The closest comparison to pre-Zionism Hebrew might be Sanskrit, which was a common Hindu/Buddhist religious language, but was not the spoken daily language anywhere in India. There is even question about whether it was ever the ordinary daily language anywhere.
Being Irish, I am fascinated by the ability of the immigrants to Israel to revive Hebrew.

Posted at May 18, 2007 11:39 PM in response to Moving Israel to Alaska

About Israel in Alaska. There actually is a "Jewish homeland" in the far reaches of Siberia. I passed through it on the Trans-Siberian and saw the railroad station signs in Russian and Hebrew.
Stalin set it up in one of his Pharoanic moods. Not so many Jews actually ever moved there - it is _way_ off in Eastern Siberia. Probably farther from Moscow than London is.
But there it is anyway.
I suspect the results (resistance) would have been worse than Israel in the Arab world, but the fairest thing to do would have been to give Israel a chunk of Bavaria, with maybe a bit of Austria and Hungary thrown in.
Having veered this far off topic, compare the Arab reaction to Israel and the Chinese reaction to Taiwan. The Chinese have obsessed _and_ have gone about the business of developing their country. The Arabs have obsessed.
Or Ireland (losing Northern Ireland) or Mexico (losing California and Texas). Many countries have lost major parts of their land, often unfairly. (Does it _ever_ seem fair to those losing land?) Yet they moved on somehow.

Posted at May 18, 2007 11:35 PM in response to Moving Israel to Alaska

I think it is true that most bubbles, after they have popped, produce much benefit. It is a bit like the first generation of stars that burn brightly and quickly then explode in novas that take the heavier elements they have produced and spread them around as seeds for the next generation, and eventually for carbon-based life.
Somewhere. The dotcom bubble did not do much good for us in America, but it was a true godsend for India. Lots of cheap bandwidth made Bangalore possible.
However, this housing bubble has not produced much of value for anyone. Other bubbles were about production, but this one was about consumption.
So unless we are going to turn half the country into Bed&breakfasts for newly prosperous Chindians, this will be our most fruitless bubble.

Posted at May 16, 2007 3:38 AM in response to Time To Pick A Fight

Looking back at Nader 2000 from the vantage point of 2007 is a little bit like looking back at Lindberg or others who were soft on the German government of the 30s.
Before Bush and Iraq, the Tweedledum-Tweedledee argument made more sense. It was not obvious that Bush would turn out to be off-the-charts worse than his father.
It would settle something inside me if I could hear Nader say "The campaign I ran in 2000 was sincerely what seemed the best for the country at the time, but if I had known what Bush would turn out like, I would have done things very differently. A lot of factors contributed to George Bush being elected, but to the extent that inadvertently I was one of those many factors, I am profoundly sorry."
In the beyond-Democratic-party left (or curious), I think we place a great emphasis on not being as centered on The Great Superstar, recognizing that as an unhealthy, un-democratic, and disempowering aspect of the culture at large. Yet, in Nader we wound up with someone so blinded by his righteousness that he acts egotistical. Is there anything for us to learn from this?

Posted at February 8, 2007 3:53 PM in response to Canard Watch: It Quacks Like Nader

BradTheDad,
You seem concerned that some people would be unwillingly to use military force against Iran no matter what. That some people are so focused on the bad aspects of US use of military force that they are blind to real dangers from the rest of the world.
I think those are valid concerns that should be addressed.
I for one am not willing to see the Iranians get nuclear weapons, both because of the danger to Israel and because Iran's neighbors would be forced to follow suit and a Middle East full of nations with nuclear weapons is a recipe for genocide.
However, I do not think the Iranians are that close to getting nuclear weapons (unlike North Korea). What I am banking on is having a government whose basic competence and common sense I can trust in Washington from January 2009.
For me to support our nation taking military action against Iran, I would need to be convinced that
1) There was a reasonable chance that the Iranians were close to acquiring nuclear weapons (not years away).
2) That other options had been exhausted and military action was the only reasonable alternative left.
3) That our current government in Washington could be trusted handle the issue with integrity and competence.
In my opinion, none of these three conditions are being met now.
1) The Iranians are years away from getting the bomb.
2) Many of the peoples of the nations allied with us in the Middle East seem not really sure if they want to be part of the modern industrial world. If they saw a way to stay more traditional, even though that would look backward to us, I think most of our allies would take it. But the Iranian people actually want to join the modern world. They are like the Chinese just before Deng took over. Yes, the government is dominated by people who dislike our world and us and that government has real roots in Iranian society. But the majority of Iranians are now post-Islamist. They have seen the Islamicist paradise and they know it means poverty, backwardness, corruption, and hypocrisy. The Iranians are the one people in the middle east who are now innoculated against Islamicism. A post-Islamicist Iran following something like the Chinese path would do more for US security than any amount of military spending or action.
It may take 5 or 10 years for this to show up at the government level, but it will happen. The only thing that can stop it is if we attack Iran and allow the discredited, corrupt, incompetent Islamicist regime to play the role of the defender of the 2500-year old Persian culture. I would offer the Iranians a deal: they give up their nuclear power plants and in return we give peaceful technology and help them build some world-class industry. Maybe automotives, IT, something that would give Iranians better lives and be good for the rest of the world.
I am not being Barney here and saying all we need to do is join hands and sing "I love you, you love me" or Kumbaya or whatever and all the tyranny in the world will vanish. What I am saying that there is a unique moment about to happen, a moment when there is an unusual opportunity to help a significant nation shift away from poverty and aggression toward prosperity and peace. Iran is not Germany 1938. Iran is China in 1978 or Eastern Europe in 1988.

3) Many people consider the way Iraq was handled after the initial military success and the way that mishandling was hidden by the media and necessary analysis prevented to have been and still be so bad for our interests as a nation and so contrary to values shared all the way across the entire political spectrum that we would not trust the current administration with anything serious.

Posted at January 21, 2007 11:43 PM in response to Richard Perle: Bush Will Bomb Iran

Hopefully, mispelling is not a sign of impending collapse.
That's Ataturk.

Posted at January 9, 2007 1:37 AM in response to You Can't Square an Iraqi Circle

"This is a defeat on the scale of the Romans in the 7th Century or the Ottomans in the 20th."
WesJ, weren't the Romans long done by the 7th century?
In any case, I agree with Howard, this is not on that level yet. My memory of Roman history is sketchy, but were there not any number of times when they sent an army out and it was just wiped out. Panic and outrage ensued, reforms were made, competent leadership was put in charge, and things went quickly back to normal. (I'm not talking about the Punic Wars.)
The stability of the world oil supply has been compromised and our image as good guys harmed. And it is hard to tell how much damage has been done to our economy/society at home (not so much by the invasion of Iraq as by other policies).
But end of the empire, no.
However, if we don't decisively change course or if the travesty in Iraq results in a virulently anti-Western Shia Empire controlling all the oil now under Shiite populations (which is to say Iran's oil, most of Iraq's, most of Saudi Arabias), then it would time for Attarurk or for the Pope negotiating with the Huns outside the gates of Rome.

Posted at January 9, 2007 1:36 AM in response to You Can't Square an Iraqi Circle

Here is an optimistic angle.
Perhaps the gap we perceive between what America is doing and what we think it should do is partly because the Internet is allowing us to see more clearly. Perhaps the gap between the actual and the potential reflects a rising level of the potential.

Posted at December 20, 2006 11:22 AM in response to Ben Bernanke and the Qianlong Emperor

Stirling,
The prospect you seem to be suggesting is the possibility of something even worse than the evacuation of Saigon. It is the possibility that through the incalculable willingness of the current leadership in Washington (and their co-dependents throughout the media and the elite) to fly in the face of reality, to run over and over again face first into the brickwall of reality, we might reach the point of literally not being able to evacuate even our own soldiers.

Posted at October 20, 2006 10:20 PM in response to The Facts of War: Signs of an Impending Meltdown in Iraq

There is a brief statement, however, that surprises me; or rather, I wonder if it may be an unreflected borrowing from popular beliefs:

[...] anywhere where men leave the home and are among other men out of [...] necessity, close bonds between men are necessary for the functioning of the team, but bonds of sexual attachment threaten both the hierarchy of men, and the bond with the home. [my emphasis]

I think Stirling is correct.
Bonds of sexual attachment (and bonds of sexual jealousy) threatan any hierarchy. That is why there are such taboos on sex, hetero or homo, in offices.
In many societies, sex is a significant part of what induces men to trade their freedom for commitment, to look out for others instead of themselves. Look how economic power for women has given women far more ability to leave or stay out of emotionally undesirable marriages.
Of course, there is some homosexual behavior in predominantly-male hierarchies and the hierarchies survive, but they would have much more difficulty if that behaviour was freely allowed and more extensive.
If have any doubt about how sex functions in social groupings the way free radicals do in the body, just look at your local high school.

Posted at October 9, 2006 4:14 AM in response to The Revolution Eats Its Own