This is a well-thought out response to the response to terror; a must read. Based on all that I've read from her, Arundhati Roy is amazing.
"9 Is Not 11" by Arundhati Roy.
12 December, 2008
30 November, 2008
November 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks
A distinct uneasiness came over me when my 24 hr. news-consuming self first learned of the attacks (thankfully, a dear friend over there is ok). The fact that they were extended over a few days was even more unsettling. There was a report of policemen hiding from the gunmen. Some accuse the government of already proving itself a failure in terms of dealing with outbursts of violence like this. The Indian security chief has already resigned. 200+ people died at the hands of 10 murderers. But now it's time to move forward.
This nytimes op-ed is insightful, contextualizing the attacks with a little history, along with personal reflection. But what I appreciate about it most is that it echoes a sentiment that I remember feeling living in ny during 9/11: to move on precisely by taking what the situation has given you, and somehow using it for the better:
What They Hate About Mumbai (<--btw, the article's title should not be read in the whiny and mockable "why do they hate our freedom?" way, rather, more like a "let me tell you about Mumbai" way. Just read it.)
P.S.S. - I came across this story in the BBC:
The age of 'celebrity terrorism'
Something about it bothers me. I don't necessarily buy Paul Cornish's argument that the gunmen's "deeds" lacked the "propaganda" in a way different from any other terror-inducing attack - which is the entire basis for titling the article "The Age of Celebrity Terrorism." I don't know about the whole "celebrity terror" thing, nor ushering in an entire age of it. Celebrity is just the wrong word to ascribe to these acts. Yes, the attackers were relatively young and wore Western clothes. That doesn't mean they want to be famous. Ever since ancient public assassinations, terror was meant to instill fear in the observers - the more, the better. In this regard, Mumbai was not new. It just so happens that instead of communicating by smoke signals or secret parchments, the attackers used Blackberries and Bluetooth; and instead of happening in the agora, with news of it spreading by word of mouth, it happened in bustling economic spaces, with news of it being spread simultaneously to millions of people around the world. In short, the change is not in the terrorists doing. In fact, I think we have to be careful, because I believe "Celebrity terrorism" is just a failed attempt at sandwiching two separate and distinct, revenue-generating buzz words together, and ultimately, they're only as "celebrity" as we make them.
This nytimes op-ed is insightful, contextualizing the attacks with a little history, along with personal reflection. But what I appreciate about it most is that it echoes a sentiment that I remember feeling living in ny during 9/11: to move on precisely by taking what the situation has given you, and somehow using it for the better:
What They Hate About Mumbai (<--btw, the article's title should not be read in the whiny and mockable "why do they hate our freedom?" way, rather, more like a "let me tell you about Mumbai" way. Just read it.)
P.S.S. - I came across this story in the BBC:
The age of 'celebrity terrorism'
Something about it bothers me. I don't necessarily buy Paul Cornish's argument that the gunmen's "deeds" lacked the "propaganda" in a way different from any other terror-inducing attack - which is the entire basis for titling the article "The Age of Celebrity Terrorism." I don't know about the whole "celebrity terror" thing, nor ushering in an entire age of it. Celebrity is just the wrong word to ascribe to these acts. Yes, the attackers were relatively young and wore Western clothes. That doesn't mean they want to be famous. Ever since ancient public assassinations, terror was meant to instill fear in the observers - the more, the better. In this regard, Mumbai was not new. It just so happens that instead of communicating by smoke signals or secret parchments, the attackers used Blackberries and Bluetooth; and instead of happening in the agora, with news of it spreading by word of mouth, it happened in bustling economic spaces, with news of it being spread simultaneously to millions of people around the world. In short, the change is not in the terrorists doing. In fact, I think we have to be careful, because I believe "Celebrity terrorism" is just a failed attempt at sandwiching two separate and distinct, revenue-generating buzz words together, and ultimately, they're only as "celebrity" as we make them.
20 October, 2008
LAPD behind on processing 7,000 rape kits
Controller Laura Chick calls her audit finding a backlog of 7,000 unprocessed rape evidence kits "one of the most startling and important audits " since she was elected seven years ago. From her release: My report on the LAPD's backlog of DNA rape kits shows around 7,000 unanalyzed kits sitting on freezer shelves. Though the LAPD has been...
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
04 August, 2008
Man Prowls NYC Streets looking for Cops Breaking the Law
When the movie Mortal Kombat came out, I remember being totally amped after seeing it, jumping out of the theater, kicking into the air with my friends, quoting the characters, etc. I was most likely jacked up on sugar and caffeine, too. When I saw the new Dark Knight movie, for better or worse, my excitement was a bit more contained. But I was gratefully reminded of my never-ending life-quest to be a mysterious bad-ass (I'm working on it). I don't know how much this has to do with Jimmy Justice, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing, and I hope he inspires others as well.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
20 May, 2008
Re: Senate Republican Conference on U.S. Energy Policy
Haven't simultaneously watched C-Span and recorded my reaction in a while, so here we go:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) rattles off about smarter technology for oil extraction, and that since we know how to use it, nothing can go wrong (by this logic, everyone gets their driver's license, therefore, there should be no car accidents).
Sen. Kyl (AZ) grins like a lustful carnie.
Sen. Wicker (MS) talks to slow. I think he just finshed a sentence, but he sounds confused - and he's reading off of notes! But he is able to stutter out the question of "What are... do we... have any facts about oil spills?" Yeah, unless I've got some cold hard charts in front of me, a duck dipped in oil looks fine to me.
Sen. Allard (CO) is a tool.
Sen. Warner (VA) thankfully does make the point that the biggest government usage of fuel comes from the Dept. of Defense.
omg. Sen. Stevens (AK) is their first speaker. He sounds as stuttery and fumbly-bumbly as he did when talking about the Internets as a Series of Tubes. It's pretty much incomprehensible. I am hearing some Clinton-bashing, some dates, and more stuttering (nothing against anyone with speech impediments; everything against narrow-minded, curmudgeonly senators). Haha. He just tried to make the point that investments in renewable resources can't even come about without ANWAR drilling revenues! Please, go on. I am totally believing you...
Sen. Sessions (AL) rests his head on his hand like he's drunk.
In response to Session's question, Stevens confuses the impact that ANWAR oil production would have on gas prices versus the real effects that Saudi Arabian oil production has on prices.
Sen. Domenici (NM) is now calling not drilling in ANWAR "wrong" and blames Democrats.
He is the second senator to mention the bike/car binary (As in, "I don't think we can all just stop using cars and start riding bikes!" - which, btw, NO ONE is suggesting).
Domenici and Stevens start to stroke each others' balding heads over the suggestion that ANWAR can produce more oil than previously believed, thanks to the record price per barrel.
Stevens is now bitching like a little baby, comparing the 70 permits needed to start oil production in ANWAR, versus the lack of regulation in Russia and Norway. Awww... then why don't you go ahead and run for Senator of Russia?
Oh man, Stevens is again cursing over Clinton's veto of some related bill in 1995. I can't take anymore. If Stevens was my grandpa, I would never visit him. There's no reason I need to watch anymore. These Republicans are boring. Going to bed.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) rattles off about smarter technology for oil extraction, and that since we know how to use it, nothing can go wrong (by this logic, everyone gets their driver's license, therefore, there should be no car accidents).
Sen. Kyl (AZ) grins like a lustful carnie.
Sen. Wicker (MS) talks to slow. I think he just finshed a sentence, but he sounds confused - and he's reading off of notes! But he is able to stutter out the question of "What are... do we... have any facts about oil spills?" Yeah, unless I've got some cold hard charts in front of me, a duck dipped in oil looks fine to me.
Sen. Allard (CO) is a tool.
Sen. Warner (VA) thankfully does make the point that the biggest government usage of fuel comes from the Dept. of Defense.
omg. Sen. Stevens (AK) is their first speaker. He sounds as stuttery and fumbly-bumbly as he did when talking about the Internets as a Series of Tubes. It's pretty much incomprehensible. I am hearing some Clinton-bashing, some dates, and more stuttering (nothing against anyone with speech impediments; everything against narrow-minded, curmudgeonly senators). Haha. He just tried to make the point that investments in renewable resources can't even come about without ANWAR drilling revenues! Please, go on. I am totally believing you...
Sen. Sessions (AL) rests his head on his hand like he's drunk.
In response to Session's question, Stevens confuses the impact that ANWAR oil production would have on gas prices versus the real effects that Saudi Arabian oil production has on prices.
Sen. Domenici (NM) is now calling not drilling in ANWAR "wrong" and blames Democrats.
He is the second senator to mention the bike/car binary (As in, "I don't think we can all just stop using cars and start riding bikes!" - which, btw, NO ONE is suggesting).
Domenici and Stevens start to stroke each others' balding heads over the suggestion that ANWAR can produce more oil than previously believed, thanks to the record price per barrel.
Stevens is now bitching like a little baby, comparing the 70 permits needed to start oil production in ANWAR, versus the lack of regulation in Russia and Norway. Awww... then why don't you go ahead and run for Senator of Russia?
Oh man, Stevens is again cursing over Clinton's veto of some related bill in 1995. I can't take anymore. If Stevens was my grandpa, I would never visit him. There's no reason I need to watch anymore. These Republicans are boring. Going to bed.
22 January, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)