iSight

I just bought an iSight FireWire camera for my PowerBook. Now all I need are some buddies to chat with…..
(Seriously, there’s a chance I may have to spend an extended period of time over in England, and I wanted to be able to videoconference with colleagues in the US.)

Journalist=terrorist?

If you live outside the US and plan to visit, check the small print on your I-94W (visa waiver) form very, very carefully. If you’re a journalist, even a casual freelance contributor, you are liable to be detained, interrogated, strip-searched, handcuffed, frogmarched through the airport, locked up, and deported. Read this Salon story carefully, and then Elena Lappin’s account in the Guardian of how she was treated when she recently flew in to Los Angeles.
Apparently if you’re a “nonthreatening” reporter (whatever that means) you may be allowed to use a visa waiver – just once. After that, you need a special “I-visa”.

War and morality

I just stumbled across a very thoughtful piece by Paul Savoy in The Nation entitled The Moral Case Against The Iraq War. Here’s how Savoy frames the issue:
The problem opponents of the war have had in responding to President Bush’s claim of moral legitimacy […] is that they have addressed the moral issue in the terms the President has framed it rather than reframing the issue in their own moral terms. Talking about the world, or at least Iraq, being “better off” avoids confronting the civilian carnage caused by the war…. [W]e should be wary of talking about the overall good of society or of a particular country. There is no social entity called Iraq that benefited from some self-sacrifice it suffered for its own greater good, like a patient who voluntarily endures some pain to be better off than before. There were only individual human beings living in Iraq before the war, with their individual lives. Sacrificing the lives of some of them for the benefit of others killed them and benefited the others. Nothing more. Each of those Iraqis killed in the war was a separate person, and the unfinished life each of them lost was the only life he or she had, or would ever have. They clearly are not better off now that Saddam is gone from power.
There is only one truly serious question about the morality of the war, and that is the question posed more than fifty years ago by French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, looking back on two world wars that had slaughtered more than 70 million people: When do we have the right to kill our fellow human beings or let them be killed? What is needed is a national debate in the presidential election campaign that addresses the most important moral issue of our time. It is an issue we are required to face not only as a matter of moral obligation to all those Iraqis killed in the war, but to the 772 American servicemen and -women who, as of May 10, had lost their lives and the more than 4,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq.

Warning: Savoy describes some of the consequences of military action in graphic detail. It will turn your stomach. (If it doesn’t, you are beyond hope.) But as he writes,
Judging from the poll numbers after the fall of the Iraqi regime, the seven or eight out of ten Americans who backed the war were prepared to build the edifice of freedom and democracy on the broken bodies not of one, but of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Iraqi children killed or maimed or burned in the conflict.
[Updated: This is a useful source of supporting data, even though it only covers a few months last year.]

This is a blog entry that I hope I'll be able to delete

I’m posting this entry in the fervent hope that I will be able to delete it when it’s been shown to be false. But I have a horrible, nauseating feeling that I won’t.
Seymour Hesh spoke at the University of Chicago a little while ago. I haven’t seen a transcript, but according to various reports (including here, citing Rick Pearlstein), “[Hersh] said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, ‘You haven’t begun to see evil…’ then trailed off. He said, ‘horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.’ He looked frightened.”

Personal favourite

A correspondent on the Al Stewart mailing list asked for suggestions for a poem to use as part of his son’s Eagle Scout ceremony. I suggested my favourite lines from Walt Whitman:
This day before dawn I ascended a hill,
and look’d at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my Spirit,
When we become the enfolders of those orbs,
and the pleasure and knowledge
of everything in them,
shall we be fill’d and satisfied then?
And my Spirit said:
No, we but level that lift,
to pass and continue beyond.

[Leaves of Grass, 1871-72 edition, page 322]

Blogs, blogs, blogs everywhere you look

My employer, Sun Microsystems, is now hosting blogs for all employees (and interns – nice touch) at blogs.sun.com. The site opens for business on Monday, so I thought I’d get in ahead of the rush and grab the name geoff. I’m not sure how I’m going to balance the usage of the two blogs, but sufficient unto the day….

George W as Henry V – a fascinating parallel

Arianna Huffington has just posted a wonderful piece in which she compares George W. Bush with the 15th century English King Henry V, as portrayed in Shakespeare’s play. The parallels are striking. Ex-frat boy ruler engages in a war of choice, in part for revenge (“tennis balls”), in part for reasons of domestic politics:
The dying Henry IV had told his son to engage in foreign wars to distract the people from domestic crises: �busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.� The invasion of France is supposed to turn frivolous Hal into a strong leader � his youthful indiscretions a thing of the past.
Both men surrounded themselves with those in favor of going to war: Bush with his neocons, and Henry with the churchmen my fellow debater David Brooks dubbed the �theocons.�

Highly recommended.
[Update 2004-06-05 11:32:00] As a writer to Salon commented, there was one big difference between Henry V and George Bush: Henry actually led his troops into battle. He may have been irresponsible, but he was no chicken-hawk.