Saturday, July 22, 2006
Sustainable peace, dudes
Rock on. Maureen Dowd:
The more W. and his tough, by-any-means-necessary superbabe have tried to tame the Middle East, the more inflamed the Middle East has become. Now the secretary of state is leaving, reluctantly and belatedly, to do some shuttle diplomacy that entails little diplomacy and no shuttling. It’s more like air-guitar diplomacy.
Condi doesn’t want to talk to Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran — “Syria knows what it needs to do,’’ she says with asperity — and she doesn’t want a cease-fire. She wants “a sustainable cease-fire,’’ which means she wants to give the Israelis more time to decimate Hezbollah bunkers with the precision-guided bombs that the Bush administration is racing to deliver.
Congratulations, Floyd!
American Floyd Landis had a "perfect ride" over the hors-catégory climb, Col de Joux-Plane, to Morzine in Stage 16 two days ago. He put himself in a position to retake the yellow jersey in the Tour de France (after having cracked badly the previous day). Today, he did just that in the time trial, and should be wearing the jersey on the podium tomorrow in Paris.
Oh, and incidentally, Landis is well-liked by the French. It makes all the difference not being a jerk.
Oh, and incidentally, Landis is well-liked by the French. It makes all the difference not being a jerk.
Tortilla Holders for Seat Warmers
From the Laredo Morning Times:
Federal funding, homeland security and immigration were all topics of discussion, but City of Laredo delegates didn’t forget the warm tortillas. City officials took 250 pewter tortilla holders with them to Washington, D.C., for their annual March trip. The presents were bought from Marti’s in Nuevo Laredo and cost the city a total of $3,200.
“We gave them to every congressional leader and to different agencies as a gift,” said Xochitl Mora Garcia, city spokeswoman. “We try to make it unique or cultural.”
It's sinking too
Lousiana's sinking....
The sinking of Louisiana's Gulf coast could be due to the shallowest delta sediments pushing down the underneath layers, a new study suggests.Louisiana's coastal erosion causes the loss of land at a catastrophic rate of 25 to 35 square miles per year, equivalent to one football field every 15 minutes. [Map]
Many scientists believe that the subsidence, as the sinking is called, takes place because as sediment accumulates and the Mississippi Delta thickens, the crust of the Earth as a whole gets pressed downward. The withdrawal of oil, gas, and groundwater are also blamed for the submerging delta. (Similar subsidence has been noted in Southern California and in many other states due to extensive pumping of groundwater, petroleum products and other reasons.)
Just say "Don't Kill Me"
Avant News:
A coalition of American conservatives led by Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dr. James Dobson and Newt Gingrich issued yesterday the "Don't Kill Me" Canon, intended to crystallize some of the right wing's often incompatible moral imperatives into a simple, easy-to-remember catch-phrase, "Don't Kill Me"...
"It took a hell of a lot of head-scratching, but I think we've finally come up with a basic premise that everyone can agree on," Mr. Frist said. "Plus, it's simple enough that just about anyone in our base can grasp it, and you can explain it in a thirty second issue ad, both feathers in our caps."
The "Don't Kill Me" Canon reads: "It is morally acceptable to kill anyone who can expressly state 'Don't kill me'. In all other cases, it is not morally acceptable."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Hot air
Texas is the largest contributor by far of carbon emissions among all the US states. The US is the largest emitter by far among all nations - about 25% of the total, while having 5% of the global population. China is second with about 14% of total emissions (but this hides potential emissions from the US due to the import/export imbalance between China and the US - see here).
Texas may be about to increase those emissions in the interests of "good business." This is the sort of perverse incentive that arises in Kyoto Protocol policies as well. TXU has decided to make an art of it by investing in pollution so that it can later meet regulatory requirements to reduce pollution. Perverse.
Texas may be about to increase those emissions in the interests of "good business." This is the sort of perverse incentive that arises in Kyoto Protocol policies as well. TXU has decided to make an art of it by investing in pollution so that it can later meet regulatory requirements to reduce pollution. Perverse.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today reported that TXU, a Dallas-based utility, is building 11 power plants that use pulverized coal.
The paper notes that pulverized coal "releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, the most worrisome of several heat-trapping gases widely blamed for global warming." The 11 new plants would more than double the company's carbon-dioxide emissions, from 55 million tons in 2004 to more 133 million tons in 2011.
The WSJ says TXU may be building the plants to take advantage of future restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions. By building the plants, TXU could earn "allowances" based on its levels of carbon-dioxide emissions -- the higher the emissions, the larger the pollution allowances. Critics say the system essentially "rewards" firms that produce higher emissions before regulations go into effect.
Rehumanize 2
As Israeli bombs rain down on Beirut, the people of the city are once again living with the horror of war. In an intimate diary, 30-year-old Lebanese artist Zena el-Khalil describes helping foreigners escape, the nightly rocket attacks - and how she couldn't leave her sick friend behind.See the account in The Guardian [via email from friends].
How to successfully build nations
At some point, the Bush administration should tell the world precisely by what criteria they define the "success" or "effectiveness" of their foreign policy. If the main criterion is growing death and anarchy, they're doing a bang-up job.
The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan today described the situation in the country as "close to anarchy" with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.
Quote of the day...
...comes from... the always-sharp Molly Ivins (via John Brown).
I think the problem is the rest of the world doesn’t understand Dekes (Delta Kappa Epsilon). We need a Deke short-course in embassies around the globe.
Friday dinner party conversation stopper
I have been remiss on these of late. I conjecture with sadness that many a dinner party conversation has waxed prolixly as a consequence, much to the reader's tongue-tired dismay. For this unfortunately loquacious situation, I can only offer my sincerest regrets, as well as a quotation which shall most certainly be of the fondest utility in foreclosing avenues of conversation this evening and thus returning the world to laconic, graceful silence.
"Affability contains no hatred of men, but for that very reason too much contempt for men."
- Nietzsche
"Affability contains no hatred of men, but for that very reason too much contempt for men."
- Nietzsche
What's up with Israel?
Pat Lang, of Sic Semper Tyrannis, talks with Wolf Blitzer at CNN. Pat has the transcript up on his blog. (Thanks, CM Mayo).
Well in this, as in many situations in war and politics, in fact you often have to choose between two bad alternatives. Now having done what they have done now, they are now in a position in which in four, five, six days, a week, two weeks, whatever it is, they're going to decide that they have no choice but to put a large force into southern Lebanon. And that's going to hurt them badly for a long time. In a lot of these things, once you start down the road, having made a bad decision, you're just stuck.See also another post today on the Americo-Israeli penchant for rather disturbingly unrealistic policy fantasies.
Rice says she believes that crushing Hizballah will at long last trigger the Middle Eastern version of the post Soviet Union "Velvet Revolution" which she believes is "just around the corner." Naive? You bet.
The Israelis seem to be even more egregious fantasists operating on the basis of imitation of the kid we all remember from the school yard who announced to you that he was going to beat you (Lebanon) up until you you became his friend. In this case there is a further refinement in that the bully (Israel) insists that you have to beat your cousin (Hizballah ) up as proof of your sincerity.
The latest newsroom fantasy insists that the Israelis will not have to occupy south Lebanon for long because the Lebanese Army is going to come down to take over the role of excluding the Hizballah (by force) from the area and that various foreign countries will contribute troops to a force to back up the Lebanese Army in keeping Hizballah fighters out of the area (by force).
More war, more of the time
The leader of Somalia's Islamic militias called on all Somalis to wage holy war against Ethiopia on Friday, a day after Ethiopian troops rolled into the country to protect the weak UN-backed government the Islamic group has challenged for power.
Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, in a radio broadcast, said Ethiopia had deployed troops to the government's base in Baidoa, 240 kilometers, or 150 miles, northwest of Mogadishu, to bolster what he described as a puppet regime. He said President Abdullahi Yusuf, his longtime rival, has "been a servant of Ethiopia for a long time."
Hobbesian Iraq
Scott Horton at Balkinization on the destruction of the state in Iraq. An Iraqi judge says to Horton that,
“We despised Saddam Hussein, and his overthrow raised such wonderful possibilities for Iraq. But how could a country like the United States behave so stupidly as it did in those first crucial months? Saddam was a nightmare. But our country had a strong state with secular traditions. That needed to be preserved at all costs. Instead the Americans smashed that state. What did they expect Iraqis would do? It sent people scurrying back to the basic building blocks of our society, which are the clans and tribes. People turned to them for basic self-protection, not because of any political conviction. And this has led directly to the social disintegration we have today. The choices that the coalition took had consequences. You destroyed the state and you failed to put order in its place. You created chaos, in other words. And now we have to try to live with the consequences of the coalition’s decisions.”These comments dovetailed with a “lessons learned” analysis I understand was done within the Department of Defense. As a part of the review, a “lack of cultural awareness” of Iraqi society was repeatedly cited. A DOD anthropologist notes that many of the most serious mistakes made in the early phase of the occupation relate to a misunderstanding of the consequences of the fall of the state. Just as my interlocutor noted, the people turned immediately to family ties for protection.
Surely political scientists already know this. The first chapters of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan reflect exactly the points that the Iraqi judge was making. With the collapse of the state and with no new order to replace it, Iraq fell into the war “of all against all.” Hobbes wrote,“During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man… To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.” (ch. 13).Put differently, the occupation heralded by the capture of Baghdad lacked the essential characteristic of an occupation - namely a new order. Hence, in Hobbesian terms, it was that form of war which encompasses the natural state of man.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Who started it?
Jonathan Versen has some further points about Israel-Lebanon that are mostly excluded from the current media discourse.
The New Domino Effect
Newt Gingrich said recently that we may as well call the mess in the Middle East "World War III." He may be more accurate than he thought.
Remember the "Axis of Evil"? Those were the good old days, the ones where the US administration felt on top of the world, yodeling from the Alps of global power. The US could pick out a few countries it really doesn't like, turn them into larger-than-life threats to America and Humanity and open up political and military fronts along their borders. One of them was invaded and occupied. The other two have taken the threats to heart. North Korea - at the time engaged in "sunshine diplomacy" with South Korea (which is still angry at the Bush administration for screwing that up) - now practices its missile launches, thus prompting the US to say "see?" Iran develops further its nuclear technology, discovers the US is more bark than bite now that it's bogged down in civil war in Iraq and fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and takes advantage of the situation to play itself up as the major regional power it has long aspired to be.
What's the common thread here? One was invaded and is now an utter hopeless mess about to turn into full-scale civil war between Shiite and Sunni. Tens of thousands of people are displaced within the country, perhaps 100,000 civilians are dead, the US basically still lives within its own private Green Zone, and the stable democracy that has been "just around the corner" for three years now looks farther than ever from being a reality. Many - Iraqis and even former Western diplomats - say that, frankly, Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. It's difficult to agree outright with that statement, but the fact that it exists speaks volumes about the occupation. More broadly speaking, the common thread is that, even if some of the domestic US audience still consumes administration optimism, the entire rest of the world views Iraq as both a failure for Iraq and a sign of serious American weakness. The bubble of singing from the hills is burst.
The second common thread is that North Korea and Iran, as well as other major geopolitical states such as China, Russia, India, and Venezuela, have all taken the opportunity presented by an incompetent American administration and its relatively weakened military capacities and seriously damaged political leverage to strike out on their own without the constraints of American wishes. The earlier threat of using nuclear weapons on Iran is itself a sign of weakness, given that nuclear weapons, regardless of their precision, are (and should be) always a very last resort under extreme circumstances. The threat itself seems to be more a matter of frustration than of level-headed foreign policy. The Bush administrations seems able only to continue to demonize its perceived opponents while engaging in negligible covert activities.
The third thread is that military grumblings are now coming from across the planet. Let's talk about a Domino Effect here.
Furthermore, the overall foreign policy centered on Iraq or on the "War on Terror" is quickly failing. Thus, we've seen three years of shifting goalposts, different policy expectations, tangled visions, inconsistent and contradictory policy objectives, and unforeseen outcomes. Policymakers and politicians have to respond to contingencies, so we shouldn't give too much weight to supposed hypocrisies between policy decisions made at one point in time and those made at another point in time. What we can give weight too, however, is the lack of control over these contingencies. When one loses control over one's responses to various contingencies, one is in deep trouble.
A number of developing issues renders the entire foreign policy scene even cloudier:
First, Al Qaeda has apparently been strengthened by the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations. Here and there, the US wins a battle and kills a high-profile enemy, but the broader "War on Terror" is going the wrong direction from the US's stated interests.
Second, the Israeli offensive against Lebanon has quickly dropped the pretense of being an effort to retrieve the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon itself - probably the most liberal, diverse, and cosmopolitan democratic state in the region - had been gradually recovering over the past fifteen years from its long civil war (largely by giving the Muslim population a larger voice in government, and through the recent withdrawal of Syrian troops). Over the course of a few days Lebanon's promising development has been drastically set back (see also here). What is Israel doing? It seems to think that it is setting Hezbollah back by a decade. One answer calls it a "war of extermination." One rightwing American commentator appears to agree approvingly. Charles Krauthammer suggests that,
Third, other spheres are opening up as we speak. Turkey has made noices about invading Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey has been a fragile ally of the US for years - the tide is turning the wrong direction on this alliance as anti-US sentiment grows. Taiwan ostentatiously showed off its deterrence capabilities today to China ("Paratroopers posing as Chinese communist soldiers floated to the ground, simulating an airborne assault...."). Pakistan is pressured from both its Middle Eastern front and its relation with India, since the Mumbai bombings. And so on....
Fourth, is the loss of moral authority. Here are three pessimistic reports from today: on Abu Ghraib, on Israeli bombardment as war crime, and on censorship of media coverage (echoing the US) in Israel. I've written quite a bit about the issue of moral authority. It's not unimportant. Some apparently feel that enough bombing, enough torture, and enough humiliation can force others into submission. Has that ever really been the case historically? What actually happens when a powerful state indiscriminately and disproportionally attacks a much less powerful state or group is that world opinion is likely to move against that first state, thus decreasing its actual power. Power is not only military and economic. It's also moral. The Bush administration has wrecked the United States' moral authority in the eyes of the world. We can pretend otherwise, but there is no doubting this. Israel is following suit right now. Americans from the top to the bottom of the political scale seem to have little understanding that moral authority, legitimacy, is the basis of international power. This is especially true when the military is bogged down and other states are willing to seek economic trade alternatives even to the detriment of losing a market.
What, then is the Domino Effect here? It is that invasion, occupation, and humiliation of a people has consequences that may be much more far-reaching than expected. This is not to say that the Iraq occupation is directly related to Taiwan firing missiles into the China Sea. It is to say that the military quagmire, loss of moral authority and legitimacy in the international sphere, and the general global view that the administration is incompetent have all led to an international climate in which obnoxious allies feel emboldened by the administration's penchant for war, and enemies are emboldened by the administration's inability to competently prosecute it.
UPDATE:
Daniel Nexon at Duck of Minerva has a nice piece on a different facet of the same issue: the question of collapsing American hegemony.
Remember the "Axis of Evil"? Those were the good old days, the ones where the US administration felt on top of the world, yodeling from the Alps of global power. The US could pick out a few countries it really doesn't like, turn them into larger-than-life threats to America and Humanity and open up political and military fronts along their borders. One of them was invaded and occupied. The other two have taken the threats to heart. North Korea - at the time engaged in "sunshine diplomacy" with South Korea (which is still angry at the Bush administration for screwing that up) - now practices its missile launches, thus prompting the US to say "see?" Iran develops further its nuclear technology, discovers the US is more bark than bite now that it's bogged down in civil war in Iraq and fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and takes advantage of the situation to play itself up as the major regional power it has long aspired to be.
What's the common thread here? One was invaded and is now an utter hopeless mess about to turn into full-scale civil war between Shiite and Sunni. Tens of thousands of people are displaced within the country, perhaps 100,000 civilians are dead, the US basically still lives within its own private Green Zone, and the stable democracy that has been "just around the corner" for three years now looks farther than ever from being a reality. Many - Iraqis and even former Western diplomats - say that, frankly, Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. It's difficult to agree outright with that statement, but the fact that it exists speaks volumes about the occupation. More broadly speaking, the common thread is that, even if some of the domestic US audience still consumes administration optimism, the entire rest of the world views Iraq as both a failure for Iraq and a sign of serious American weakness. The bubble of singing from the hills is burst.
The second common thread is that North Korea and Iran, as well as other major geopolitical states such as China, Russia, India, and Venezuela, have all taken the opportunity presented by an incompetent American administration and its relatively weakened military capacities and seriously damaged political leverage to strike out on their own without the constraints of American wishes. The earlier threat of using nuclear weapons on Iran is itself a sign of weakness, given that nuclear weapons, regardless of their precision, are (and should be) always a very last resort under extreme circumstances. The threat itself seems to be more a matter of frustration than of level-headed foreign policy. The Bush administrations seems able only to continue to demonize its perceived opponents while engaging in negligible covert activities.
The third thread is that military grumblings are now coming from across the planet. Let's talk about a Domino Effect here.
The first assumption claims that, because states are attracted to power and consistent demonstrations of strength, the more powerful a coalition leader is and the more clearly and reliably its power is projected, the more likely others are to align with it. It follows that a decline in a coalition leader's relative position causes defections--often to the rival side--on the part of its allies and potential partners (the unaligned). The second assumption claims that the more similar two or more states are ideologically, the more likely they are to unite politically. Lastly, it is assumed that certain ideologies (on account of their precepts) can render tight, insular coalition bonds as well as acute competition between rivals.Previously, the idea regarding Iraq was - on good days - that a democratic Iraq would prompt democratic reforms around the Middle East in a kind of domino effect once everyone saw how well Iraq was doing. That notion today looks as misguided as ever, especially as Iraq tumbles further towards civil war and Israel hints at full-scale invasion of Lebanon. The new and very real Domino Effect is a product of the situation of military and political leverage incapacity that American policies have wrought for itself. The Bush administration simply can't hold together a consistent set of allies where the glue is shared ideology or a clear policy vision. Frankly, it's unclear what these are. The US is thus relatively emasculated. This is what it means to call Iraq a "quagmire," not simply that the US has no clear exit strategy.
Furthermore, the overall foreign policy centered on Iraq or on the "War on Terror" is quickly failing. Thus, we've seen three years of shifting goalposts, different policy expectations, tangled visions, inconsistent and contradictory policy objectives, and unforeseen outcomes. Policymakers and politicians have to respond to contingencies, so we shouldn't give too much weight to supposed hypocrisies between policy decisions made at one point in time and those made at another point in time. What we can give weight too, however, is the lack of control over these contingencies. When one loses control over one's responses to various contingencies, one is in deep trouble.
A number of developing issues renders the entire foreign policy scene even cloudier:
First, Al Qaeda has apparently been strengthened by the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations. Here and there, the US wins a battle and kills a high-profile enemy, but the broader "War on Terror" is going the wrong direction from the US's stated interests.
Second, the Israeli offensive against Lebanon has quickly dropped the pretense of being an effort to retrieve the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon itself - probably the most liberal, diverse, and cosmopolitan democratic state in the region - had been gradually recovering over the past fifteen years from its long civil war (largely by giving the Muslim population a larger voice in government, and through the recent withdrawal of Syrian troops). Over the course of a few days Lebanon's promising development has been drastically set back (see also here). What is Israel doing? It seems to think that it is setting Hezbollah back by a decade. One answer calls it a "war of extermination." One rightwing American commentator appears to agree approvingly. Charles Krauthammer suggests that,
Just as in Kuwait in 1991,what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.Regardless, it is doubtful that Hezbollah can be defeated with a prolonged and painful regional war. Southern Lebanon was left to impoverishment and Hezbollah has built schools and clinics. Its influence is deeper than military. Neither can Hamas be defeated through prolonged war. Even in the event, it's highly unlikely that Israel would see any reduction in hostility towards its presence, but rather increased long-term hatred by the general population. It's difficult to appease families with dead relatives. And it's difficult to see this as a step in the right direction of Israeli security.
Third, other spheres are opening up as we speak. Turkey has made noices about invading Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey has been a fragile ally of the US for years - the tide is turning the wrong direction on this alliance as anti-US sentiment grows. Taiwan ostentatiously showed off its deterrence capabilities today to China ("Paratroopers posing as Chinese communist soldiers floated to the ground, simulating an airborne assault...."). Pakistan is pressured from both its Middle Eastern front and its relation with India, since the Mumbai bombings. And so on....
Fourth, is the loss of moral authority. Here are three pessimistic reports from today: on Abu Ghraib, on Israeli bombardment as war crime, and on censorship of media coverage (echoing the US) in Israel. I've written quite a bit about the issue of moral authority. It's not unimportant. Some apparently feel that enough bombing, enough torture, and enough humiliation can force others into submission. Has that ever really been the case historically? What actually happens when a powerful state indiscriminately and disproportionally attacks a much less powerful state or group is that world opinion is likely to move against that first state, thus decreasing its actual power. Power is not only military and economic. It's also moral. The Bush administration has wrecked the United States' moral authority in the eyes of the world. We can pretend otherwise, but there is no doubting this. Israel is following suit right now. Americans from the top to the bottom of the political scale seem to have little understanding that moral authority, legitimacy, is the basis of international power. This is especially true when the military is bogged down and other states are willing to seek economic trade alternatives even to the detriment of losing a market.
What, then is the Domino Effect here? It is that invasion, occupation, and humiliation of a people has consequences that may be much more far-reaching than expected. This is not to say that the Iraq occupation is directly related to Taiwan firing missiles into the China Sea. It is to say that the military quagmire, loss of moral authority and legitimacy in the international sphere, and the general global view that the administration is incompetent have all led to an international climate in which obnoxious allies feel emboldened by the administration's penchant for war, and enemies are emboldened by the administration's inability to competently prosecute it.
UPDATE:
Daniel Nexon at Duck of Minerva has a nice piece on a different facet of the same issue: the question of collapsing American hegemony.
Back of My Neck, Getting Dirty and Gritty
Summer in Encinal. The two big goats are lying in the shade under Pasqual's trailer; it is so hot, his improbably-mixed group of lame, limping dogs ignores you as you walk by. You are determined to adjust to the heat—not to succumb, but to invite it to enter you, to acknowledge that heat is a thing not of the air so much as a thing in the air, a substance, a presence, a consequence. Everything appears to be dying. You put basil out hopefully yesterday in a pot in the shade of a tree; today it is a small black smudge on the soil, the shadow it might have cast. Tomato blossoms last set in mid-May; the plants themselves—gaunt, brown, brittle—haunt their cages sadly. Fine, reddish-brown dust scours everything: dust collecting in doorways, dust covering discarded, brightly-colored plastic garbage and toys along the streets and in driveways, dust in the air, along with the heat. Light ferrying heat batters all it can, relentlessly, finding its way between blades of brown grass, finding its way into the soil. The water lines, just beneath the surface, absorb heat: you brush your teeth for weeks with hot water from the cold tap. Trash lay everywhere, but especially in the usual places: on all sides of badly-used trailer homes, the interstate underpass, blown up against fences (stuck to barbed-wire fences like yours), Wal-Mart bags caught, blowing, in trees. If you pick up the trash—a beer bottle, say, or a plastic bag, or a wadded-up mass of fast food containers, stuffed back into the paper sack that had held so much promise, initially, or the compressed, unpleasant ball that is a used diaper—if you pick up trash this time of day it is hot in your hand and if you put it into a big bag that bag rubs hotly against your leg, sticking if you are foolish enough to expose your skin to all of this. If you pick up all the trash you can see in a half block, more will arrive tomorrow, the child of the wind and an attitude, familiar to places with extractive economies, that prefers trash in an already-depleted landscape to trash in the car: the wind will blow the newly-discarded to replace what you have collected; the wind will blow the dust to reveal trash you had not discovered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)