Adonis Diaries

Archive for December 19th, 2011

Getting serious  about “attention economics”?

How often have you heard: “Are you paying attention?”  You would like to pay attention  to please.  How can I do it if I am not interested in the talk, the course material, the business…? Like, may I jog around the room, just one lap?  Can I do a few stretching exercises first? Would you take out a $20 bill and burn it in front of me? Could you change the topic, please?

You would like to pay attention  to please someone, your teacher, your mom, your girlfriend…but you feel unable to redirect your perspective…You feel that a small action toward the “paying attention” thing might go a long way…How to select the proper action that matches  the “paying attention” thing?

Let us read a few of Seth’s rhetoric, like:

1. The short-term benefit/short-term satisfaction/risk avoidance was very high on my mind:  so I chose to  stay in bed till the weather gets warmer, agreed on the first program offered, responded positively to the order of my boss…I had no choice.  I did what felt right and comfortable…

2. Saying you have no choice cuts off all options, absolves responsibility and is the dream killer.

3. Remarkable work often comes from making choices when everyone else feels as though there is no choiceDifficult choices involve painful sacrifices, advance planning or just plain guts.

4. Individuals are valued and respected in large measure by the quality of attention and trust they earn from their publics.

5. If someone stood in front of your office and lit $100 bills from your petty cash kitty on fire, you’d call the cops. But people at work waste the attention of their peers and your customers/prospects at the drop of a hat.

6. Every interaction comes with a cost. Not in cash money, but in something worth even more: the attention of the person you’re interacting with.

7. Waste the close attention, with for example spam, a worthless offer,  a lack of preparation, with nervous dissembling…. then you are unlikely to get another chance

8. Grabbing your attention is the primary assets of companies…

9. Get serious  about “attention economics”

10. You won’t really learn obvious lessons until you’ve done the mistakes yourself
11. Focus on one project at a time.
12. Don’t be afraid to fail.
13. Fall down 7 times, get up 8.
14. People come before anything else.
15. Treat people the way you’d like to be treated.
16. Don’t wait for the perfect time, start now.
Can you figure out a small matching action that corresponds to each one of these suggestions? Suggestion are intended for the reason; action for changing emotions, the hardest of all changes to occur. What do you think?

From Atheist, anti-war, and socialist: To extreme Bushist Junior and liberal capitalism apostates?

Who is this late Christopher Hitchens?  Originally from England, Hitchens died at the age of 62 in Houston.  He suffered from cancer and published his health condition on his column. Hitchens was a confirmed atheist and a “Marxist”, but changed sides and ideology since the second term of Bush Junior.  At first, Hitchens wrote of Bush Jr. ” He is so amazingly unintelligent, not cultured beyond imagination, and unable to express in any basic way.  The worst is that Bush Jr. is very proud of his shortcoming and deficiencies…”    Hitchens reverted and supported loudly  Bush Jr. in the second term. Hitchens is claimed to be friend with Salman Rushdi, Ben Killer, and a staunch enemy of director Michael Moor…

Late Christopher Hitchens said: “I’m occasionally asked whether I still consider myself a Marxist.  Even if my “faith” had lapsed, I wouldn’t advertise it, not from shame at having been wrong (although admittedly this would be a factor) but rather from fear of arousing even a faint suspicion of opportunism.  To borrow from the lingo of a former academic fad, if, in public life, the “signifier” is “I’m no longer a Marxist,” then the “signified” usually is, “I’m selling out.”  No doubt one can, in light of further study and life experience, come to repudiate past convictions.  One might also decide that youthful ideals, especially when the responsibilities of family kick in and the prospects for radical change dim while the certainty of one’s finitude sharpens, are too heavy a burden to bear.”

Norman G. Finkelstein (currently writing an introduction to the new edition The Rise and Fall of Palestine) has targeted late Christopher Hitchens as a political apostate. I republished the parts related to Hitchens with slight modifications for easy read . It reads:

Norman G. Finkelstein wrote: “Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. “The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat,” Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler’s seizure of power.  ”You always wore it the `right’ way around.”

“If apostasy weren’t conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions.  But that’s never been the case.  The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power’s magnetic field, rarely away”.

“Although a tacit assumption equates unpredictability with independence of mind, it might just as well signal lack of principle.  As if to bear out this point, Hitchens has now repackaged himself a full-fledged apostate.  For maximum pyrotechnic effect, Hitchens knew that the “awakening” had to be as abrupt as it was extreme: if yesterday he counted himself a Trotskyist and Chomsky a comrade, better now to announce that he supports Bush and counts Paul Wolfowitz a comrade.  Their fates crossed when Wolfowitz and Hitchens both immediately glimpsed in September 11 the long-awaited opportunity: for Wolfowitz, to get into Iraq, for Hitchens, to get out of the left.  While public display of angst doesn’t itself prove authenticity of feeling (sometimes it might prove the reverse), a sharp political break must, for one living a political life, be a wrenching emotional experience.

“Hitchens collects his essays during the months preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq in The Long Short War.   He sneers that former comrades organizing the global anti-war demonstrations “do not think that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy at all” (emphasis in original),  and the many millions marching in them consist of the “blithering ex-flower child or ranting neo-Stalinist.”  Similarly, he ridicules activists pooling their meager resources for refreshments at a fundraiser – they are not among the chosen at a Vanity Fair soiree – as “potluck peaceniks” and “potluckistas.”

“Hitchens is at pains to inform readers that all his newly acquired friends are “friends for life.”  As with the solicitude he keeps expressing for the rights of Arab women, it seems that Hitchens protests too much.  The famous aphorism quoted by him that nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests, might be said to apply, mutatis mutandis, to himself as well.  Indeed, his description of a psychopath – “incapable of conceiving an interest other than his own and perhaps genuinely indifferent to the well-being of others” – comes perilously close to a self-portrait.

Freud once wrote: “To discover our true human nature, just reverse society’s moral exhortations: if the Commandment says not to commit adultery, it’s because we all want to”.  This simple game can be played with Hitchens as well: when he avows, “I attempt to write as if I did not care what reviewers said, what peers thought, or what prevailing opinion might be,” one should read, “My every word is calculated for its public effect.”

“Hitchens has riotous fun heaping contempt on several of the volunteer “human shields” who left Iraq before the bombing began. They “obviously didn’t have the guts,” he jeers, hunkered down in his Washington foxhole.  Bearing witness to his own bravery, Hitchens reports in March 2003 that, although even the wife of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is having doubts about going to war, “I am fighting to keep my nerve” – truly a profile in courage, as he exiles himself in the political wilderness, alongside the Bush administration, Congress, a majority of U.S. public opinion, and his employers in the major media.

“Outraged at the taunt that he who preaches war should perhaps consider fighting it, Hitchens impatiently recalls that, since September 11, “civilians at home are no safer than soldiers abroad,” and that, in fact, he’s not just a but the main target: “The whole point of the present phase of conflict is that we are faced with tactics that are directed primarily at civilians….

“It is amazing that this essential element of the crisis should have taken so long to sink into certain skulls” (emphasis in original).   No doubt modesty and tact forbid Hitchens from drawing the obvious comparison: while cowardly American soldiers frantically covered themselves in protective gear and held their weapons at the ready, he patrolled his combat zone in Washington, D.C. unencumbered.    Lest we forget, Hitchens recalls that ours is “an all-volunteer army” where soldiers willingly exchange “fairly good pay” for “obedience” to authority: “Who would have this any other way?”  For sure, not those who will never have to “volunteer.”

“It’s a standing question as to whether the power of words ultimately derives from their truth value or if a sufficiently nimble mind can endow words with comparable force regardless of whether they are bearers of truth or falsity.  For those who want to believe that the truth content of words does matter, reading the new Hitchens comes as a signal relief. Although redoubtable as a left-wing polemicist, as a right-wing one he only produces doubt, not least about his own mental poise.

“Deriding Chomsky’s “very vulgar” harnessing of facts, Hitchens wants to go beyond this “empiricism of the crudest kind.”  His own preferred epistemology is on full display, for all to judge, in Long Short War.  To prove that, after supporting dictatorial regimes in the Middle East for 70 years, the U.S. has abruptly reversed itself and now wants to bring democracy there, he cites “conversations I have had on this subject in Washington.”  To demonstrate the “glaringly apparent” fact that Saddam “infiltrated, or suborned, or both” the U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, he adduces the “incontrovertible case” of an inspector offered a bribe by an Iraqi official: “The man in question refused the money, but perhaps not everybody did.”  Citing “the brilliant film called Nada,” Hitchens proposes this radical redefinition of terrorism: “the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”

“Al-Qaida is accordingly terrorist because it posits an impossible world of “clerical absolutism” but, judging by this definition, the Nazi party wasn’t terrorist because it posited a possible world without Jews.  Claiming that every country will resort to preemptive war, and that preemptive is indistinguishable from preventive war, Hitchens infers that all countries “will invariably decide that violence and first use are justified” and none can be faulted on this account – which makes you wonder why he’s so hot under the collar about Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.

“Hitchens maintains that “there is a close…fit between the democratically minded and the pro-American” in the Middle East – like “President for Life” Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan…; that Washington finally grasped that “there were `root causes’ behind the murder-attacks” (emphasis in original) – but didn’t Hitchens ridicule any allusion to “root causes” as totalitarian apologetics?

That “racism” is “anti-American as nearly as possible by definition”.

That “evil” can be defined as “the surplus value of the psychopath” – is there a Bartletts for worst quotations?; that the U.S.’s rejoining of U.N.E.S.C.O. during the Iraq debate proved its commitment to the U.N

That “empirical proofs have been unearthed” showing that Iraq didn’t comply with U.N. resolutions to disarm; that since the U.N. solicits U.S. support for multilateral missions, it’s “idle chatter” to accuse the U.S. of acting unilaterally in Iraq.

That the likely killing of innocent civilians in “hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes” shouldn’t deter the U.S. from attacking Iraq because it is proof of Saddam’s iniquity that he put civilians in harm’s way.

That those questioning billions of dollars in postwar contracts going to Bush administration cronies must prefer them going to “some windmill-power concern run by Naomi Klein” – is this dry or desiccated wit?

“On one page Hitchens states that the world fundamentally changed after September 11 because “civilians are in the front line as never before,” but on another page he states that during the 1970s, “I was more than once within blast or shot range of the IRA and came to understand that the word `indiscriminate’ meant that I was as likely to be killed as any other bystander.”

“Hitchens states that, even if the U.S. doesn’t attack or threaten to attack, “Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion” (emphasis in original), but on another page he states that “only the force of American arms, or the extremely credible threat of that force, can bring a fresh face to power.”  He states that the U.S. seems committed to completely overhauling Iraq’s political system, but on another page he states that replacing Saddam with “another friendly general…might be ideal from Washington’s point of view.”  On one page he states that “Of course it’s about oil, stupid” (emphasis in original), but on another page he states that “it was not for the sake of oil” that the U.S. went to war.

“In one paragraph Hitchens states that the U.S. must attack Iraq even if it swells the ranks of al-Qaida, but in the next paragraph he states that “the task of statecraft” is not to swell its ranks.  In one sentence he claims to be persuaded by the “materialist conception of history,” but in the next sentence he states that “a theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing.”  In the first half of one sentence he argues that, since “one cannot know the future,” policy can’t be based on likely consequences, but in the second half he concludes that policy should be based on “a reasoned judgment about the evident danger.”

“Writing before the invasion, Hitchens argued that the U.S. must attack even if Saddam offers self-exile in order to capture and punish this heinous criminal.  Shouldn’t he urge an attack on the U.S. to capture and punish Kissinger?  And, it must attack because Saddam started colluding with al-Qaida after the horrific crimes of September 11.  Should the U.S. have been attacked for colluding with Saddam’s horrific crimes, not after but while they unfolded, before September 11?  France is the one “truly `unilateralist’ government on the Security Council,” according to Hitchens, a proof being that 20 years ago it sank a Greenpeace vessel – next to which the U.S. wars in Central America apparently pale by comparison.

“Hitchens assails French President Jacques Chirac, in a masterful turn of phrase, as a “balding Joan of Arc in drag,” and blasts France with the full arsenal of Berlitz‘s “most commonly used French expressions.”  For bowing to popular anti-war sentiment in Germany, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stands accused of “cheaply” playing “this card,” while in the near-unanimous opposition of the Turkish people to war Hitchens detects evidence of “ugly egotism and selfishness.”

“Hitchens says that Wolfowitz wants “democracy and emancipation” – which must be why Wolfowitz rebuked the Turkish military for not stepping in after the Turkish people vetoed participation in the war.  A “principled policy cannot be measured,” Hitchens sniffs, “by the number of people who endorse it.”  But for a principled democrat the number of people endorsing a policy does decide whether to implement it.

“Hitchens’s notion of democracy is his “comrade,” ex-Trotskyist but ever-opportunist Kanan Makiya, conjuring up a “complex and ambitious plan” to totally remake Iraq in Boston and presenting it for ratification at an émigré conference in London.  The invective he hurls at French, German and Turkish leaders for heeding the popular will shows that Hitchens hasn’t, at any rate, completely broken faith with his past: contemptuous of “transient polls of opinion,” he’s still a Trotskyist at heart, guiding the benighted masses to the Promised Land, if through endless wars and safely from the rear.

“Hitchens resembles no one so much as the Polish émigré hoaxers, Jerzy Kosinski, who, shrewdly sizing up intellectual culture in America, used to give, before genuflecting Yale undergraduates, lectures on such topics as “The Art of the Self: the theory of `Le Moi Poetique’ (Binswanger).”  Translation: for this wanger it’s all about moi.  Kosinski no doubt had a good time of it until, outed as a fraud, he had enough good grace, which Hitchens plainly lacks, to commit suicide.  And for Hitchens it’s also lucrative nonsense that he’s peddling.

“It’s not exactly a martyr’s fate defecting from The Nation, a frills-free liberal magazine, toAtlantic Monthly, the well-heeled house organ of Zionist crazies.  Although Kissinger affected to be a “solitary, gaunt hero,” Hitchens says, in reality he was just a “corpulent opportunist.”  It sounds familiar.

Note 1: Norman G. Finkelstein is currently writing a political memoir, which will serve as the introduction to a new edition of his book, The Rise and Fall of Palestine, to be published by New Press next year. 

Note 2: You may read the other parts on apostates in https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/noam-chomsky-the-apostates-preferred-target/

Noam Chomsky: The “Apostates” preferred target?
Who is an apostate? And why Chomsky, the dedicated humanist, Marxist and anti US liberal capitalism is elevated as an icon by the most powerful capitalist Empire?
An apostate is one who changes sides: You can be a Democrat and jump train to the Republican Party, shift affiliation to another sect within a religion or join another religion, have particular ideological system at youth and “get reformed” with age, abide by a set of value system at a difining period and vehemently criticize the same value set at later periods…
Consequently, being labelled an apostate should not carry any negative connotation: Transforming to another life-style should be appreciated as a valiant and courageous attitude for changing “who we are, and what we believe in…” on the ground that we acquired more knowledge, travelled outside our limited boundaries of confinement,  and had the opportunity to communicate with various other communities and civilizations…
Negative connotation is attached to those who turn coats for the simple exigency of feeling attracted to centers of power in order to survive or enjoying opportunities and privileges carried by associating with the power-to-be.  Coat-turners, as they feel obligated to viciously attacking the “opposite” side in order to satisfying pre-conditions for being admitted in the new club, are heaped with all kinds of nasty labels on the ground that they didn’t actually change their line of thought, but cashing on the comfort of the “other side” dominant position…
In general, apostates are not convincing in their newer mental position: It smacks of cut and paste line of thinking. Mostly, they cash in by reminding everyone “who they were”, as if this line absolve them from developing on their current position. It is normal: The original position was due to time and energy invested before adopting an ideology, a political stand, a religious affiliation…
When we change side in later years, it is very difficult to believe that the apostate invested as much time and energy and zeal in acquiring the same level of conviction and engagement as when younger.  The kinds of proof the apostate delivers to the “new alliance” is taking pictures with the elite of the other side and playing the mouthpiece in critical events and election periods…

For example, late Christopher Hitchens, an atheist and “Marxist” changed political attitudes and sided with all of Bush Junior decisions, and said: “I’m occasionally asked whether I still consider myself a Marxist.  Even if my “faith” had lapsed, I wouldn’t advertise it, not from shame at having been wrong (although admittedly this would be a factor) but rather from fear of arousing even a faint suspicion of opportunism.  To borrow from the lingo of a former academic fad, if, in public life, the “signifier” is “I’m no longer a Marxist,” then the “signified” usually is, “I’m selling out.”  No doubt one can, in light of further study and life experience, come to repudiate past convictions.  One might also decide that youthful ideals, especially when the responsibilities of family kick in and the prospects for radical change dim while the certainty of one’s finitude sharpens, are too heavy a burden to bear.”

Norman G. Finkelstein wrote: “…Although it might be hoped that this accommodation (apostasy), however disappointingly understandable, were accomplished with candor and an appropriate degree of humility rather than scorn for those who keep plugging away.  It is when the phenomenon of political apostasy is accompanied by fanfare and fireworks that it becomes truly repellent.

“Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler’s seizure of power: “The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat. You always wore it the `right’ way around.”

“If apostasy weren’t conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions.  But that’s never been the case.  The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power’s magnetic field, rarely away”.  However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to “see the light,” the impetus behind political apostasy is a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures.  Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value.

“Professional ex-radical Todd Gitlin never fails to mention, when denouncing those to his left, that he was a former head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).  Never mind that this was four decades ago; although president of my sixth-grade class 40 years ago, I don’t keep bringing it up.  Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on the exploitation of one’s political past?  In any event, it’s hard to figure why an acknowledgment of former errors should enhance one’s current credibility”.

“If, by a person’s own admission, he had got it all wrong, why should anyone pay heed to his or her new opinions?  Doesn’t it make more sense attending to those who got there sooner rather than later?  A member of the Flat-Earth Society who suddenly discovers the world is round doesn’t get to keynote an astronomers’ convention.  Indeed, the prudent inference would seem to be, once an idiot, always an idiot.  It’s child’s play to assemble a lengthy list – Roger Garaudy, Boris Yeltsin, David Horowitz, Bernard Henri-Levy… – bearing out this common sensical wisdom.

“An apostate is usually astute enough to understand that, in order to catch the public eye and reap the attendant benefits, merely registering this or that doubt about one’s prior convictions, or nuanced disagreements with former comrades (which, after all, is how a reasoned change of heart would normally evolve), won’t suffice.  For, incremental change, or fundamental change by accretion, doesn’t get the buzz going: there must be a dramatic rupture with one’s past.

“The rejection of one’s core political beliefs can’t but entail a rejection of the person holding them: if the beliefs were wrong, then one’s whole being was wrong.  Repudiating one’s comrades must also be a sorrowful burden.  It is not by chance that “fraternity” is a prized value of the left: in the course of political struggle, one forges, if not always literally, then, at any rate, spiritually, blood bonds.  Yet, the élan with which Hitchens has shed his past and, spewing venom, the brio with which he savages former comrades is a genuine wonder to behold.  No doubt he imagines it is testament to the mettle of his conviction that past loyalties don’t in the slightest constrain him; in fact, it’s testament to the absence of any conviction at all.

“Conversion and zealotry, just like revelation and apostasy, are flip sides of the same coin, the currency of a political culture having more in common with religion than rational discourse.  A rite of passage for apostates peculiar to U.S. political culture is bashing Noam Chomsky.  It’s the political equivalent of a ritual signaling that one has “grown up”  and grown out of one’s “childish” past.  It’s hard to pick up an article or book by ex-radicals – Gitlin’s Letters to a Young Activist, Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism… – that doesn’t include a hysterical attack on Chomsky.  Behind this venom there’s also a transparent psychological factor at play.

“Chomsky mirrors their idealistic past as well as sordid present, an obstinate reminder that they once had principles but no longer do, that they sold out but he didn’t.  Hating to be reminded, they keep trying to shatter the glass.  Chomsky is the demon from the past that, after recantation, no amount of incantation can exorcise.

“Two altogether opposed political stances can each draw an audience’s attention.  One is to be politically consistent, but nonetheless original in one’s insights; the other, an inchoate form of apostasy, is to bank on the shock value of an occasional, wildly inconsistent outburst.  The former approach, which Chomsky exemplifies, requires hard work, whereas the latter is a lazy substitute for it.

“Thus Nat Hentoff, the hip (heloves jazz) left-liberal writer, would jazz up his interminably dull Village Voice columns by suddenly coming out against abortion or endorsing Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination.  The master at this pose of maverick unpredictability used to be Christopher Hitchens.  Amidst a fairly typical leftist politics, he would suddenly ambush unsuspecting readers with his opposition to abortion, admiration of the misogynist and juvenile lyrics of Two Live Crew (“I think that’s very funny”), or support for Columbus’s extermination of Native Americans (“deserving to be celebrated with great vim and gusto”).  Immediately the talk of the town became, “Did you read Hitchens this week?”

“Although a tacit assumption equates unpredictability with independence of mind, it might just as well signal lack of principle.  As if to bear out this point, Hitchens has now repackaged himself a full-fledged apostate.  For maximum pyrotechnic effect, he knew that the “awakening” had to be as abrupt as it was extreme: if yesterday he counted himself a Trotskyist and Chomsky a comrade, better now to announce that he supports Bush and counts Paul Wolfowitz a comrade.  Their fates crossed when Wolfowitz and Hitchens both immediately glimpsed in September 11 the long-awaited opportunity: for Wolfowitz, to get into Iraq, for Hitchens, to get out of the left.  While public display of angst doesn’t itself prove authenticity of feeling (sometimes it might prove the reverse), a sharp political break must, for one living a political life, be a wrenching emotional experience.

Freud once wrote: “To discover our true human nature, just reverse society’s moral exhortations: if the Commandment says not to commit adultery, it’s because we all want to”.  This simple game can be played with Hitchens as well: when he avows, “I attempt to write as if I did not care what reviewers said, what peers thought, or what prevailing opinion might be,” one should read, “My every word is calculated for its public effect.”

“It’s a standing question as to whether the power of words ultimately derives from their truth value or if a sufficiently nimble mind can endow words with comparable force regardless of whether they are bearers of truth or falsity.  Deriding Chomsky’s “very vulgar” harnessing of facts, Hitchens wants to go beyond this “empiricism of the crudest kind.”  His own preferred epistemology is on full display, for all to judge, in Long Short War.  To prove that, after supporting dictatorial regimes in the Middle East for 70 years, the U.S. has abruptly reversed itself and now wants to bring democracy there, he cites “conversations I have had on this subject in Washington…”

“To demonstrate the “glaringly apparent” fact that Saddam “infiltrated, or suborned, or both” the U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, Hitchens adduces the “incontrovertible case” of an inspector offered a bribe by an Iraqi official: “The man in question refused the money, but perhaps not everybody did.”  Citing “the brilliant film called Nada,” Hitchens proposes this radical redefinition of terrorism: “the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint…”

“Hitchens resembles no one so much as the Polish émigré hoaxers, Jerzy Kosinski, who, shrewdly sizing up intellectual culture in America, used to give, before genuflecting Yale undergraduates, lectures on such topics as “The Art of the Self: the theory of `Le Moi Poetique’ (Binswanger).”  Translation: for this wanger it’s all about moi.  Kosinski no doubt had a good time of it until, outed as a fraud, he had enough good grace, which Hitchens plainly lacks, to commit suicide.  And for Hitchens it’s also lucrative nonsense that he’s peddling….

“It’s not exactly a martyr’s fate defecting from The Nation, a frills-free liberal magazine, toAtlantic Monthly, the well-heeled house organ of Zionist crazies.  Although Kissinger affected to be a “solitary, gaunt hero,” Hitchens says, in reality he was just a “corpulent opportunist.”

Note 1: Norman G. Finkelstein is an irreducible anti-Zionist, anti State of Israel apartheid policies in the Palestinian occupied land.  He is currently writing a political memoir, which will serve as the introduction to a new edition of his book, The Rise and Fall of Palestine, to be published by New Press next year.  


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

December 2011
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,385,004 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 732 other followers

%d bloggers like this: