Redeemed, coming back once in a while to the Cole blog, read this piece on Thuthdig, a more 'general news' source.
Congratulations professor, in my opinion you are redeemed, your speaking your mind seems to shift to within the scope of what matters, is relevant, with this article.
the territory taken by the one percent would be gladly conceded to them if it were not a result of ongoing robbing and exploiting of 50 percent of the earth's resources. (not a precise number, the mega rich are spread over the globe, doing the same, the biggest concentration of capital is still in the US though).
the rest-waist of the process is then dumped out of the 1%'s habitat. the dynamics of the process are devastating and ill represented by the graphics as yet.
to get back to the graphic as above: the pressure valve on the ten percent borders will burst somehow: the continuous grabbing of resources needs a growing world population, the main weakness: take less of a growing humanity is the tactic.
my point: the graphic does not represent the interference of us mega-rich on the globe, and secondly neither does it represent the escalating dynamics of the process.
an asymmetrical upbringing, a rather conventional blind sided marketeer, his intellectual growth stunted too early. i very much would like to believe Jobs eventually would have burned capitalism as a sustainable model of society openly and outspokenly, a way better probability then Buffet who had what? 20 more years to think about democracy and financing and feeds from within.
an earlier comment pointed in the direction above, my regards.
'Top Ten Myths about the Libya War', while Juan Cole's 'top tens' are something to look forward to, this one comes way early, the dynamics of Lybia (more then military) are not played out, have not peaked, in fact but germing.
The reference to the naissance of nation-states, all well. just as a question up for debate: are not nation-states part of the culprits for world-views not functioning. are nation-states not contradictory to 21st. century earth, including 'democracy'?
on compulsory voting...tend to think a no vote is a statement to be left as an option, it should be less than a certain percentage to carry an election as valid. that way a no vote is a participating statement. obligation to vote is equal to being owned by society, the possibility to define oneself as non-participant is required for the sake of mere nuancing the public's thoughts.
the issue of energy is of relevance: resources, translated in the population issues worldwide (migrations, overall growth).
changing our ways structurally by taking food, water and energy out of corporatism and financial equations might reverse quality of life issues for the better and even mere survival might be at stake. can do (the pointed at green initiatives) might be not good enough if they are realized along the lines of profit.
could Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu possibly implode Mubarak style? Mid-East spring indeed then. Seems like the 'democratic' process of electing the Prime Minister put Israel on the wrong side of history.
i fully agree with your plea, see my comment to the same post.
it indeed is neither the way the US went about the Osama assassination, neither the cover-up of a less then perfect attempt, that makes the US stand out in matters of efficiency and ethics to the rest of the world.
my comments on the contrary have always been published though they often disagree or are critical of professor Cole.
professor, you are right, pictures of a massacred Ben Ladin would be provocative and bad taste. the only minor for not showing them would be the argument against paternalistic tutelage of the public, as in 'we the elite decide what you the public person can see, you cannot thus'
what about the possibility missed to arrest him, either the operation was not perfectly executed (forgivable), or the order to kill was hard wired in the training sessions, or the ongoing real time communication feed was not acted upon at best by the off-site commanders. an array of photos and video of Ben Ladin would then have been acceptable to viewing by the public. on top, an arrest would have been justice minded and given a boost to both US credibility and technical prowess.
the perfect op. seems to have been a less then perfect one, that is the essential point the media layers are trying to hide and Washington wants to paste over. patriotism before transparency i fear.
medieval, an ego-trip, political scores, bombastic operation, arrest was possible, opacity after the facts, there was intelligence and Pakistani collaboration, what about getting out of Afghanistan if then Osama was the main reason to get involved. the simple mindedness of good and bad, the insistence on "imperial" attitude, invincibility, holding the sole rights to justice, the pomp, the bluntness of the bigger American public taking to the surroundings of the white house, being American first, not world citizens, thus educated. these are things that haphazardly spring to mind.
technically: an arrest was possible to intent, it would have laid a claim to superiority, now the whole op. looks like exorcism, exhorting fears of the devil, the wooden stake.
more on the technical side: compliments should be paid to the ultimate underdog, Osama was us subordinate elite turned insubordinate. in a position of meager resources, as misconceived as his ideas were, for the buck he achieved more then either Reagan or Bush and including Obama. he eluded U.S. intelligence for more then years, a feat only superior-ed by the round out impossible feat of driving us planes into the us heartland. by all technical standards, the operation was unique. a most worthy adversary.
on ethics: the us standards and worldviews, as put into practice weighted against the Osama misconceptions carry the weight of deep, intentional flaws, a corruption of most of the elites. humility got another beating. long-term, inclusive, principled, planetary thinking made a show of weak.
separation of actual powers is none: public and private sectors, universities, governments and corporations are one gluey blob.
and what could be called one-way transparency and accountability. if this is the case as now it is, transparency is barely better then complete opacity. transparency should be both ways, always. real people from within the blob and glue should take the blame and be fined, there is no excuse for playing dumb at this level.
i beg to differ on the positive outcome of this particular conflict by the proper criteria of professor Cole, more so on the way the conflict is either smart (short-term), or un-ethically steered, depending on one being part of the 'elite' of the have-s or a mere citizen-grey.
un-ethically: as wars need to lead to a more durable outcome after all. have a time-frame, offer alternatives of post-war that not only, if ever are democratic (democracy, as applied in reality, is a mere tool, a means to an end), this outcome seems bleak. a more just society, more stable, better integrated in the wider region, contained in the positive sense, additions to quality of life of citizens, fitting in the younger generations, creating opportunity, contained migrations of the lesser fortunate to wind up in ghettos of Western Europe, these criteria might not result.
prospects look bleak, the 'revolution' seems to be driven by a mere taste for consumerism, as in confusing democracy with lifestyle (Britney Spears with Jefferson). the nuances, though forgivable out of grasp of most Libyan subjects, are loathsome though for real Western elites to capitalize upon.
my point: Libya should have been ignored (during (more importantly) and after Qaddafi), the West being a mere observer, the opposition within Libya maturing and coming forth as time permits, unforced. today's interference is a consequence of earlier interference (support for Qaddafi), not a white knight ballad out of the blue by the banner of 'democracy'.
the prospects to come about with predictability are rather negative to the many, us-citizens and Libyans confounded:
cost of war in human victims (Libya), tax-payers money (U.S.), the air war creating (an imprecise and polluting shriek of cowardice), a pollution catastrophe then left unattended in the aftermath (Irak as an example should be sufficient), migrations in the region, to Italy (direct and indirect), a class of rulers mostly inexperienced, immature, driven by mere consumerism as mirrored by Western media and indebted to Western interests.
smart in the short-term (in the end, even corrupted elites should think long term, only they are the ones who can afford the luxury): the quest for further enrichment for the corporate-political-banking-media persons, a blob with no consideration for democratic principles (separation of powers for one) of the Western world is what this interfering is all about.
financing with tax-payer money the re-shift and drain of resources for huge profits, eased by lesser organized interlocutors on site.
all regards for the noble political thoughts of Thomas Jefferson and undoubtedly his personal honesty...
also referring to the consequent body of references in Noam Chomsky's 'Hopes and Projects'(analyzing globalization as Washington postulates consequently for over two centuries), can the following regardless of your good intentions be suggested?
that the beauty and ethics of these all American principles (Jefferson) are apt to leverage frustration, if non-US world citizens seeing and feeling the double standards America adheres to in it's global liberal policies: plutocratic, authoritarian, anti-democratic and driven by short-term imperialistic opportunism of the glued together elites of corporate finance, the industry, dandy-politicians and media moguls with regard to all and every entity outside it's borders.
it could be so, some parts of the world became un-attached induced by sincere comprehension of American double standards of globalization proceedings and philosophy.
China, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Equador, Honduras, Brazil, Pakistan (tendencies) and others steer away from being lectured one way and imposed on the other.
as nationalism in itself is an outdated concept, to say it differently, will de facto policies rather then Jeffersonian lecturing bring aboard a substantial part of the planet to ethical globalism?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Redeemed, coming back once in a while to the Cole blog, read this piece on Thuthdig, a more 'general news' source.
Congratulations professor, in my opinion you are redeemed, your speaking your mind seems to shift to within the scope of what matters, is relevant, with this article.
m.
the territory taken by the one percent would be gladly conceded to them if it were not a result of ongoing robbing and exploiting of 50 percent of the earth's resources. (not a precise number, the mega rich are spread over the globe, doing the same, the biggest concentration of capital is still in the US though).
the rest-waist of the process is then dumped out of the 1%'s habitat. the dynamics of the process are devastating and ill represented by the graphics as yet.
to get back to the graphic as above: the pressure valve on the ten percent borders will burst somehow: the continuous grabbing of resources needs a growing world population, the main weakness: take less of a growing humanity is the tactic.
my point: the graphic does not represent the interference of us mega-rich on the globe, and secondly neither does it represent the escalating dynamics of the process.
m.
an asymmetrical upbringing, a rather conventional blind sided marketeer, his intellectual growth stunted too early. i very much would like to believe Jobs eventually would have burned capitalism as a sustainable model of society openly and outspokenly, a way better probability then Buffet who had what? 20 more years to think about democracy and financing and feeds from within.
an earlier comment pointed in the direction above, my regards.
m.
'Top Ten Myths about the Libya War', while Juan Cole's 'top tens' are something to look forward to, this one comes way early, the dynamics of Lybia (more then military) are not played out, have not peaked, in fact but germing.
The reference to the naissance of nation-states, all well. just as a question up for debate: are not nation-states part of the culprits for world-views not functioning. are nation-states not contradictory to 21st. century earth, including 'democracy'?
daring, complete, just.
on compulsory voting...tend to think a no vote is a statement to be left as an option, it should be less than a certain percentage to carry an election as valid. that way a no vote is a participating statement. obligation to vote is equal to being owned by society, the possibility to define oneself as non-participant is required for the sake of mere nuancing the public's thoughts.
m.
the issue of energy is of relevance: resources, translated in the population issues worldwide (migrations, overall growth).
changing our ways structurally by taking food, water and energy out of corporatism and financial equations might reverse quality of life issues for the better and even mere survival might be at stake. can do (the pointed at green initiatives) might be not good enough if they are realized along the lines of profit.
m.
substantially, precisely, pertinently time-lined, consequently opinionated.
could Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu possibly implode Mubarak style? Mid-East spring indeed then. Seems like the 'democratic' process of electing the Prime Minister put Israel on the wrong side of history.
i fully agree with your plea, see my comment to the same post.
it indeed is neither the way the US went about the Osama assassination, neither the cover-up of a less then perfect attempt, that makes the US stand out in matters of efficiency and ethics to the rest of the world.
my comments on the contrary have always been published though they often disagree or are critical of professor Cole.
m.
m.
professor, you are right, pictures of a massacred Ben Ladin would be provocative and bad taste. the only minor for not showing them would be the argument against paternalistic tutelage of the public, as in 'we the elite decide what you the public person can see, you cannot thus'
what about the possibility missed to arrest him, either the operation was not perfectly executed (forgivable), or the order to kill was hard wired in the training sessions, or the ongoing real time communication feed was not acted upon at best by the off-site commanders. an array of photos and video of Ben Ladin would then have been acceptable to viewing by the public. on top, an arrest would have been justice minded and given a boost to both US credibility and technical prowess.
the perfect op. seems to have been a less then perfect one, that is the essential point the media layers are trying to hide and Washington wants to paste over. patriotism before transparency i fear.
in minutes, my situation doesn't allow for more,
medieval, an ego-trip, political scores, bombastic operation, arrest was possible, opacity after the facts, there was intelligence and Pakistani collaboration, what about getting out of Afghanistan if then Osama was the main reason to get involved. the simple mindedness of good and bad, the insistence on "imperial" attitude, invincibility, holding the sole rights to justice, the pomp, the bluntness of the bigger American public taking to the surroundings of the white house, being American first, not world citizens, thus educated. these are things that haphazardly spring to mind.
technically: an arrest was possible to intent, it would have laid a claim to superiority, now the whole op. looks like exorcism, exhorting fears of the devil, the wooden stake.
more on the technical side: compliments should be paid to the ultimate underdog, Osama was us subordinate elite turned insubordinate. in a position of meager resources, as misconceived as his ideas were, for the buck he achieved more then either Reagan or Bush and including Obama. he eluded U.S. intelligence for more then years, a feat only superior-ed by the round out impossible feat of driving us planes into the us heartland. by all technical standards, the operation was unique. a most worthy adversary.
on ethics: the us standards and worldviews, as put into practice weighted against the Osama misconceptions carry the weight of deep, intentional flaws, a corruption of most of the elites. humility got another beating. long-term, inclusive, principled, planetary thinking made a show of weak.
can there be two issues here:
separation of actual powers is none: public and private sectors, universities, governments and corporations are one gluey blob.
and what could be called one-way transparency and accountability. if this is the case as now it is, transparency is barely better then complete opacity. transparency should be both ways, always. real people from within the blob and glue should take the blame and be fined, there is no excuse for playing dumb at this level.
23/04/2011,
i beg to differ on the positive outcome of this particular conflict by the proper criteria of professor Cole, more so on the way the conflict is either smart (short-term), or un-ethically steered, depending on one being part of the 'elite' of the have-s or a mere citizen-grey.
un-ethically: as wars need to lead to a more durable outcome after all. have a time-frame, offer alternatives of post-war that not only, if ever are democratic (democracy, as applied in reality, is a mere tool, a means to an end), this outcome seems bleak. a more just society, more stable, better integrated in the wider region, contained in the positive sense, additions to quality of life of citizens, fitting in the younger generations, creating opportunity, contained migrations of the lesser fortunate to wind up in ghettos of Western Europe, these criteria might not result.
prospects look bleak, the 'revolution' seems to be driven by a mere taste for consumerism, as in confusing democracy with lifestyle (Britney Spears with Jefferson). the nuances, though forgivable out of grasp of most Libyan subjects, are loathsome though for real Western elites to capitalize upon.
my point: Libya should have been ignored (during (more importantly) and after Qaddafi), the West being a mere observer, the opposition within Libya maturing and coming forth as time permits, unforced. today's interference is a consequence of earlier interference (support for Qaddafi), not a white knight ballad out of the blue by the banner of 'democracy'.
the prospects to come about with predictability are rather negative to the many, us-citizens and Libyans confounded:
cost of war in human victims (Libya), tax-payers money (U.S.), the air war creating (an imprecise and polluting shriek of cowardice), a pollution catastrophe then left unattended in the aftermath (Irak as an example should be sufficient), migrations in the region, to Italy (direct and indirect), a class of rulers mostly inexperienced, immature, driven by mere consumerism as mirrored by Western media and indebted to Western interests.
smart in the short-term (in the end, even corrupted elites should think long term, only they are the ones who can afford the luxury): the quest for further enrichment for the corporate-political-banking-media persons, a blob with no consideration for democratic principles (separation of powers for one) of the Western world is what this interfering is all about.
financing with tax-payer money the re-shift and drain of resources for huge profits, eased by lesser organized interlocutors on site.
m.
all regards for the noble political thoughts of Thomas Jefferson and undoubtedly his personal honesty...
also referring to the consequent body of references in Noam Chomsky's 'Hopes and Projects'(analyzing globalization as Washington postulates consequently for over two centuries), can the following regardless of your good intentions be suggested?
that the beauty and ethics of these all American principles (Jefferson) are apt to leverage frustration, if non-US world citizens seeing and feeling the double standards America adheres to in it's global liberal policies: plutocratic, authoritarian, anti-democratic and driven by short-term imperialistic opportunism of the glued together elites of corporate finance, the industry, dandy-politicians and media moguls with regard to all and every entity outside it's borders.
it could be so, some parts of the world became un-attached induced by sincere comprehension of American double standards of globalization proceedings and philosophy.
China, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Equador, Honduras, Brazil, Pakistan (tendencies) and others steer away from being lectured one way and imposed on the other.
as nationalism in itself is an outdated concept, to say it differently, will de facto policies rather then Jeffersonian lecturing bring aboard a substantial part of the planet to ethical globalism?
m.