Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« "Our ears are not receivers anymore. They're consumers." | Main | My Second Unity08 Guest Blog. »

Comments

Tom Strong

Kwame Anthony Appiah answered this question, in your favorite essay. You make headway by increasing benign and benevolent contact between our cultures and theirs.

reader_iam

I find this depressing, and quite revealing of a central problem. In an odd way, it also brings to mind one of the anecdotes your brother told on his blog: the one involving the Israeli woman who was so concerned about the presence of Arabs/Palestinians on the camping trip.

amba

Very true. And symmetrical. Good call.

amba

Thanks, Tom, you're right. But there are huge swaths of people who never have that contact and whose beliefs make them ever less likely to have it.

I guess it's the job of the spiritual nomads and ideological mutts to keep doggedly cross-fertilizing at the margins. Like the Israeli and Lebanese bloggers talking to each other as the bombs fall, here.

Anthrakeus

Perhaps the most difficult part of this is the fact that Hezbollah does protect Lebanon, that is, shortly after starting the war that's threatening them in the first place.

Protecting people from an enemy you created. Certainly we Americans have no experience with such things in our political sphere.

Peter

Yet this is probably what many Arabs believe

What's sad is it seems like you actually believe what you're saying. Sometimes i don't know when right-wingers/Israel-firsters are serious and when they're joking.

All the top scholars covering the Israeli occupation - even the top/best Israeli scholars, and of course the top U.S. scholars (Roy/Harvard, etc.) agree that Israel is continuing its drive to destroy the possibility of any would-be Palestinian state. I mean, that is, if you need a scholarly analysis to back up what you are seeing with your own eyes. Apartheid is not an accurate term to describe what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians because black South Africans had it better than do most of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are nearly completely dependent on Israel. If Israel says they should suffer and or die, they will do so - as you can see. The comparison of the occupied territories to Apartheid South Africa is not accurate - the Israeli occupation is much more extreme and horrific. I'm just parroting the words of the top Israeli and U.S. scholars, at least - I'm sure there are others.

Do you really not know this, or are you feigning ignorance?

Don't take my word for it - read up on it. Dershowitz is a clown who loves to talk about collective punishment as if it's ok to punish people for not being able to elect the 'right' representative. He's smart, but he's a downright sicko Israel-firster. I hope you don't fall into that same category. I don't care who listens to Dershowitz - we should all hear all opinions, free speech is a great thing - but let's be rational and tell the truth and not suggest that collective punishment is OK because most of the people we're killing are brownish or don't speak English as a first language or wear head scarves or whatever. I put a lot of time/money/effort into getting Bush out of office, but I failed miserably - twice. Should I be bombed, maimed, tortured, arrested, or killed because I didn't get Bush out of office?

Israel is just taking the lead of the U.S. What we did in central America - punishing those countries for years with orgiastic displays of intense terror violence/torture/murder until they finally elected a pro-U.S. prez. It's not right. It wasn't right for the U.S. to do it then, and it's not right for Israel to do it now.

When Pat Buchanan of all people is calling for an end to U.S. support for Israeli terror, you know the world's gone mad.

This is not rocket science, folks. Turn off the tv and read a little bit. The truth is right there, but you can't keep watching CNN and Fox and continuing to believe that you're getting a diversity of opinion when all you're getting is the opinion of the corporations/state/elite. Most Israelis want to end the occupation (as do Iraqis want to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, coincidentally) - all responsible Americans should tell our government to stay out of other countries' business - starting with America stopping it billions in support of Israeli terror, and diplomatic cover at the UN, not the least of which is continuous and shocking vetos of multiple resolutions condemning Israel for any number of war crimes, aggressions, failures to abide by security council resolutions, etc.

amba

"Collective punishment" was pioneered by suicide bombers and Osama. Or did you believe all those people in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns"?

And who is this we should be reading? Noam Chomsky?

amba

I'll put Victor Davis Hanson up against Peter and get out of the way:

So after 9/11, the London bombings, the Madrid murders, the French riots, the Beslan atrocities, the killings in India, the Danish cartoon debacle, Theo Van Gogh, and the daily arrests of Islamic terrorists trying to blow up, behead, or shoot innocent people around the globe, the world is sick of the jihadist ilk. And for all the efforts of the BBC, Reuters, Western academics, and the horde of appeasers and apologists that usually bail these terrorist killers out when their rhetoric finally outruns their muscle, this time they can’t.

Instead, a disgusted world secretly wants these terrorists to get what they deserve. And who knows: This time they just might.

(Hat tip: Rick Ballard at YARGB.)

Peter

Noam Chomsky?

For starters, yes. Are we not allowed to read him around these parts? Sorry, I didn't know.

So after 9/11, the London bombings...

how many deaths/injuries we talkin, here? how much terror? compute the figure.

ok, whatever you came up with, multiply it by 10,000? more? States like Israel and American commit more terror around the world on a daily basis than Hez has committed in its lifetime.

can't read? ok - try this cartoon.

we're talking about state terror, here. the only difference between what Osama did (if he is even real) and what Bush/Olmert did and continue to do is that Bush/Olmert have all the advantages of superior firepower. that Bush/Olmert hypocritically claim to respect human life means zero. their actions speak for themselves.

Occupations are horrendous forms of terrorism, of course, but they also create terror - and that is the terror you seem to be concerned about. I say don't go after the little guys - go after the big guys. Don't go after the guy who skimps on his taxes so he can take the family on a vacation to Disneyland this year, go after the guy who steals tens of millions of dollars of hard-working Americans' pensions. This is not only a common-sensical approach to stopping terror, it is also the moral approach.

Don't fight me, fight the terrorists - the biggest and most heinous terrorists, first - the western democracies (read: U.S., Israel, among others) that occupy foreign territories and terrorize the civilian populations of those territories. the facts are in - the argument is over. Stop trying to be right and start trying to do right.

I'm wrong all the time about a whole host of issues - nearly daily - but some things are undisputably clear - occupations create the relatively small terror attacks you seem to be preoccupied with, while you exclude the most horrendous terror attacks - I'm not sure why. I can only guess it's a long history of indoctrination, racism, etc. By the time we're 18, Americans - and I'm sure the citizens of many countries around the world - are already too far gone to of any use in criticizing our own government. But we can all roll-back the effects of the indoctrination - at least a little bit. Once you are engaged, the excuses have to stop. You have to learn and grow. You have to look outside what your parents told you, what the government has told you, what your teachers told you - you have to fight to break out of the indoctrination. It's not easy, but it's certainly possible.

Like i said before, don't pay any attention to my fact-dropping if you don't want - read the top Israeli scholars and the top U.S. scholars. Try to find their arguments unconvincing. Visit the occupied territories for yourself. Don't be another tough-talkin Bill O'Lielly.

If you can put up with that clown Dershowitz - Israel-firster - watch this video debate between him and Chomsky. Look up the references Chomsky cites. Dershowitz doesn't cite any because the facts don't support his case, so he uses whatever Hitchens-type rhetorical personal attacks he can come up with to divert attention away from the fact that Israel is expanding territorially and crushing the Palestinian people.

Every time you talk about how awful Osama is and don't talk about how much more awful and destructive Bush/Olmert are, you are furthering the cause of massive terrorism. Don't do it - it's not smart and it's not moral.

Look at just two graphs from Chomsky in that debate referenced above:

The topic is: Where do we go from here? The answer to that is largely up to us. Evidently, it requires some understanding of how we got here. The question of where we're going now has a clear answer. It's given accurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard's Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.

Her judgment is affirmed by Israel's leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that ‘the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans’ (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, ‘the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.’ ‘The human disaster being planned,’ he continues, ‘will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.’ So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that's been going on for a long time.

The information is there, it's at least as horrific as the description. There is tons of material about the occupations - Iraq, the Occupied Territories, etc. - go find it, read it, watch it, etc. Or just imagine it - how hard is that? You have to want to know the truth, but I figure it takes all of two seconds to realize that you wouldn't be happy with Germany troops patrolling your street in armored cars, etc. It's just not rocket science.

The horros of occupations are not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention at all. If you care about Israel's security, you should support the two-state solution. If you care about the U.S.'s security, same. If you want to be considered humane, ditto.

This is not rocket science - we don't need professors to tell us that we'd want to kill any foreigner soldiers walking up and down our streets, groping us as we go through umpteen checkpoints, terrorizing us verbally, physically, economically - kidnapping us, jailing us, torturing us, killing us. These are not rhetorical devices I'm using here. This kidnapping/jailing/torturing/killing happens on a daily basis in the occupied terroritories.

And if an Israeli rocket blows up a bunch of Arabs on a beach, it's not terror, by definition, according to you. It can't be - you don't need to know what happened or why - you already know the answer - Israel and governments, in general, are pure. If they murder by the tens/hundreds of thousands, it is 'collateral damage', but if some Unabomber-type dude kills a few people, then he is a terrorist. I'm not arguing that the Unabomber or Osama are not terrorists - of course they are - I'm arguing that Bush/Olmert are terrorists, too, but much much worse, more horrific, much more prolific 'terrorist-killers' than any individual non-head of state could ever aspire to be.

The evidence is there - it's right before your eyes. Stop defending the mass slaughter being committed by the U.S. and Israel.

If you want to stop terror, there's a really easy way - stop your government from participating in it.

Peter

Just found Mr. Dershowitz making the 'little Eichmanns' argument.

Told you about that dude - when it comes to Israel, the dude just goes off the deep end. He's scary. And there are a lot of people think he is right. Ward Churchill and Alan Dershowitz - in agreement on all civilians being 'little Eichmanns'. My oh my.

Only, we know that Israelis could never been little Eichmanns, don't we, folks? Because if that was the case, then any killing of an Israeli civilian would be justified, and that just won't do. This 'little Eichmanns' analysis of Dershowitz applies only to people who don't do what they're told by Israel and the U.S. - and it really helps if they are brown and Muslim and don't speak English natively.

But, watch closely, surely some folks over at the National Review will pick up on Dershowitz's comments and further them - saying, in effect, that all civilian victims of terrorism are 'little eichmanns' and that means we have to outright exterminate the Palestinians and all Arabs and eventually everyone who looks at us the wrong way.

Or, not that, the more realistic scenario is that the Weekly Standard will figure out why Palestinian civilians are little Eichmanns, but Israeli citizens are not. I'm not sure how excatly they will contort logic and rationality to make their case, but it should be fun to watch.

Great timing for the quote, Dersh - thanks, man. You clown.

p.s. On Victor David Hanson - holy cow - that dude is a genius - in an academic/ability-to-consume-mad-amounts-of-information kind of way. On his morals and sense of justice (or lack thereof) and what is right and wrong - dude is scary. He's in the 'genocide' camp. I'm not making that up - he's said and written those things a lot - 'kill them all, let God sort them out' - that sort of thing.

I feel dirty just thinking of what the Dershowitzs and Hansons of the world are proposing. Sick, amoral people.

Peter

This entire blog seems to be one long-running joke. I just looked at the title of this blog post again 'War is Peace'. Just like Rice describing slaughtering people as 'birth pangs'. Good stuff.

Instead, a disgusted world secretly wants these terrorists to get what they deserve. And who knows: This time they just might.

Preach on, brother. I don't expect that we'll see Bush/Bliar/Olmert behind bars anytime soon, but I'm a prisoner of hope, and I'll continue to work for their all-too-deserved punishment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004