libertango: (Default)
The story of Michaele and Tareq Salahi of Virginia, the couple who crashed the state dinner between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, continues to unwind.

Let's get things straight here: I'm very sceptical this is the first time this has happened at a state dinner. In fact, my bet is such crashers have been at many such events, probably at least one per Administration. Rather, in the age of Facebook, this is the first time such crashers have posted pictures of their deed online. Not unlike 9/11, this should be a true surprise only if you're ignorant, naive, or both.

All that aside, though, more than anything the whole fuss reminds me of a long quote by Leopold Kohr in The Breakdown of Nations. It's spot on, especially so today:

A citizen of the Principality of Liechtenstein, whose population numbers less than fourteen thousand, (in 1957 when Kohr was writing) desirous to see His Serene Highness the Prince and Sovereign, Bearer of many exalted orders and Defender of many exalted things, can do so by ringing the bell at his castle gate. However serene His Highness may be, he is never an inaccessible stranger. A citizen of the massive American republic, on the other hand, encounters untold obstacles in a similar enterprise. Trying to see his fellow citizen President, whose function is to be his servant, not his master, he may be sent to an insane asylum for observation or, if found sane, to a court on charges of disorderly conduct. Both happened in 1950... You will say that in a large power such as the United States informal relationships such as exist between government and citizen in small countries are technically unfeasible. This is quite true. But this is exactly it. Democracy in its full meaning is impossible in a large state which, as Aristotle already observed, is 'almost incapable of constitutional government'. (pg. 99-100)
libertango: (Default)
...at least from the Chinese point of view. Here's the article from Reuters, echoed by the New York Times:

"[Chinese President Hu Jintao]'s comments, reported by the Xinhua news agency, were among the clearest yet from the top echelon of China's leadership framing the Tibet troubles as an existential threat to the country.

"Our conflict with the Dalai clique is not an ethnic problem, not a religious problem, nor a human rights problem," Hu said.

"It is a problem of either preserving national unity or splitting the motherland."

Chinese officials have warned that groups campaigning for independence in Tibet have joined Muslim Uighurs fighting for an independent "East Turkestan" in the northwest region of Xinjiang."


This is why the Chinese government will not budge on Tibet, will not budge on Taiwan, and will not budge on Xinjiang. It's why getting Hong Kong and, god help us all, even Macao back was so important for them. They're a federative empire, they know it, and they have very clear memories of what happened to the USSR.

It's all a good chunk of why Leopold Kohr's The Breakdown of Nations is perhaps the 20th Century's most prophetic book.

Rarity

Jan. 30th, 2006 12:46 pm
libertango: (Default)
When I first saw this posted by [livejournal.com profile] marykaykare, I turned to a cow-orker and said, "This is too easy." Mostly because I have a fair amount of rare stuff. Not terribly valuable, mind you, just rare... and whether that's a good or bad thing, I have no idea.

Anyway.

"Name a CD you own that you think no-one else on your friendslist does:"

Hm. [livejournal.com profile] n6tqs was up here a few years ago, while I was staying with [livejournal.com profile] shikzoid and [livejournal.com profile] alanro (praise be upon their names). He'd sailed up here on the bark Europa, a tall ship. He had a video with him from the boat, and I quite liked the music, which was by a Belgian group called Boenox. I couldn't find anyone from whom to buy their CD, so I wrote an email to them. Someone from the band replied (roughly), "Well, we don't have a US distributor, and dealing with dollars over here is too damn annoying... Tell you what, I'll just send you a CD, and thanks."

So, Boenox, by Boenox.

"Name a book you own that you think no-one else on your friendslist does:"

The Breakdown of Nations, by Leopold Kohr, Rinehart, 1957. My understanding is there were only 500 US copies. The only other ones I've ever seen were in Big Damn University Libraries. (All praise ABE Books, where you can get even something this rare with some patience.)

"Name a movie you own on DVD/VHS/whatever that you think no-one else on your friendslist does:"

La fille sur la pont. Or, failing that, At Home Wth the Webbers.

"Name a place that you have visited that you think no-one else on your friendslist has:"

Deep Springs College. I'd heard about the place while a student at Midland. Supposedly, they were admission by invitation, and the way you got invited was to score above 750 on both the verbal and math tests of the SAT.

Later, while in my journalist-wannabe phase, I talked to them, and spent a weekend visiting, under the cover of possibly writing a freelance article on them. They're a fascinating group of people, and I admire them a lot.

Name a piece of technology or any sort of tool you own that you think no-one else on your friendslist has:

Now, this one is tough. Both because I'm less techie than one might really think, and because of the diversity of this particular FL.

Hm.

My Roland USB-to-MIDI interface box? For the synthesizer I don't use anywhere nearly frequently enough?

That's a great story, actually. I used to have a Roland D-50, which was considered a hot keyboard at the time, and is now thought a classic. Back during one of my early bouts of unemployment, I had to sell it make the rent one month. So, Alex Pournelle talked to a bunch of folks at the LASFS, and they collectively bought me a Roland PRO-E for my birthday one year to replace it. I'm still floored by that, and humbly grateful.
libertango: (Default)
From a recent post to Slate.




"No one seriously believes today that states have the right to secede."

Hmm... I suppose that makes me "no one", or that my beliefs are frivolous. :)

It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "secede". If by that one means a unilateral withdrawal by a state (or states) from the Union, yes, that question is settled.

Three questions, though, are not:

* Is it permissible for Congress and a state to mutually agree that a state may leave the Union?

* Is it possible for Congress to unilaterally boot a state out?

* And, a question where I haven't done enough research, but I mention it: It is my understanding that the three states that joined the Union as independent nations -- Vermont, Texas, and California -- all have language in their respective treaties that allow a withdrawal based on mutual state-Federal consent. If such treaty language exists, is it legal?

This all isn't as frivolous as one might be tempted to think. Leopold Kohr, in his book The Breakdown of Nations, suggests that the reason the USA has been able to adhere as well as it has is due to the fact that no one state has the power to overwhelm the combined force of the other states. He uses Europe as a counter-example, where the Great Powers have long had the ability to stomp over smaller countries. Arguably, moves toward European union were advanced by the Cold War, because the old Great Powers were all equally inferior in power to the Superpowers.

The speculation to put on the table, then: Is it possible for any state to gain enough power to be a viable threat to the others? I suggest that Texas and California are possibilities, in the 50-75 year time frame. And if my belief about mutually agreed dissolution of the Union above is correct for those two states...

Profile

libertango: (Default)
Hal

March 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 17 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 16th, 2025 04:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios