Initially I wanted to get the new pull-down style archive links, but apparently that doesn't work if the blog is hosted on a different server. Ho hum.
Anyway, this one handles the archive links a bit better, and has the advantage of not squishing the text into a narrow column.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Oh do sod off, Kevin.
Continuing with the Esto-blogroll...
They do still use road salt in some places, most notably hilly bits of road and busy intersections (the former being rare in Estonia, the latter increasingly less so), but not for sidewalks and train platforms and level roads, for a very good reason: salt fucks things up. It's incredibly bad for cars, because it goes right through the paintjob and causes corrosion; and it's incredibly bad for your shoes. Moving about on foot in Estonia in the winter is a trick you can learn, and locals inevitably do - it helps to have shoes with interesting tread patterns on the soles - but ubiquitous salt usage is something that was done in the Soviet days, and mercifully is not done any more.
Then again, mr. Hogan there lives in Tapa - presumably of his own free will - so without knowing more, I am not entirely confident in his judgement. [grin, duck, run]
It is appalling that the very country that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (that is, the new and improved all-inclusive NATO) regards as an international leader in cyber defense, according to Mike Collier's article in the February issue of City Paper, still sows a thin string of sand on its sidewalks as well as on the platforms of its train stations to keep people from slipping on the ice and snow. It is scandalous that the country that is, according to Collier, "committed to developing a cutting-edge cyber-security industry [and selling] its expertise around the globe" doesn't know what the hell road salt is.
They do still use road salt in some places, most notably hilly bits of road and busy intersections (the former being rare in Estonia, the latter increasingly less so), but not for sidewalks and train platforms and level roads, for a very good reason: salt fucks things up. It's incredibly bad for cars, because it goes right through the paintjob and causes corrosion; and it's incredibly bad for your shoes. Moving about on foot in Estonia in the winter is a trick you can learn, and locals inevitably do - it helps to have shoes with interesting tread patterns on the soles - but ubiquitous salt usage is something that was done in the Soviet days, and mercifully is not done any more.
Then again, mr. Hogan there lives in Tapa - presumably of his own free will - so without knowing more, I am not entirely confident in his judgement. [grin, duck, run]
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Cheddar Gorge
Not only has it survived two months in the unrefrigerated bowels of the international postal system (plus a week or two in my fridge), but is, indeed, delicious.
Probably won't get through all of it on my own. Anyone?BuellerJustin?
Probably won't get through all of it on my own. Anyone?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Wall is Down
Not that wall, but it will do.
I don't need to reiterate my positions, I think, so let's look at this from the exegesis perspective. The images of people rushing over the wall are powerful, and most Western observers cannot help but compare them to the fall of the Berlin Wall. But there is a very important aspect of that event which is not intrinsically present here.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was about reunification. It was about a country divided by an external force - literally a force; not an ideology, though there may have been committed communists in the DDR. And after the wall fell, it was the sacred responsibility of West Germans to take care of their unfortunate siblings. It was not easy, and it sure as hell was not cheap, but it was inevitable. The wall came down, and the DDR was now part of Germany.
The wall came down in Palestine, and it's a wall between two Arab communities. Consider that in the weeks since the border between Gaza and Egypt has been open, there has been a suicide bomber attack in Israel, an attack that killed civilians. For the first time in a very long time! Causality would seem to suggest that walls in Gaza and the West Bank are effective at stopping terrorists, and these particular terrorists are said to have crossed into Egypt and back into Israel over the Sinai border (which is far less well-guarded - tourists at Egypt's Red Sea resorts are offered daytrips to Jerusalem).
Is there really any doubt in anyone's mind that if it wanted, Israel could have sealed up the wall? The terrorist attack is a sufficient pretense for the IDF to move in. Gaza is currently controlled by Hamas, which would undoubtedly react, but Rafah is not south Lebanon. With their backs to the sea and the fortified borders, Hamas would have no room for guerilla tactics, and in a direct urban shootout the Israeli army would rip them to shreds. Hezbollah would certainly make a move at the same time, but exactly because they could not avoid doing so, it would give Israel the opportunity to prepare and take advantage of another war started by the Arabs to pummel them into the dust. There must be plenty of IDF brass insulted by the Summer War debacle in 2006.
It could be that Israel is simply not ready to fight another war on two fronts simultaneously. Gaza and Lebanon are tough targets; after the remarkably poorly reported Israeli raid on a Syrian nuclear research facility some months ago, Syria could have ideas of revenge and reconquest of Golan, especially when backed by a pissed-off Iran. It's certainly a big factor that should not be discounted; Israel knows that if it moves into Gaza again, it would cause another war, and they would have a tough time with it.
But let's consider another aspect. One of the questions eternally posed in the blame-slinging of the Middle East crisis, and never answered to satisfaction, is why the Palestinian Arabs are not just taken in by the Arab countries. The combined population of Gaza and the West Bank is some 4 million; not inconsiderable, but between the Muslim states, not unmanageable either. Why don't Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. take in the refugees, give them jobs and homes? The world is full of refugees; losing your homeland is terrible, but it's not the end of the world. More people than that have gone through it in the 20th century, and built happy new lives for themselves in a friendly country.
The wall has come down; it is widely reported, with videos and photographs and blogs. And Westerners cannot help but ascribe the same significance to it as Berlin. The prison of poor Arabs has been broken, and the victims are spilling out into the land of the better-off Arabs for all the simple things they never had. The Egyptian military is just standing there, with no intention of impeding the human flow.
The longer Israel allows this to continue, the more people in the West will think of it as a reunification, and expect Egypt to take responsibility for the management of Gaza. It is entirely in Egypt's power to make Gaza a viable Palestinian home, an autonomous district relying on Cairo for security, utilities and economic assistance (much as it relies on Israel now). Would this solution be acceptable to Hamas? Unlikely. But to regular Gazans? Why the hell not? Nothing has shown itself to be as effective at disarming hostility as prosperity.
It's not a solution Egypt has been entirely comfortable with, but at this point they seem to be in a position where they can't really say no without alienating the bleeding-heart portion of the West. Israel is demonized for not allowing food and medicine packages into Gaza, but Israel has learned to live with the hatred. If Egypt seals the border and deports the Gazans, it will be made into a villain of startling proportion; and furthermore, a traitor to its own people. And Egypt is a Western-oriented state, which can ill-afford a boycott by all the German vacationers.
If this solution can be made to stick, it will be an enormous step forward. Israel will have found a viable long-term solution for Gaza, and the West Bank - far larger, more self-sufficient and calm - could either be given independence or turned over to Jordan in the same way.
The best thing about the scenario I have outlined is that it is not just my dream; it is a likely and logical evolution of recent events. It could very much happen. If this arrangement can be made to stick, the next generation of Palestinians will be working in Sharm el Sheikh hotels, and will only be annoyed by agitators calling for a holy war. Inshallah.
I don't need to reiterate my positions, I think, so let's look at this from the exegesis perspective. The images of people rushing over the wall are powerful, and most Western observers cannot help but compare them to the fall of the Berlin Wall. But there is a very important aspect of that event which is not intrinsically present here.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was about reunification. It was about a country divided by an external force - literally a force; not an ideology, though there may have been committed communists in the DDR. And after the wall fell, it was the sacred responsibility of West Germans to take care of their unfortunate siblings. It was not easy, and it sure as hell was not cheap, but it was inevitable. The wall came down, and the DDR was now part of Germany.
The wall came down in Palestine, and it's a wall between two Arab communities. Consider that in the weeks since the border between Gaza and Egypt has been open, there has been a suicide bomber attack in Israel, an attack that killed civilians. For the first time in a very long time! Causality would seem to suggest that walls in Gaza and the West Bank are effective at stopping terrorists, and these particular terrorists are said to have crossed into Egypt and back into Israel over the Sinai border (which is far less well-guarded - tourists at Egypt's Red Sea resorts are offered daytrips to Jerusalem).
Is there really any doubt in anyone's mind that if it wanted, Israel could have sealed up the wall? The terrorist attack is a sufficient pretense for the IDF to move in. Gaza is currently controlled by Hamas, which would undoubtedly react, but Rafah is not south Lebanon. With their backs to the sea and the fortified borders, Hamas would have no room for guerilla tactics, and in a direct urban shootout the Israeli army would rip them to shreds. Hezbollah would certainly make a move at the same time, but exactly because they could not avoid doing so, it would give Israel the opportunity to prepare and take advantage of another war started by the Arabs to pummel them into the dust. There must be plenty of IDF brass insulted by the Summer War debacle in 2006.
It could be that Israel is simply not ready to fight another war on two fronts simultaneously. Gaza and Lebanon are tough targets; after the remarkably poorly reported Israeli raid on a Syrian nuclear research facility some months ago, Syria could have ideas of revenge and reconquest of Golan, especially when backed by a pissed-off Iran. It's certainly a big factor that should not be discounted; Israel knows that if it moves into Gaza again, it would cause another war, and they would have a tough time with it.
But let's consider another aspect. One of the questions eternally posed in the blame-slinging of the Middle East crisis, and never answered to satisfaction, is why the Palestinian Arabs are not just taken in by the Arab countries. The combined population of Gaza and the West Bank is some 4 million; not inconsiderable, but between the Muslim states, not unmanageable either. Why don't Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. take in the refugees, give them jobs and homes? The world is full of refugees; losing your homeland is terrible, but it's not the end of the world. More people than that have gone through it in the 20th century, and built happy new lives for themselves in a friendly country.
The wall has come down; it is widely reported, with videos and photographs and blogs. And Westerners cannot help but ascribe the same significance to it as Berlin. The prison of poor Arabs has been broken, and the victims are spilling out into the land of the better-off Arabs for all the simple things they never had. The Egyptian military is just standing there, with no intention of impeding the human flow.
The longer Israel allows this to continue, the more people in the West will think of it as a reunification, and expect Egypt to take responsibility for the management of Gaza. It is entirely in Egypt's power to make Gaza a viable Palestinian home, an autonomous district relying on Cairo for security, utilities and economic assistance (much as it relies on Israel now). Would this solution be acceptable to Hamas? Unlikely. But to regular Gazans? Why the hell not? Nothing has shown itself to be as effective at disarming hostility as prosperity.
It's not a solution Egypt has been entirely comfortable with, but at this point they seem to be in a position where they can't really say no without alienating the bleeding-heart portion of the West. Israel is demonized for not allowing food and medicine packages into Gaza, but Israel has learned to live with the hatred. If Egypt seals the border and deports the Gazans, it will be made into a villain of startling proportion; and furthermore, a traitor to its own people. And Egypt is a Western-oriented state, which can ill-afford a boycott by all the German vacationers.
If this solution can be made to stick, it will be an enormous step forward. Israel will have found a viable long-term solution for Gaza, and the West Bank - far larger, more self-sufficient and calm - could either be given independence or turned over to Jordan in the same way.
The best thing about the scenario I have outlined is that it is not just my dream; it is a likely and logical evolution of recent events. It could very much happen. If this arrangement can be made to stick, the next generation of Palestinians will be working in Sharm el Sheikh hotels, and will only be annoyed by agitators calling for a holy war. Inshallah.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Whoever has the most stuff when they die, wins.
Not much going on in Estonia these days. So many people have been taking pot shots at the new labour legislation that it now bears a striking resemblance to a collander, and there's apparently a new Chancellor of Justice that everyone is more or less happy about. Everyone is worried about the economy, but with the exception of a few isolated incidents like the Kreenholm closure and the fall in rail transit volumes, nobody's actually all that inconvenienced so far. 2008 is supposed to be the year when the economy bottoms out, and then starts a slow growth again. Petrol prices are ridiculous. We're not happy, but it looks like the economy is going to get away with a soft landing after all. The State of the Union is str.... no, sorry, that's wrong.
Having largely and purposefully ignored the holidays this year (I didn't even bake any piparkooks!), I have found myself with a bit of extra cash, which I splurged on a nice, shiny new TV. It's an LG, 32", and I snagged it in a special offer for less than 8 grand, or 500 Euro, which is quite a deal. Movie night in Tartu, anyone?
They also gave me a Viking Line gift card with the TV. I've been to Helsinki exactly once so far, on a day trip, and I have a slight problem thinking of any worthwhile sightseeing over there, other than the Kiasma museum and the statue of Mannerheim in front of it. Suggestions?
Having largely and purposefully ignored the holidays this year (I didn't even bake any piparkooks!), I have found myself with a bit of extra cash, which I splurged on a nice, shiny new TV. It's an LG, 32", and I snagged it in a special offer for less than 8 grand, or 500 Euro, which is quite a deal. Movie night in Tartu, anyone?
They also gave me a Viking Line gift card with the TV. I've been to Helsinki exactly once so far, on a day trip, and I have a slight problem thinking of any worthwhile sightseeing over there, other than the Kiasma museum and the statue of Mannerheim in front of it. Suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
