For purposes of this feature, the week stretches from last week's post to now -- and I was a day late last week, so it's Sunday through today.
I'm going to leave Tucson alone in this post, other than to say that I disagree with those who want to make too much of the effect of all this on Sarah Palin. Yes, her reaction was in some sense a missed opportunity, but it's the same now as it's always been: she would be well positioned to make a run for the nomination if she was able to do the kinds of things that presidential nominees need to do, but so far she's never shown either the interest or the ability to do those things. I don't think much changed this week.
So what else do we have? I'm open to arguments that Tunisia is important (beyond, obviously, to people who live there), but I'm not really convinced. I'll nominate something else. The Obama Administration's choice to again slightly loosen restrictions on contacts with Cuba was interesting, and even more interesting has been, so far, the generally quiet response. At least, my impression has been that it's quiet. If that continues to be the case, I'd expect further movement towards normalization, with possible consequences for Cuban-American relations, general American relations with Latin America and South America, Cuba itself, and, not least, Florida politics and therefore US politics. Of course, this week's news is only a small part of that, but I'll suggest it for something that mattered this week.
What do you think mattered this week?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I was just reading about the Cuba restrictions. I kinda wonder why there hasn't been a stronger push for normalization; I think if Obama had gone for it in 2009, he could've gotten it (I suppose he was just prioritizing other things). I'd like to think this could be a good thing for him to push in the next two years as it's gotten bipartisan consideration before, but I imagine that now, even Lugar would create a challenge for himself by supporting this.
ReplyDeleteI'll also nominate the EPA's decision to revoke a mining permit in (of course) West Virginia. Substantively, it's good news; politically, it might be a signal that the EPA is only going to go so far to accomodate a Republican Congress (though the Biomass decision would auger that the EPA is not immovable).
There's an interpretation of 9/11, which doesn't get much play in the American media, that sees that day as 19 young Saudi/Yemeni engineers, educated but lacking opportunity in their hideous, corrupt nations, perpetrating atrocities against the (perceived) puppeteer of their own horrid puppet regimes. We don't talk in those terms much, probably because it forces us to reconcile America's role in that day, which unless you're Jeremiah Wright, you're pretty much loth to do.
ReplyDeleteSake of argument, suppose there's some truth to the "throw off the puppeteer" interpretation of 9/11. If we'd had that conversation, my feedback, for those such as the 19 men who commandeered those planes, would have gone something like this: Go f*** yourselves. Then if I'd continued, I might have pointed out that, if you're going to commit an act of atrocious suicidal violence, do so in a way that attacks the puppet, because that's the problem, not the puppeteer.
This week, a young Arab engineer, well educated but with nonexistent employment opportunities, self-immolated in an obvious act of protest against his hideous, opportunity-crushing government, and the next thing you know, the inspired people rose up to crush that hideous, opportunity-crushing government.
Seems to me this might be an incredibly important and propitious development for America and our friends Israel, particularly if this becomes the new template for how disaffected Arab young men deal with their hideous governments.
CSH:
ReplyDeleteThere's an interpretation of 9/11, which doesn't get much play in the American media, that sees that day as 19 young Saudi/Yemeni engineers, educated but lacking opportunity in their hideous, corrupt nations . . .
Clearly wrong.
'The muscle hijackers came from a variety of educational and societal backgrounds. All were between 20 and 28 years old; most were unemployed with no more than a high school education and were unmarried.'
Hani Hanjour was an English major and worked with the family business before he began to study flying.
The other three pilots could plausibly be described as engineering students, although strictly speaking Atta was in architecture. But none of them had completed their studies, and thus faced a disappointing lack of opportunity in their home countries.
CSH:
ReplyDeleteThere's an interpretation of 9/11, which doesn't get much play in the American media, that sees that day as 19 young Saudi/Yemeni engineers, educated but lacking opportunity in their hideous, corrupt nations . . .
Clearly wrong.
'The muscle hijackers came from a variety of educational and societal backgrounds. All were between 20 and 28 years old; most were unemployed with no more than a high school education and were unmarried.'
Hani Hanjour was an English major and worked with the family business before he began to study flying.
The other three pilots could plausibly be described as engineering students, although strictly speaking Atta was in architecture. But none of them had completed their studies, and thus faced a disappointing lack of opportunity in their home countries.
CSH:
ReplyDeleteThere's an interpretation of 9/11, which doesn't get much play in the American media, that sees that day as 19 young Saudi/Yemeni engineers, educated but lacking opportunity in their hideous, corrupt nations . . .
Clearly wrong.
'The muscle hijackers came from a variety of educational and societal backgrounds. All were between 20 and 28 years old; most were unemployed with no more than a high school education and were unmarried.'
Hani Hanjour was an English major and worked with the family business before he began to study flying.
The other three pilots could plausibly be described as engineering students, although strictly speaking Atta was in architecture. But none of them had completed their studies, and thus faced a disappointing lack of opportunity in their home countries.
David - good clarification on 'muscle' v. 'pilot' hijackers (full disclosure: my post here was not to portray myself as a 9/11 buff, which I pretty clearly am not).
ReplyDeleteHanjour's an interesting case, for while his academic study was liberal arts, he alone among the four pilots really wanted to be a commercial pilot. He never made it, by all accounts because he was such a poor student. He was unable to get training in Saudi Arabia (though able to access much training in the US) - was that because Saudi Arabia is a corrupt, limiting society, or rather because crappy pilots like Hanjour have less access to opportunity in a developing country with less infrastructure? I confess I've no idea.
Still, whether the other pilots had a credential or not, I'll stick with the claim above that there are plausible demographic similarities between the guy that self-immolated in Tunisia and (at least) the pilot hijackers. If so, its also plausible that the Tunisian protester will change the calculus on the disgruntled Arab street; call me a dreamer but damn if that wouldn't be a great thing for the US and our buddies in Israel.
I nominate Jerry Brown's submission of a deficit budget in California as the most important thing that happened this week.
ReplyDelete