Let us remember...

The news world is abuzz about President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya through the imposition of a no-fly zone.

I'd like to unequivocally state from the outset that I believe his move to have been a good one because it was necessary. It was first and foremost a humanitarian obligation that we, as a country that has no qualms about intervening and that never ceases to proclaim its international interventions as part of a mission libératrice, could not ignore. Its urgency was made even greater by the fact that we were and are not alone in this mission. Not only are our typical western allies beside us in this undertaking, but we also have the backing of the Arab League, which took the initiative in calling for help in abating and hopefully ending the crisis in Libya.

The measured steps taken by Obama and his administration regarding Libya are not, as some of his usual critics have claimed, anti-constitutional or weak. They are a sign that gone are the days of America as a thoughtless, selfish bully that unilaterally charges against any nation it deems unfit of existing as it exists. Contrary to popular belief in this country and among its recent and current leaders, the United States is neither a prosecutor, nor an executioner vis-à-vis its global peers; and yes, that includes the countries we hate. No international organization assigned it those roles and it certainly did not acquire them by virtue of being the (arguably) sole democratic superpower. By virtue of the latter, it is merely an arbiter, and a limited, questionable one at that. It must, therefore, not take its moral responsibility—as well as its ability and willingness to militarily intervene—lightly, nor without an earnest consideration of the history of errors it has helped to write and has miserably failed to correct.

Regardless of the aforementioned justifications and moral obligations (abstract terms, I admit), it is important that the United States and its leaders not lose sight or critical consideration of the role of the U.S. in arming rebel forces or leaders in the past. I say this now, because there is talk on the news of CIA operatives on the ground in Libya, considering (or already) training and arming Libyan rebels. Surprisingly (and frighteningly so), not a single mention has been made of previous examples of arming rebels in the world, and particularly in the Arab world and the Middle East. I could not remain silent before this gaping maw.

Two ominous examples come to mind and we should all heed them and measure our current intents and future actions in Libya by them. First, there is the example of Iraq and the United States' close involvement with it during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). What did we do then? Throughout the 1980s, we surreptitiously armed Saddam Hussein, by then the undisputedly ruthless leader of Iraq, against a greater enemy of ours, Iran. Shortly thereafter, Iraq became an aggressor and consequently our enemy during the first Gulf War (1990-1991). As if that wasn't enough, by 2002 Iraq became this country's favorite enemy and Saddam Hussein our president's favorite villain. The man we had assisted in fighting our common (and for us, greater) enemy was now an enemy we 'had to' fight for the second time in fewer than fifteen years. Our unjustified attack on Iraq during the Second Gulf War is presently the subject of criticism (as well it should be!); but we must not forget the slightly more distant past in our relationship with Iraq. On the contrary, just as we remember our aggression on Iraq in 2003 as an unforgivable and senseless national error when there is talk of military intervention against X or Y country, so should we remember the fact that high-ranking officials and intelligence operatives of this country of ours armed and trained Saddam's regime throughout the 1980s.

My second example will speak, I believe, more clearly about the dangerous practice of arming just anybody who opposes those regimes or leaders whom we don't like. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States was much too eager to train and arm anybody—anybody—who fought against them. For Afghanistan, it was not a clear leader like Saddam Hussein, but rather numerous mujahideen who, while fighting against the Soviet Union, also fought amongst themselves and continued the latter civil war even after the shameful Soviet withdrawal in 1989. We were active and guilty of the beginning of a series of events that led to Afghanistan's utter destruction, and to the eventual ascent to power of the Taliban. The most notorious example of those armed by the U.S., however, is the one whose name we have all learned to hate: Osama bin Laden. If you need a jolt to your memory, Osama bin Laden is the most elusive terrorist and the one who has cost the United States billions of dollars and thousands of victims. After sleeping in the same bed with him, the CIA is now looking for him in vain.

Needless to say, these are not the only examples that have backfired on our pompous behind. A quick look at African or Latin American history merely strengthens the unmistakable pattern of the U.S. wrongly supporting one power against a more despised one, only to subsequently find itself an enemy of its former 'ally.' It is because of this pattern that African and Latin American countries have been plagued by anarchy, coups, violence, and genocide for decades; it is also because of this faulty pattern that we find ourselves fighting two wars in precisely those two countries and against the forces we aided the most and most furtively against our even more despised enemies at the time.

Let us, then, remember these friends-turned-enemies when we next speak of arming Libya's anti-Gaddafi rebels. However admirable their struggle against Gaddafi, we must not lose sight of what we will be doing if we decide to arm them: we will once again arm an unorganized, amorphous force against a common enemy, much like we did with Iraq against Iran and with Afghanistan's mujahideen against the Soviet Union. This is not to say that the Libyan rebels are already our enemies, nor that they will become our enemies. It is simply meant to add more measure to the steps we take in solving the crisis in Libya, which ought to primarily remain one of ensuring that as few lives as possible are lost. Therefore, the best thing to do is to exercise the greatest pressure possible through diplomatic means, or through political and economic sanctions on Gaddafi and his inner circle. The no-fly zone is a fair (however imperfect) first attempt at preventing massacres on civilians, but it is certainly not enough. Nevertheless, it must not be followed by our typical move of arming one side against the other in such conflicts. Obama has intimated that he is willing to break from traditional international policy; he must now go one step further in that attempt and unequivocally show that we are no longer a careless, thoughtless aggressor; that our primary concern is (indeed, as it is repeated ad nauseam) the preservation of individual human life; that we have learned from our actions in the world; that we have both the hindsight and the foresight necessary not to repeat errors that became tragedies, calamities, wars.

Mendimi dhe veprimi

Dy autorë të njohur shqiptarë nxorën dje dhe sot mendimet dhe përsiatjet e tyre mbi gjendjen në Shqipëri. Më vjen keq të them se vetëm një syresh ka folur burrërisht dhe me gjuhën që duhet: Elvira Dones. Ismail Kadareja, nga ana tjetër nuk di ta ndajë krijimtarinë dhe analizën letrare nga analiza dhe mendimi shoqëror-politik. Ndoshta do të qe më e saktë të thuhej se nuk do, jo nuk di.

«Vjen gjithmonë një ditë kur duhet zgjedhur midis të menduarit dhe të vepruarit. Kësaj i thonë të bëhesh njeri» - ka thënë një njeri i ndritur i letrave franceze.* Mes njerëzve të letrave shqiptare këto dy ditë vetëm një e ka bërë këtë kapërcim nga mendimi në veprim: Donesi.

Ndërsa Kadareja zbraz në letër diturinë e tij të gjerë dhe të shumanshme, duke folur (shkruar) gjatë pa thënë shumë (se mos largqoftë tund flamurin nga era që s'fryn nesër), Donesi angazhohet siç i ka hije një intelektuali dhe u vihet përkrah kolegëve të saj gazetarë; i del në mbrojtje profesionit jetik dhe të brishtë të gazetarit që sot kërcënohet nga hajdutë e kriminelë të cilëve u dridhen leqet e gjunjve, por nuk pranojnë të zbutin fjalorin dhe dorën, e jo më pak të gjunjëzohen nën peshën e fajeve të tyre për t'i kërkuar ndjesë popullit që vuan pasojat.

Shqipërisë i duhen intelektualë të mirëfilltë e të respektuar që dinë ta kthejnë fjalën në vepër dhe me të të demaskojnë shëmtirat e hipokrizitë e fajtorëve, duke hedhur njëkohësisht dritë, arsye, mendim dhe kthjelltësi në çdo hap të sotëm dhe të ardhshëm të popullit dhe shtetit shqiptar.

* «Il vient toujours un temps où il faut choisir entre la contemplation et l'action. Cela s'appelle devenir un homme». - A. CAMUS

Why Must We Always Unite in Grief?!

If one looks at America today and takes the speeches and images of the memorial in Arizona as the representative images of the entire nation, one would think we were the most united place on earth. I can think of only one other moment in my lifetime and recent memory when we acted similarly: after the events of September 11, 2001. If I think hard, then other events come to mind and, sadly for us, they are all lugubrious events.

We, as a nation, always seem to unite in the aftermath of tragedy and terror; we praise our freedoms, condemn the perpetrators who violate them, and shake hands with enemies political, ideological, or otherwise. We immediately follow these scenes with self-given praise on our ability to unite and overlook our differences, only to return to and dwell on those differences when positive superlatives we attribute to ourselves and our leaders have been exhausted. Once again, we become disrobed of our good-natured tendencies and are left in the nakedness of our seemingly irreconcilable differences. Political attacks ensue; accusations of all sorts fly about; commentators and other loudmouths pontificate and incite division, anger, and violence; and, as a nation, we once again lose our ability (or willingness) to come together in civil discourse and discuss our differences, accept one-another as free citizens of a country of which we are supposedly proud. We promptly fail to accept and allow diverging opinions or true bilateral compromise. Most deplorably, however, we fail to accept or allow to work the mechanics of our democracy. Instead, we become the hypocrites and charlatans we eagerly criticize in others.

Why must we always unite in grief?!

I look forward to being proved wrong on this ominous observation.

On DADT

In light of the ongoing debate and in expectance of the vote on Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell tomorrow, here are a few pithy thoughts on this policy and why I think it has become such a shameful debate that needs to end with the repeal of DADT.

Last night I watched a woman fierily—though not convincingly, of course—argue that, upon entering the army, the individual signs away his or her rights to be an individual. While this may be true in the sense that the army and the furthering of its goals and duties ought to become that individual's priority, it is entirely untrue that the same individual loses or ought to lose his identity.

Individuality is not tantamount to identity. On the contrary, individuality is a much more dynamic and visible dimension that is a mere extension of a more unchanging identity. Being gay, lesbian, or any other [prefix]sexual is precisely a component of that identity, much to the chagrin of many religious leaders, and despite the erroneous thoughts of many across the country and the world who think that sexuality is a choice. Moreover, demanding that non-heterosexual members of the army keep their sexuality a secret or else they lose their job, is undue burden on them because there is no equivalent demand being made of heterosexual individuals. And, while the army may be primarily oriented around the goals it aims to accomplish, it is inevitably a social place, as well, and those social aspects are invaluable in humanizing soldiers to one another and thereby contributing to unit cohesion and bravery in times of distress.

Another argument I hear around, and especially by old coots in Congress, is that the aforementioned unit cohesion will suffer; that the fact that soldiers live in close quarters will be aggravated by someone's identifying him/herself as gay/lesbian. This, I find to be the most despicable and faulty argument. I find it faulty because it assumes that there is universal and overt bigotry in the armed forces, and, while I am not naïve enough to believe that the opposite is the case, I also do not fail to recognize that the feeling of comradeship and allegiance to their duty, as well as the shared experiences of the soldiers concerned, create a respect for human life and a regard for one another that overrides their apprehensions about a 'homosexual' in their midst.

At the same time, I find this argument despicable and disgusting because it is a masked reiteration of the 'gays want to do any guy around' argument. I use the male substantives here, because they are more often than their female counterparts accused of promiscuity, of inability to control their hormones and sexual urges, and of an indiscriminate desire to sleep with men. In other words, it equates gays to bum sex. This is absolutely offensive to gays; naturally to the gay men suffering the detrimental effects of DADT, but also to every gay man in this country who has to sit in front of the television and hear elected officials such as McCain and à la McCain reduce them to an urge to sodomize any male around. It is a spit in the face of every gay individual who sees him/herself as a productive and equal member of this society and country of ours, but finds him/herself being regarded and portrayed unidimensionally as an unnatural, aberrant mutant worthy of the bigotry and stigma s/he gets in our society at large, or even legitimately through the enforcement of anachronistic and bigoted legislation like DADT.

Too much money has been wasted schooling and training individuals, only to then undertake measures to remove them from the position for which they were trained, once their homosexuality has become known. It has been going on for seventeen years too many and it is high time that our elected officials vote in accordance with the times in which we live and with the gaping need for new recruitment in our armed forces. And although it may be too late for those perpetuating the aforementioned tired arguments like John McCain, others in his party and among the Democrats can still be on the progressive, sensible, good side of history and vote to repeal DADT on Saturday.

Ugly Stuff

This is the ugliest, most repulsive thing I have seen in a while.

Here is an an American citizen—and what's more one who is risking his life so that your ass and mine and that of every member of Congress does not have to—having to hide his face and use a pseudonym out of fear of being persecuted—legitimately persecuted—by the system we have allowed to shamefully persist for seventeen years to the detriment of real human beings.

I'm borderline anti-militaristic and I am saying this.

Letter to The Huffington Post

This is a letter I just wrote and am about to send to the editors of The Huffington Post in response to an article by Sali Berisha, prime minister of Albania. As you can see (if you have the patience/time to read it), I am not his biggest fan, for the reasons elucidated below.

»«

On October 28, you published an article by Sali Berisha, prime minister of Albania, entitled 'Economic Downturn? Not in Albania.'

While I largely applaud the opportunity that you extend to individuals from all walks of life, including leaders of nations, to voice their opinions on your website, I do take issue with the aforementioned article, not so much because of its contents, but rather because of its author. Before I go any further, please understand, that I am doing this for the main reason that I respect you as a news, analysis, and opinion medium, and wish to see truly respectable voices being given the privilege of reaching your readers. I would have kept my frustrations to myself if I were in doubt about Sali Berisha's contemptible nature and modus operandi, but considering the numerous examples that Berisha's actions provide in giving my opinion resolve, please indulge me in giving you a tableau of the last twenty years in Albania, during which Sali Berisha has been a central political and power figure, and thereby painting for you the true figure of the individual whose self-praise you have allowed on your web page.

Although it is true that the economic situation in Albania has not been as dire as it has in the rest of Europe during the last two years, you should not be led into thinking—and much less mislead others on that same line—that it is a result of the free-market reforms that Sali Berisha's government has implemented. On the contrary, if Albania's economic climate has been more stable than elsewhere in the continent, it is by virtue of its small size and the lack of significant investment from other European economies before the crisis; it is by virtue of the cheap, deregulated market that Berisha's reforms do, indeed, provide, but only after he and his government have chosen who invests and how much is pocketed by them; it is by virtue of Albania's recent and current state of dilapidation and never-ending construction in its economic, urban, and infrastructure sectors, which remain in that sad state, for the greatest part, as a result of Sali Berisha's nocuous presence on the Albanian political scene.

While the fall of Communism in 1991 left Albania in a deplorable state, it should be noted that unemployment never reached 80% before the régime collapsed. Moreover, the fact that the population fared and somehow survived through the 80s in a state of complete isolation from the rest of the world (admittedly, in a steady decline) should be a testament of its industrial and agricultural potential that kept some sort of output, despite the petering out it underwent and despite the amortized machines that had been furnished first, during Albania's alliance with the Soviet Union, and subsequently during the Sino-Albanian 'brotherhood.' At the same time, you should be wary of any leader touting improvement on a twenty-year-old statistic when he has been in almost absolute power for half of those years.

I do not exaggerate in using the word 'absolute' when I refer to the power that Sali Berisha has wielded over Albanian politics and its internal or international affairs. Allow me to remind you that Sali Berisha became president of Albania in 1992, when he emerged as a central figure of the Democratic movement that swept Albania as the dominoes of the so-called 'Communist' governments kept falling one by one. This movement was led and energized by students and other young, educated individuals, who, deluded with the decline of the decade they had just closed and with the dearth of opportunities that lay before them, and at the same time led by the example of other neighboring countries and inspired by the inevitable future of a democratic Albania, opposed the régime's restrictions through strikes and boycotts, and had earnest, open, and productive dialogues with the leaders of the time. It was only later that Sali Berisha emerged as undisputed leader of that movement and, upon being subsequently elected president, proceeded to mute and stamp out all dialogue and dissent that existed within the newly formed Democratic Party—so much so that, within the space of a few years, its most avid early leaders abjured any relation to him or the Party that they had helped to create.

Despite this tragic turn of events for the puerile political pluralism in Albania, it is the fate of the people at large that is the most to be deplored.

• Soon after coming to power, Sali Berisha set out to repartition and redistribute lands to the owners from whom it had been confiscated during the Agrarian Reform of 1946 or the later collectivization projects. It is a process that is still ongoing without any comprehensive set of laws to guide it, proving to be the bane of many citizens who have built homes and cultivated on lands thought to be legally their own, only to later be evicted without any indemnity by a former owner that is arbitrarily deemed 'rightful' by a corrupt judicial system that helps to perpetuate this state of limbo.

• He allowed whatever transportation infrastructure there existed to fall into a state of despair (and, in the case of the railway system, disuse), despite the incursion of thousands of automobiles that the network of existing roads was not meant to sustain.

• He disregarded the country's need for a more modern, more sensible electric grid in order to sustain the ever-expanding use of electric appliances, while allowing miles and miles of wires to be stolen and sold in the black market, leaving Albania still today, as a land of many black-outs.

• He neglected the faltering mining and manufacturing industries to the point of allowing whole factories, oil wells, and hydroelectric plants to be stripped of their equipment only never to regain their operative functions.

• He showed complete disrespect for the healthcare and educational systems that had been so avidly built and maintained by the Communist government to serve the nation (and their political interests, no doubt), while politicizing teaching positions and curricula (like his predecessors), and failing to discourage the use of bribes for doctors in return for healthcare.

• Most heinously, however, he supported the creation of numerous pyramid schemes from which many—and most certainly he and many of his ilk—profited, but in which a majority of Albanians also lost their life savings and were sent back to a state of destitution they had not seen even during the hard days of the former régime. It is precisely this situation which led to the uprisings of 1997 in Albania, which, in their turmoil, caused even more destruction, as well as the near-complete degradation of the military system. The storming of military bases and arms depots, in turn, put weapons at the disposal of rebels (or just frustrated citizens) and made Albania a hotbed of criminality for many years to come.

In the midst of this chaos that his corrupted, nepotistic, and authoritarian régime had engendered, Sali Berisha was forced to resign and make space for a coalition government that finally gave the opposition parties a voice in the direction of the country that had been denied to them through rigged elections. While the governments that followed were not without fault or blame (far from it), they did enact, at last, a Constitution, and implemented reforms to restore order and initiate the path to eventual (albeit distant) admission into the European Union. Being in power in Albania tends to corrupt faster and better than anywhere else, and so it did with the Socialist governments that followed the turmoil. Thanks in part to dissatisfaction from the Socialist leader's overt corruption (Sali Berisha's Socialist antipode, Fatos Nano), the Socialist party and its coalition were ousted in the general elections of 2005, only to make space for the Democratic Party to return to power, regenerated in its old anti-Socialist (still phrased as anti-Communist) rhetoric, but holding fast to the same ways and with the same figures, including a steadfast Sali Berisha at the helm.

This blind desire to lead, the megalomania, and the thirst for power that Sali Berisha has shown in the twenty years during which he has been a political figure in Albania are personified in the two different leadership positions he has held: that of President and, currently, of Prime Minister, each exercised at the time when the Constitution gave it the greatest powers in the land, and which Berisha is not afraid to use. In the last year alone, Sali Berisha has been the central and most obdurate figure in the political deadlock surrounding the general elections of 2009, the results of which are disputed by the Socialists and could be easily proven with a recount that Berisha refuses to grant and which he tries to prevent at all cost. He is not even the designated authority on the matter, but wields such extensive power on the state-run media and in the administration of the other branches of government that courts and the Electoral Commission refuse to allow a recount, thereby guaranteeing his stay in power for the remaining three years of the mandate being disputed.

Sali Berisha is by far and indisputably the most vocal political figure in Albania in the last twenty years. When he speaks, it is often to affix derogatory nicknames and fulminate accusations of corruption or even depravations of an intimate nature against his political opponents, not forgetting to insult, at times, their origins, families, and even their female sex. His divisive rhetoric has been unchanged and relentless for the past twenty years and, somehow, still finds an audience among a sizable number of Albanians. If I had to liken it to somebody, it would be to that of Sarah Palin in this country, except that it is more frightening because of the political power he exercises over his party first, his cabinet second, the political arena third, and, lastly, over the many Albanians who still lend him an ear and give him a vote.

Even when Berisha speaks calmly, it is to weave undeserved panegyrics to his touch-and-go politics that do not even respond to the true pulse of the nation. As an Albanian who has lived through or closely followed the events recounted above, I have learned to see through the demagoguery that Sali Berisha so well propagates.

• When he praises the country's admission into NATO, he does so while conveniently omitting the reforms implemented by the Socialist governments that came before his current one, or while failing to uphold his commitment to NATO by allocating for the Ministry of Defense a lesser percentage of the GDP than that required by NATO (1.6%, when 2% is required).

• When he lauds what little progress Albania makes in implementing reforms necessary to our candidacy for membership in the European Union (such as the recent decision to ease travel restrictions on Albanians visiting EU countries), he does so while ignoring Brussels' critiques of him and the political freeze that his obstinacy has brought about.

• When he commends the 'well-educated populous [sic]', as he does in your article, he fails to mention his governments' neglect for elementary, secondary, and high education in Albania, all of which are functioning at the actual level of efficiency in great part because of the strong system established by his Communist predecessors.

• When he portrays Albania as a welcoming turf for investment, he should instead speak of the hundreds of thousands of Albanians—a lot of them intellectuals and among these, my parents—who found no hope and prospects in the Albania he forged and were forced to emigrate.

Above all, however, I have learned to see through and beyond the tired key words and expressions like 'business-friendly', 'reduced bureaucratic burden on business,' 'fighting corruption,' 'streamlin[ing] approval procedures for foreign investors,' 'simplif[ying] the tax system,' 'creating a good climate for investors,' etc.. If you ask Sali Berisha to outline what the 'market principles' he supports are, he will fail to advance beyond this well-chosen yet transparent terminology and will go so far as to boastfully admit to single-handedly creating a market economy in Albania at a time when there was none. If 'market economy' or 'business-friendly' (at least in the domestic case) means shoddily improvised, family-owned kiosks sprouting like warts and trading without legal permission in urban and public areas where children used to play and flowers used to grow, I will be the first to admit his success. But if it means facilitating and regulating business and entrepreneurship, while also protecting the consumer, I shall have to look away from him or anybody else who espouses his idea of a successful free market.

And, while Albania as your article portrays it might appear as a laissez-faire haven, the reality is much different. Surely, there is a laissez-faire attitude to it all, but I fear—nay, know—that it is not in the sense of the government allowing its citizens to trade freely, but rather in that of the government letting the populace to fend for itself, while hurrying to buttress the corruption that fills the coffers of its representatives and keeps them in power for more gains or, in the case of Berisha, also to satisfy delusions of grandeur. The soapbox with which you provide him serves only to enable and encourage his demagoguery and authoritative style of governing, which has proven so detrimental to a whole generation of Albanians.

On Mosques and Principles

I was going to let the issue of the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' go by without commenting, but Bill O'Reilly's latest tirade on The View (no, I don't actually watch the show) got me angry and here's my take on the issue, as pithily as I can put it:

Under normal circumstances, I would have ben the first to dismiss the building of a place of worship—be it a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.—as an unnecessary extravagance. I would probably have gone so far as to say that we don't need to expand whatever extent religion already has; and I would definitely have ventured to advocate, instead, the building of a more universally beneficial type of building, such as a school, hospital, or no building at all and a park or garden instead.

But given the airtime that was given to this issue, and the ink and bile that was spilled over it, I have to come out now, as a strong supporter of the 'Ground Zero Mosque.'

First of all, there was a lot of deliberately misleading information on the so-called 'mosque.' Calling it a 'mosque' was supposed to make people conjure up images of a lead-domed building with sky-piercing, imposing minarets. And they did. The building in question is, in fact, a multi-faith cultural center that will provide the Manhattan community with more 'secular' amenities such as a gym, pool, daycare center, etc..

Secondly, the debate in question should never have taken a national dimension. But it did (thanks, Palin!). The only people making a decision on it should have been local authorities responsible for issuing building permits and the like; the only laws to be observed should have been safety and zoning laws; the only additional considerations should have been on the aesthetics of the building—and that, only if NYC has any.

By overtaking the national airwaves, the debate over this cultural center reached a level of perversion that many self-righteous (read: mistaken) citizens across the nation embraced as justified. Suddenly, an organization whose whole reason-for-being is combatting bigotry discredited itself by coming out against this building; then a bigot in X or Y county felt proud to say that allowing such a building was 'insensitive' or 'un-American' (question: who died and made you a moral dictator of America?); then a zealot in Florida threatened to organize a Koran-burning event that escalated attacks and violence against our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also aggravating any existing ire of Muslims across the globe. Yes, in just a matter of weeks, a debate that never should have gone beyond the requirements of local formalities became national and eventually medieval.

Thirdly, it should be understood that everybody has the right to voice his or her own opinion on whatever issue; but nobody has the right to pervert long-standing constitutional principles on issues of 'sensitivity,' especially when doing so means depriving others of the first freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

I'm sorry, angered Americans-at-large: it's not up to you to decide whether a church or mosque or whatever else gets built in your country. It is not up to me, either....

I'm sorry, Manhattan residents: it's not up to you to prevent the construction of a building you don't 'like.' Comply with the decisions of the people you have chosen to represent you in enacting and enforcing local building and zoning laws.

Lastly, I'm sorry families of 9/11 victims: your pain and anger, however real and 'raw' (to use a word that was thrown around by Palin & Co.), do not entitle you to abridging the rights of any group, much less those of Muslims as a whole, who—as a whole—were never against us.

We were attacked by religious zealots with radically perverted views of Islam and the world, and with a total lack of consideration and respect for human life. Perhaps an example closer to home would serve to better illustrate it: the latter are the equivalent of the many (pseudo-)Christian groups in this country whose hateful and bigoted ideas spring up every day in dark and dreary basements across America, and whose abusive rhetoric or violent actions often reach the public scene.

Above all, remember that we are a state of laws; laws that condemn harmful behavior on others, and laws that defend liberties of individuals who set foot in this country (including minorities that can easily be overwhelmed by a majority). We have those laws for a reason and, despite whatever defects our legal-judicial system may have, intolerance of this kind is not one that should be imposed on or expected of it, no matter what the angry or otherwise emotional multitudes say about it.

It's a matter of principle.

Strong Words

I hate—HATE—what McCain has become in the last two and a half years. Yes, I thought this before reading the article linked above. And no, I don't think 'hate' is too strong a word to describe the more-than-resentment I feel toward him. I hate him for having become the personification and, at times, the epitome and the sole agent of the obstructionism that has plagued our Congress since the last general elections. He went from being a true maverick and a bridge between the two parties, to campaigning on it, to soiling his campaign and reputation, to becoming an intractable old coot, and to abjuring his moderate past and even the title he campaigned on.

But most of all, I hate him for unleashing—again, I don't think I'm wording this too strongly—Sarah Palin on the national political scene, along with the bigotry, hate, ignorance, and opportunism she exemplifies. Her dreaded ubiquity, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, vitriolic language, and shallow example served to bring to the scene other ignorant, opportunistic pseudo-politicians who unscrupulously exploit hard times and people's legitimate frustrations for their own personal gain, while setting whatever civilized debate we had in this country back by decades.

Thanks a lot, McCain!

Meritat kujt i ka merituar

Para disa javësh revista amerikane Newsweek botoi një renditje shtetesh të përpiluar nga ajo vetë. Shqipëria u rendit e 57-a midis shteteve në përgjithësi, por mori vend të parë në një renditje më vete, atë të shteteve me të ardhura të pakta. Kriteret e mara parasysh, përveç madhësisë së shteteve dhe të ardhurave, qenë arsimi, shëndeti, niveli i jetesës, gjallëria ekonomike, dhe klima politike.

Lajmi i «çmimit të parë» pushtoi rrjetin shqiptar dhe çdokush u krekos e krenua për përmendjen me emër të Shqipërisë në këtë renditje, e sidomos nga një revistë e respektuar dhe e njohur siç është Newsweek. Gëzimi është i drejtë, por i drejtë duhet të jetë dhe një rishtjellim i faktorëve që na e bënë të mundur atë «çmim». Gjella me kripë dhe kripa me karar....

Duhet vënë në dukje se «mesataren» e Shqipërisë e ulën njëkohësisht klima politike (për të cilën u përftua nota 58.67) dhe gjallëria ekonomike (për të cilën u përftua nota 34.09) dhe, nga ana tjetër, e ngritën arsimi dhe shëndeti me notat 81.02 dhe 71.02, përkatësisht. (Shiko figurën më poshtë.)

Gjithsesi, me sa pashë unë, nuk u duk askush në internet që të lavdëronte ato institucione që bënë të mundur kriteret që na falën «mesataren» tonë të lartë.

Duam apo s'duam, na pëlqen apo s'na pëlqen, duhet njohur këtu merita që i takon regjimit para vitit 1991 në Shqipëri për arritjet e bëra në të dy fushat ku vendi ynë «shkëlqen».

Ja se ç'tha vetë revista për Shqipërinë:

Shqipëria shfaqet rrallë në titujt e parë dhe duket një model i pazakontë për vende të tjera, por, në të vërtetë, kjo demokraci e re i tejkalon gjithë vendet e tjera me të ardhura të pakta. Midis kombeve në kategorinë e vet, ajo merr vazhdimisht renditjen e parë në arsim, shëndet dhe nivelin e jetesës. Pothuajse 99 përqind e shqiptarëve dinë shkrim e lexim. Edhe pse është një nga shtetet më të varfra në Evropë, burrat shqiptarë mund të parashikojnë të jetojnë mesatarisht deri në 78 vjeç, ndërsa gratë deri në 81 vjeç—statistikë kjo mjaft e mirë kur marrim parasysh se një qytetar i Gjermanisë së pasur jeton mesatarisht deri në 79 vjeç.

(përkthimi im)

Kam disa ditë që po kërkoj të dhënat e regjistrimit të popullsisë të vitit 1989—regjistrimi i fundit para eksodit që plakosi Shqipërinë—dhe nuk po i gjej kurrkund, madje as tek faqja e Institutit të Statistikave. Megjithatë mbaj mend se deri në vitin 1989 popullsia e Shqipërisë u trefishua nga periudha e para-luftës. Për më tepër, prania e shërbimeve shëndetësore dhe e arsimit të përgjithshëm u shtri në të gjithë vendin, që nga kryeqyteti e deri në fshatrat më malore të veriut të Shqipërisë. Masat e marra nga regjimi i asaj kohe synonin të shtonin popullsinë tonë dhe ta rrisnin atë të shëndoshë dhe, duke mbajtur parasysh pikëmbërritjen e tyre, ata ndihmuan në mirëqenien e popullit edhe pas rënies së regjimit të tyre. Për këtë duhen përgëzuar sepse ia arritën qëllimit dhe çuan mjekë dhe dituri aty ku asnjëra s'kishte shkelur më parë.

Ndonëse ky shkrim mund të duket si fletë lavdërimi për një diktaturë të së shkuarës, nuk e synoj si të tillë. E pranoj se ajo ishte bardhë-e-zi si shumë regjime të tjera dhe, sot për sot po e lavdëroj, por nesër ka gjasa ta shaj. Synoj më tepër të vë në dukje mungesën e nismës dhe vullnetit për të ndërtuar sot mbi atë që ngritën prindërit dhe gjyshërit tanë për pesëdhjetë vjet; synoj të theksoj mangësitë e çdo qeverie që ka pasur mundësinë të vërë dorë mbi shëndetin e qytetarëve që e sollën në fuqi por ka parapëlqyer të mbushë xhepat e saj; synoj të dënoj rrënimin e institucioneve që e mbajtën gjallë shëndetin dhe popullin e që sot lëngojnë vetë....

Me pak fjalë, përplas grushtat pa dobi....

Greeks Are the New Albanians

I clearly remember the early-late 90s when young and old Albanians in search of a better life crossed the borders—admittedly legally or illegally—into Greece, where they were met with menial jobs, police abuse, inhumane treatment at customs or in custody, as well as with cultural and religious pressure to alter their identities.

These are all true and easily researchable, but the latter is the most heinous of them all and relevant to this rant of sorts: upon arriving in Greece, most Albanians were, indeed, under great pressure to change their religion to Greek Orthodox, or at the very least, their names to typical Greek- or Orthodox-sounding names. It did not matter whether they were Orthodox in Albania but happened to have a religiously-neutral name like 'Ilir' or 'Arben'; when they went to Greece, adult Ilirs and Arbens were quickly baptized (humiliatingly by taking a dip in large cauldrons while wearing nothing but their skivvies, might I add!) to become 'Ilia' or 'Andrea.' The pressure of conversion or name changes was, of course, greater for those of Muslim extraction who had clearly Muslim-sounding names.

Today, as Greece faces the mess in which it got itself—while making no attempt to persecute those former leaders who fattened their bank accounts... hello!—it is the young people of Greece who find themselves seeking fortune and employment elsewhere.

The New York Times tells the story of a handful of young Greeks whose primary aim is to emigrate. One of them is Alexandra Mallosi and she is going to Abu Dhabi. I wonder if, once there, she will have to change her name to 'Asalah' or 'Yasmina'....

Technically, Greece holds itself capable of greater civility than certain other nations (among which Abu Dhabi must certainly figure), yet I have a feeling Alexandra will remain Alexandra even in Abu Dhabi.

I should be gleaming with schadenfreude about this whole situation, but I ought to make it clear that I do have mixed feelings about the Greek crisis.... I did, however, feel compelled to share this bit of what some might call 'karma.' I won't call it that, not believing in it and all....

Greek Tragedy Exposes Greek Mendacity

It seems as though Greeks will soon get the loan/bailout they've been looking to get from the IMF and the EU. Although few in the European Union are happy about this, it is worthwhile to note that this tragedy has also served to highlight the mendacity of the Greek government throughout the years. If you ask me, it all stems from a delusion of grandeur that modern Greek governments and the Greek Orthodox Church (and, to an extent, the people) have had about themselves. They still fancy themselves the same as their ancient forebears and demand the respect and regard worthy of the latter. As a result, the Greek machine has felt undeservingly entitled to the same advancements that the rest of Europe has achieved and has disingenuously portrayed itself as the economic and political equal to its European peers in order to obtain, first, EU membership and, secondly, the Euro.

At the same time, while touting once again their glorious past, and while exploiting their position in the EU they have become nothing short of a bully in Balkanic relations. They have set conditions (read, obstacles) for Albania's and Macedonia's membership in the EU and other European/North-Atlantic alliances, quoting as reason, in the case of Macedonia, a name, and complicating relations with Albania because of a Greek minority there of less than 3%, which has enjoyed special rights more than Albanians have ever dreamt of enjoying in Greece. It is of importance to note here that Greece is the only country in Europe (and perhaps in the world) that does not recognize religious or ethnic minorities within its territory.

Similarly, Greek governments have continuously been clutching to what they call The Great Idea, which consists of territorial pretensions in southern Albania. Greece has thus become a country with overt pretensions over another territory (and today, the Albanian nation) since its inception in 1829, and has recently become an insurmountable, unreasonable obstacle over a question of simple toponymy/onomastics, bringing the etymology of the word 'hypocrisy' closer to its meaning. At the same time, Greece has yet to invalidate its declaration of war on Albania since the latter was used as a platform by Mussolini to launch his attack on Greece. In other words, Greece is still at war with Albania and refuses to act to change that status.

I don't know if I am happy to see Greece where it is today. Behind a government's machinations lie the common people and I do not wish them any ills. I do, however, hope—for Greece's best and for the best of Balkanic and European relations—that this crisis, however tragic and taxing, will serve to set the current and future Greek governments along the path of better neighborly relations and more earnestness with themselves and their European counterparts.

[Yes, this is a rant.]

Enough!

I must admit I liked Sen. John McCain before the idea of becoming a president went to his head. He was, indeed, a maverick, a moderate Republican who, albeit in disagreement with my general views, voted on his principles and common sense. Then the hallowed day came when it became clear that he would become the Republicans' nominee for president and he was transformed. His hunger for the presidency took the best of him and brought forth a John McCain I definitely couldn't like and could possibly no longer respect. He remained in that position throughout his campaign. I could forgive him for that and even make excuses for him; you know—he was too passionate about it, he got carried away, and the like. What I cannot forgive him for is the transformation he brought to American politics and civilized debate by unleashing upon the nation a dangerous individual like Sarah Palin.

It is no secret Sarah Palin is a power-hungry politician (voracious or ravenous could work here, as well; superlatives are not an exaggeration in her case). It should be no secret either—and, to my chagrin, this still hasn't reached a lot of people—that she is as incapable a politician as she is a devoid of conscientiousness. Not that the latter and politics go hand in hand; far from it. Time after time, she has easily proved herself wrong on many things she has said, done, or purported to have said or done. In a normal political climate, those many, many, many lies she has fabricated and embellished to unprecedented levels would have brought her political career to an end even sooner than she 'ended' it herself by resigning from her position as Alaska's governor. How many people have asked themselves the question, 'why did she do that?' If you have, here is my answer: because Alaska was not big enough for her. Once her notoriety reached national levels, Alaska was a backyard game for her and she'd have none of it. Her next mission: the lower 48, as she calls them (lucky for Hawaii, huh?).

To succeed in that mission, to climb up the ladder of a political career, she was and is determined to tread on anybody she comes across; she was and is prepared to lie and mislead the American public to places that help her to better shape her political future. THAT is my biggest problem with her. At a time when our president—in great part thanks to what she started and perpetuated during the McCain-Palin campaign—is under a multitude of attacks whose only purpose is to portray him as an outsider, she is actively feeding those flames and, in the process, she needs and never hesitates to appeal to the worse angels of our nature. She exploits the frustrations, fears, indecisiveness, hatred, resentment, misinformation, and insecurities of the American people—some of which I share myself!—in order to turn them into gain for her future political career. She does not care about the American people. She never did. She likes the attention. She likes the national attention, I should say, and she is going to be a fixture (an ugly, ugly one) of American politics for at least two more years until the 2012 presidential elections.

Have no doubt, she will run for president that year. Have no doubt, also, that she will continue along the same path that she forged during the McCain-Palin campaign and is carrying to date. Have no doubt that she will maintain the same rhetoric, the same divisive vitriol she puts out there and that is repeated manifold by Fox News and the pseudo-conservative-but-actually-hate-mongering media. Have no doubt, as well, that, by the end of the campaign and after the presidential elections of that year, the country will be more divided than it will have ever been since the Civil War. You think the latter Bush did awful things for the country and divided and polarized people, turned neighbor against neighbor, friends into enemies? Just wait and see how we will all be thanks to her. Or wake up and smell the rankling winds of the Alaskan front that is Sarah Palin and rise above it and say

ENOUGH!

Republican Disingenuousness

As always, Rachel Maddow is on top of the latest chicanery from Republicans. And, as always, Republicans do not disappoint in showing that they are masters of flagrant prevarication and have the audacity to repeatedly iterate the lie that they collectively agree upon. The lies they propagate, including those statements made today by no one other than McCain, besmirch the whole principle of a democracy. Suddenly, to them, fifty-one votes in the senate do not count as a majority. The normal is now sixty. What's next, Republicans? A two-thirds majority to pass everything? We have never been at war with Eastasia? 2 + 2 = 5?

Stop rewriting history and stop lying to the American people. Sure, a lot of them are misinformed and misled by you and your Fox News propaganda machine, but still... have you no decency, at long last?! Accept that you are in the minority and get to work on trying to regain your majority. Until then, let the majority that has been democratically elected do its work. Let them pass bills through a simple majority, as normal senatorial rules and political, legislative decency dictate. Stop naming things 'nuclear.' The cold war is over.

Just watch. I'm too exhausted to get into the technicalities of it. I said my piece.

Is It Me?!

In the vocabulary section of the final exam for my French class, there was the following question:

Je n'aime pas que le professeur donne une interrogation sans nous ______.

a. apprendre

b. enlever

c. retirer

d. avertir

The correct answer, of course, is (d), making the sentence: 'I don't like it that the teacher gives quizzes without notifying us.'

Most of the students, however (almost exclusively, in fact) opted for (a), making the sentence: 'I don't like it that the teacher gives quizzes without teaching us.'

Are they trying to tell me something??

Un-Patriotic and Un-American

'Un-patriotic' and 'un-American' are two terms I cringe at, whether they come from the left or from the right. To use one or the other is to appeal to an undefined audience that can accept or deny the qualifiers at its whims.

Similarly, it is used so freely and subjectively by politicians and commentators that it has lost whatever trace of objective sense it used to possess. Furthermore, the use of the qualifiers purports to suggest that what is American and what is patriotic is fixed—or was fixed—at the inception of the United States. America is nothing if not adaptable and capable of evolving with the times, despite the efforts of certain groups that try to hold it back. Trying to make the reductionistic claim that it is supposed to be what it has always been is tantamount to claiming erroneously that the United States is a Christian country that was founded, developed, and is supposed to be run and inherited exclusively by Christians.

Giving Religion Its Due Merit... Sort of...

I'm probably adding to their publicity by doing this, but I can't help but put in my two cents.

Immersion Digital, LLC has released an electronic bible, which, it boasts, contains thousands of digital videos, images, and sounds, to accompany the text of the bible. Its advertisement of the bible is in the video below.

This project and its product remind me of the only admirable thing about religion: its adaptability. This electronic bible is nothing but a 21st-century version of the architecture, decoration, and music that religion has produced for centuries. It is a 21st-century version of Gothic cathedrals of gargantuan proportions (compared to huts of the time, of course), with their imposing columns, impressive stained-glass windows, and the intricate masses complete with the light, smoke, and odor of incense and candles. It is a 21st-century version of a belittling mosque with a lead-covered dome glowing in the sun, and a minaret piercing the heavens and calling 'the little people' to prayer. It is a continuation of the theatrical nature of religion, which has given it an edge over people's better reason, who, in awe of the novelty and grandness of religious institutions, and further desensitized and tamed by the images, sounds, and odors of religious rites, have foolishly followed it over the centuries, ever forgetful of the fact that such projects were conceived, built, and presented exclusively by people of this world.

On Apocalyptic Documentaries

Just like these descendants of the Mayans, I, too, am tired of these predictions for the end of the world on 12/21/2012, just as I am weary of all the apocalyptic documentaries that have gained ground and an audience in the past few years.

Blame Tolstoy

And damn that Anna Karenina!

And damn those selfish suicidal bastards that can't kill themselves in the silence of their own home.

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Listening to the song below and looking at the slide show pictures from the Depression era that accompany it, I cannot help but be reminded of the bread/food/milk lines in 'communist' Eastern Europe. The only difference is that in those countries everybody was in line and when we got to the end of it, we had the money to pay for the scarce food. Shortage for you meant shortage for me and there was some comfort in the egalitarian nature of that misery. In the aftermath of capitalist greed, however, there is a part of the population—the guilty part, might I add—that never has the need to get near those lines, whereas the majority of the people are forced by their conditions to wait for hours for a pitiful pittance of food for mere sustenance.

Names of the Dead

Names of the Dead

It is under this ominous title that The New York Times publishes its periodic rubric, tucked somewhere in its pages. I do not know what page; I cannot afford the NYT print edition. My RSS feed never seems to miss the title, though. I find no shame in saying I do skip it sometimes. I know what it will say: a few names of men and women I do not know, their ages and how they perished over there.

Every single time, the rubric does not fail to mention the onerous reminder of the cost of this war: the total numbers of those whose lives have met their end in the hands of those whom they oppose. What I think about more, however, are the dirty hands of those because of whom they died. We all know their names. We all know their deeds. And we all witness periodically how the numbers of those who lose their lives in two wars far removed from the public eye, rise with no end in sight.

Today's numbers:
Iraq: 4,257
Afghanistan: 666

The disparity is shocking. The fault of those who sent them there, ever greater. Their remorse, ever more remote.

I find few justifications for war. Of the two in question, Afghanistan was the more 'justified' (I use the term with a lot of reservations) and somehow for six years it has been the more forgotten war. I do not know what must be done, what will be done. I want us to get out of Iraq... badly... and not look back. But a big part of me (call it the masochistic part, call it the accountable part) wants us to feel the burden of responsibility for the destruction and chaos we wrought on it, and the culpability for the injustices we have committed with Iraq ever since the inception of the war. We have destroyed a country, countless lives—among which hundreds of our own people—and all I know for certain right now is that we all have blood on our hands... and this damnèd spot is not going to come off easily.