For Your Eyes Only …

According to my sources, this blog has been blocked in Syria …. What fun …!


6 Replies to “For Your Eyes Only …”

  1. a while back, some syrian ISPs blocked the blogspot domain … although i had heard that they were unblocked. maybe its been reinstated 😀

  2. For anyone living somewhere with internet censorship, use tor. An anonymizing proxy. You will be able to browse all the web incognito.. The project started at American universities to allow Chinese internet users to surf forbidden sites.

  3. My sources are working to figure this out, but I dont think it has to do with the blogspot domain. I will report back.


    Since you are no longer allowing comments, I would like to pause here and take issue with your post on those who criticize Israeli militarism but are quiet on HA’s rhetorical fusillades. While I agree somewhat, I think if we only look at the comments/speeches of Nasrallah vs. the comments of Olmert and the IDF leadership during the war, one cannot be but struck by which side seemed level-headed, reasonable, and measured and which side seemed hysterical, apocalyptic, and chauvanistic.

    HA’s rhetoric does at times border on the ridiculous — see any Jerusalem Day rally — but to make such comparisons without considering the relative power differentials and structural realities — i.e. Hizbullah’s annual military budget v. Israel’s — is to miss how the political economy informs the political rhetoric.

    As a personal anecdote and somewhat difficult analogy, I still remember when playing team sports as a kid how the most overmatched teams were the most likely to brag and make ridiculous boasts, while the real powerhouses would quietly go about their business of slaughtering the other side.

    HA should be criticized for some of their militarism and I think the problem of people being sheep is endemic in every society, but the rhetoric must be considered withing the framework of the political, economic and social realities. Otherwise, the normative judgments fall flat …

  4. i had to go back to the post and see exactly what i had said 🙂

    that aside, as always, i do agree with your points. but i feel i should clarify the notion of militarism that i had discussed; it wasn’t so much the rhetoric that was the aim of my post, but rather the social reverbations that such rhetoric (and the actions resulting that such rhetoric induces) can potentially bring. for that reason, i can’t help but have a gnawing worry in the back of my mind with regards to some of the more serious consequences of HA’s social constructs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s