Macaca?

So Senator Allen of Virginia called a photographer, who appeared to be of Indian descent, by the name “macaca”, and then welcomed him to America.

So far, so good. But wait. Why use the word “macaca”? I first thought that must have been the photographer’s name, I had never heard it before. I wasn’t the only one. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary had not a clue. Even the august Oxford English Dictionary offered only vague definitions like “monkey”, “baboon”, “lemur”. But it turns out that “Macaca” is also considered to be a derogatory name which refers to people of color generally being similar to monkeys or baboons. Apparently it is a French derogatory comment about Arabs in general. Allen’s mother was raised in France and in French-speaking Tunisia, and Allen apparently studied French in college and speaks it quite well.

So Allen had insulted this guy. OK. So what? No big deal. Of course, I’m white and was not impressed, and assumed that people of color would be impressed enough to remember the comment later when in the voting both. Then Senator Allen wrung the big bell. He told reporters that he had never heard of the word before and that he had just made it up on the spur of the moment.

Now, Allen has insulted ME! He has also insulted all of mankind! He apparently thinks we are dumb enough to believe such a stupid tale. That tells us what he really thinks about us. And this is a US senator? Running for reelection? And wants to be our president?

OK. Here’s a new definition for the magic word macaca: a) A universal insult. b) Describes any individual so referred to as a gullible person devoid of understanding, comprehension, rational abilities, and perception. c) Precisely categorizes any person using this word as crude, intolerant, insulting, precocious, unmanly, prejudicial and destructive.

Now some are saying that Allen made this apology to comfort his “base”. Ooohhhh, now he’s insulting them! (Wonder if any of them will notice that?)

© John Womack, 2006. All Rights Reserved.

A Pyrrhic Loss?

We all know that a Phrrhic Victory is a great “win” on a battlefield that so devastates the apparent victor that it cannot recover.
We may have just seen Hizbollah suffer a great “Pyrrhic Loss” to Israel in Lebanon.
Israel won the battlefield, it killed more people than Hizbollah did, it destroyed (or aborted) vast numbers of Kitusha rockets and Lebanon is in shambles.
Yet Hizbollah held off Israel for 25 days, killed many of their soldiers in fighting, and apparently left Israel with no choice but to withdraw.
Hizbollah began as a problem to Lebanon and the entire Arab world. It now stands as a great hero and new leader of that same world.
Hizbollah has been a provider to the people of food, medicine and other needs and is now shifting into high speed operation to clean up Lebanon, repair the houses, provide money to the people (up to $12,000 per person), and is taking over as a leading functionary in the affairs of Lebanon.

© John Womack, 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Collateral Action

It seems clear that the Israeli attacks against Lebanon go far beyond any type of generally known or acknowledged provocation by either Lebanon or Hezbollah.
This also seems true of the Israeli attacks against Hamas in Gaza.
These are modern, technologically sophisticated military action against unarmed and completely defenseless civilians.
They appear to be aided and helped by the United States government, considering that American military equipment is used by Israel and there has been a hurried resupply of Israeli troops of munitions from America.
These attacks also proceed in defiance of a request by the United Nations to cease and to work for a peaceful settlement.
The attacks also appear to employ cluster bomb units which are designed to deny access to a battlefield by enemy troops, yet they are being dropped in civilian quarters and residential areas.
Meanwhile, Hizbollah fighters and Israeli soldiers are dying here and there, but the real carnage is being wreaked in Israel and especially in Lebanon. The battlefield has become a place for “Collateral Action” while the real action takes place against children, women, infrastructure, electricity production, water and sewage plants.
Condolezza Rice is hiding. She speaks of seeking a "significant" settlement of problems - clearly letting the war drag on to punish Hizbollah - and to hell with Lebanon.
It seems apparent that the president’s administration is incapable of initiating action to help solve the problems. They seem to appreciate Hate and appear to watch this war with envy and anticipation of the next war.

© John Womack, 2006. All Rights Reserved.