Classes: I don't like my accounting teacher. My econ teacher is pretty cool; he really knows the topic and he seems nice. Same with my GVPT prof, and she's Jamaican. (V's genetics teacher is British; I'm so jealous.) WMST: ppl aren't really smart, and the teacher accepts all the stupid things they say like they're valid, intelligent comments. Nutrition: Nancy and I have nicknamed one of the profs Bojack. And then there's careers in business...not that exciting.
Today was fun. We (V, N, Claire, and I) made dinner: vegetable enchiladas. Then we decided to go to Cold Stone. Claire got a Love It, and then she got a burrito from Chipoltle's (sp?). I don't know where she puts it. But yeah, we should do that kind of thing more often. But then I'll never lose weight. Also, I always feel like the most boring person. I need to STOP THIS.
I again feel like I never have time to do any work. I think it's because there are more distractions here than there were at home. I could just sit in my closet for 8 hours with only the internet to lure me away from homework. Now the tv's right behind me, and if V wants to watch something, I probably will watch it too. And then there's so much to read. Besides text books, there's whatever book I'm read, whatever magazine, the newspaper if I pick it up, online articles...it's insane. And then I want to knit as well. And import my CDs. Argh. So much.
I managed to get my hands on a copy of the Washington Post yesterday at Tydings. Some interesting articles:
Twisting Arms Isn't as Easy as Dropping Bombs
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A02
Whenever the United States goes to war,
pro-war and antiwar advocates immediately reach for different history
books. Hawks always equate the situation to a Hitler-Chamberlain
standoff to show why hesitation can be fatal. Doves invariably pull the
Vietnam War off the shelf to argue that plunging ahead can be foolhardy. Two
wars that the United States has launched against Iraq perfectly
illustrate the problem with cherry-picking your history. Hawks and
doves made their usual arguments before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Antiwar advocates who predicted that forcing
Saddam Hussein to retreat from Kuwait would result in thousands of U.S.
casualties were proved wrong by Operation Desert Storm. And the
neoconservatives who warned that ignoring Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction was like appeasing Hitler now have egg yolk dribbling down
their faces. The history book getting the most attention right now is about the
1954-1962 French colonial war in Algeria. Hundreds of thousands of
people died in that conflict before Algerian guerrillas handed the
French army a humiliating defeat. President Bush said he is reading
Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to
glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq. Horne, a British
historian, recently told PBS's Charlie Rose that he sees similarities
and differences between the U.S. war in Iraq and the French war in
Algeria -- and hopes his book will help Bush find a way to succeed in
Iraq. Political scientist Patricia Sullivan recently decided to
take a different tack than the political pundits. Rather than look for
a single war to provide insight, Sullivan decided to look at all
post-World War II conflicts between the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council and weaker nations. Her findings
will probably surprise you -- and would make for sober reading at the
White House: Although the United States, the United Kingdom, France,
Russia and China were militarily superior to their opponents in every
one of the 122 conflicts that Sullivan studied, these powerful
countries failed to win an astonishing 39 percent of their wars against
weaker opponents. Other research backs up Sullivan: New York
University professor of politics Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has shown
that, in conflicts between unequal powers over the past 200 years, the
weaker country has outdone its stronger foe 41 percent of the time. What
is critically important to understand, said Sullivan, who works at the
University of Georgia, is that the strong countries were not militarily
defeated in the post-World War II conflicts. Despite their vastly
stronger military capabilities, these countries unilaterally withdrew
or got stuck in a stalemate, as the United States did in Korea, in two
out of every five conflicts. The United States' withdrawal from
Somalia in 1993 -- precipitated by events chronicled in the book and
movie "Black Hawk Down" -- was perhaps the most dramatic post-World War
II example, "despite the fact that its military was, at most, only
marginally degraded," Sullivan wrote in a paper she plans to publish in
the Journal of Conflict Resolution. For all the talk of "shock
and awe" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sullivan's research
shows that military power alone is not a useful predictor of victory. Sullivan
found that powerful nations tend to win wars when all they seek is an
opponent's submission, but tend to lose when victory requires an
opponent's cooperation. "On one end of the spectrum are things
you can achieve with brute force," she said. "On the opposite end is
getting an adversary to change a domestic or foreign policy -- you want
the adversary to change his behavior." Pushing Hussein's army
behind a line in the 1991 Gulf War and overthrowing the dictator in the
current war were aims that did not require the acquiescence of Iraqis;
they could be achieved by brute force alone. But creating "a democratic
Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people,
provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror" -- goals
that Bush laid out in his State of the Union speech last week -- all
require the cooperation of Iraqis. Sullivan found that the five
Security Council permanent members won three-quarters of conflicts in
which their aims did not require their opponents' cooperation, but only
half of the conflicts in which they did need cooperation. For the
United States, the disparity was even greater -- winning 81 percent of
conflicts when cooperation was not required, but only 44 percent of the
military interventions, such as in Laos in 1964 and Lebanon in 1982,
that Sullivan described as having "coercive" goals. "In other
words," Sullivan concluded, "the United States has withdrawn its troops
without attaining its primary political objective in 56 percent of the
military interventions it initiated with a coercive war aim." Sullivan's
findings do not lend themselves to the automatic conclusions of the
history cherry-pickers. Her research does not address which wars are
worth fighting, and it shows that, although the odds are against it,
the United States can lose wars that only require brute force and can
win wars that require an opponent's cooperation. But this is what makes
Sullivan's findings so relevant to the current debate over Iraq: She is
in the science business, not in sales.
In First, Arab Muslim Joins Israeli CabinetWashington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A12
JERUSALEM, Jan. 29 -- Israel's
cabinet on Sunday approved the first Arab Muslim minister of the Jewish
state, a milestone marked here mostly by bitter criticism of what many
lawmakers viewed as a politically motivated selection. Raleb
Majadele, a Labor Party legislator, was approved by a wide margin as
minister without portfolio in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet.
Only Avigdor Lieberman, minister of strategic affairs from the Israel
Is Our Home party, voted against the nomination. Majadele's appointment is "a significant, historic step toward
equality and peace in the region," said Amir Peretz, the Labor leader,
who chose Majadele for a cabinet post several weeks ago during an
ongoing fight for the party leadership. An Israeli Druze, Saleh
Tarif, was appointed minister without portfolio in 2001. But many of
Israel's roughly 100,000 Druze, members of a sect that broke with Islam
centuries ago, do not identify themselves as Arabs and serve in
Israel's army. By contrast, Israel's approximately 1 million
non-Druze Arab citizens, whose families remained in Israel after its
founding in 1948 and make up almost a fifth of the population, do not
serve in the military and face barriers to owning land and securing
equal public services. Most of them are Muslim. Balad, one of
several Arab parties that denounced Majadele's appointment, said in a
statement that his service in the cabinet "would give a seal of
approval to the policy of racial discrimination against Arabs." Majadele,
a leader in the Histadrut trade union organization that Peretz once
headed, is from the northern city of Baqa al-Gharbiya. Peretz,
who serves as defense minister, has watched his popularity plummet
because of the inconclusive war against Hezbollah last summer and the
army's inability to stop Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
He also backtracked on a pledge to leave Olmert's government if
Lieberman were made a minister, which occurred in October. Lieberman
has favored a proposal that would strip more than 150,000 Israeli Arabs
of their citizenship by redrawing Israel's eastern boundary in a way
that would leave them in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank. He has
also called for the execution of Israeli Arab lawmakers who meet with
officials from Hamas, the radical Islamic party elected to run the
Palestinian Authority a year ago. Peretz selected Majadele at a
time when he is being challenged for leadership of the Labor Party, a
post that makes him Olmert's chief coalition partner. Many in the party
viewed the move as a way to win back its more dovish elements. Labor
lawmaker Ophir Pines-Paz resigned in November as minister of science,
culture and sport to protest Lieberman's cabinet appointment. Peretz
initially named Majadele, 53, to fill that post. But he was made
minister without portfolio pending what some lawmakers say is an
imminent cabinet shuffle by Olmert to rejuvenate his unpopular
government. "I have no problem with an Arab minister, but it is
not my job to help Amir Peretz with the primaries," Lieberman said
after the cabinet vote. In Gaza, meanwhile, violent clashes
between the armed wings of the rival Fatah and Hamas movements
continued. Media reports said that at least four Palestinians were
killed Sunday and early Monday, including a member of the Hamas
security force in Gaza, and that eight others were wounded by gunfire,
adding to the scores injured in recent days. Also, Brig. Gen. Sayyed
Shabban, a senior commander of a branch of the Palestinian security
services controlled by Fatah, was abducted Sunday in Gaza. Factional
violence has erupted periodically since Hamas's parliamentary election
victory, which ended Fatah's long monopoly on power. But the death toll
since Thursday of at least 29 Palestinians, including several children,
is the highest in months. The clashes, limited largely to Gaza,
have prompted Hamas to suspend talks with Fatah over the formation of a
power-sharing government acceptable to international donors who cut off
aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas's victory. Prime
Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's
right to exist, asked for calm Sunday before an emergency cabinet
meeting. Also on Sunday, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia offered an invitation to Hamas and Fatah leaders to hold talks in Mecca to end the fighting.
Currently watching: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

|