresponding Society. The LCS was a society of radical artisans, not a gentleman’s club, and its secretary was in fact the shoemaker Thomas Hardy. The trial proceeded in Paine’s absence, and according to Hitchens the future prime minister Spencer Perceval ‘opened for the prosecution’; in fact, though Perceval read the indictment to the court, the prosecution was much too important to be left to so relatively junior a barrister, and was opened by the attorney general himself. In 1794 Paine published The Age of Reason, ‘probably’, thinks Hitchens, in reaction to a sermon by Richard Watson, the bishop of Llandaff, though, as Paine himself tells us, he had not heard of the sermon until it was advertised in Watson’s reply to The Age of Reason, An Apology for the Bible.
This is only a selection of the many errors in this book, and they are not trivial; they misrepresent matters of fact that are essential to an understanding of the context of Paine’s writings, and it is in the course of Hitchens’s attempt to describe that context that they occur. It is the more surprising to find these errors, as none of them occur in John Keane’s biography of Paine (1995), on which Hitchens depends heavily – it must have been lying open on his desk as he was writing this book. Here for example is Keane on Watson’s Apology:
Watson . . . went so far as to admit that parts of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses and that some of the psalms were not composed by David . . . Paine took particular pleasure in some of the Bishop’s curious admissions. For example, The Age of Reason questioned whether God really commanded that all men and married women among the Midianites should be slaughtered and their maidens preserved. Not so, the Bishop indignantly retorted. The maidens were not preserved for immoral purposes, as Paine had wickedly suggested, but as slaves, to which Christians could not legitimately object.
And here is Hitchens: Watson, he tells us,
was willing to admit that Moses could not have written all of the Pentateuch and that David was not invariably the psalmist. But he would not give too much ground. Paine was quite out of order, wrote the good bishop, in saying that God had ordered the slaughter of all adult male and female Midianites, preserving only the daughters for rapine. On the contrary, the daughters had been preserved solely for the purpose of slavery. No hint of immorality was involved.
Or here is Keane on the problems Paine encountered in his efforts to publish Part One of Rights of Man:
Paine finished the first part of Rights of Man on his 54th birthday, 29 January 1791 . . . The next day, Paine passed the manuscript to the well-known London publisher Joseph Johnson, who set about printing it in time for the opening of Parliament and Washington’s birthday on 22 February. As the unbound copies piled up in the printing shop, Johnson was visited repeatedly by government agents. Although Johnson had already published replies to Burke’s Reflections by Thomas Christie, Mary Wollstonecraft and Capel Lofft, he sensed, correctly, that Paine’s manuscript would attract far more attention and bitter controversy than all of them combined. Fearing the book police, and unnerved by the prospect of arrest and bankruptcy, Johnson suppressed the book on the very day of its scheduled publication.
And here is Hitchens again:
Having completed Part One on his 54th birthday, 29 January 1791, Paine made haste to take the manuscript to a printer named Joseph Johnson. The proposed publication deadline, of 22 February, was intended to coincide with the opening of Parliament and the birthday of George Washington. Mr Johnson was a man of some nerve and principle, as he had demonstrated by printing several radical replies to Burke (including the one by Mary Wollstonecraft) but he took fright after several heavy-footed visits from William Pitt’s political police. On the day of publication, he announced that The Rights of Man would not appear under the imprint of his press." (thanks Rosa)
(I can't believe that some Arabs sent me this piece today. Did they read it, or they just endorse whatever he writes?)
*Freedom House is not independent. It is a right-wing, anti-communist organization which ranks countries on the basis of their subservience to the US. Just notice the discrepancy between the ranking of Freedom House and that of RWB.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
"LOCALLY PRODUCED HUMMUS IS SET TO BLAST OFF TO INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
The #1 Mediterranean Gourmet Foods Brand in the Middle East and
Friday, November 24, 2006
I do. We would have been out of Vietnam a lot sooner. There would've been a better chance for peace in the Middle East, since that was on his agenda." Oh, yeah, Mr. movie director. Indeed. Bobby Kennedy was planning on sending more fighter jets for Israel. That would have guaranteed peace for the Middle East. For sure.
From Gaza: what you don't see in US media. Without a hint of exaggeration, I dare say this: an Israeli with a toothache gets more US media coverage than a murdered Palestinian.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The study, called the National Brands Index, conducted by government advisor Simon Anholt and powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), shows that Israel is at the bottom of the list by a considerable margin in the public’s perception of its image."