Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

I am not going to argue this at that level.

It is a blanket thing. And I know several leftist, far leftist in fact, colleagues who agree with me: social scientists ought to reject pseudopsychiatric language entirely in their writing.

There is no place for "anglophobia" or "yankeephobia," for that matter. This is something I have become increasingly aware of in only the last year or so. But it makes sense.

Psychiatric vocab has carried much weight in non-medical popular thinking since the 1950s. An early example of its misuse occurred when D. Eisenhower explained that he relieved R. Oppenheimer from the hydrogen nuclear weapon project, not because the latter was objecting to creating it, but rather because he suffered from "a character disorder." Nice way to avoid exchanging with Oppenheimer, no?

I mentioned Eisenhower because, as a leftist, I think you will easily see my point. Now, turn it around and look at how other leftists, the ones we have both cited, have used and abused psychiatry, too...

[On the other hand]

Yeah, I basically agree with you, even though I'm maybe not as puritian about purging all psychiatric-dervied jargon from the vocabulary. I also wonder at what point something is no longer carrying weight as a psychiatric term, and has simply entered the vernacular as a term for describing a strictly social or political phenomenon.

I know a lot of gay activists like to use the phrase "homophobia" to mean any dislike of homosexuals. And I basically accept it as well, since to me, it's not really meant as a medical description anymore. I do wonder, though, what these activists thought when one of the killers of Matthew Shephard was quoted in the press describing himself as having a medical condition that compelled him toward anti-gay violence.

[Gopher]

[LosSeoul]

[ytuque]

[LosSeoul]

Korea Times? No, actually I lived in Lebanon. In South Beirut actually...where that islamic "terrorist organization" that you know so much about controls right. If you are talking about Hezbollah then, again, you are reiterating, my point. First of all to most people in the Middle East Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. They are currently an active political party in Lebanon and part of the government. The statement that the run the south of the country is another fallacy. First of all there is Saida, a large city in SOUTHERN LEBANON, is the home district of not only Siniorra but Hariri! Lebanese troops are stationed with UNIFIL troop in the border with Israel. Alcohol is common throughout the south and there are no aspects of Sharia law...so much for Islamic Terrorist controlling the South of our Country.

As for the issue of Christians leaving Lebanon...this isn't something unique to Christians. Traditionally Christians have been better off financially, providing them to leave a country plagued by war and terrorism by it's southern neighbor (Israel).

In regards to the Coptic's in Egypt I acknowledged that what happened recently is a set back, but in general things are usually uneventful. Egypts government is corrupt, dictatorship but its important to remember that this dictatorship is held up by the United States and is extremely unpopular throughout the middle east.

[Gopher]

LosSeoul, on the one hand, it is accurate to show Hezbollah as aspiring to more than mere terrorism in its politics and operations. Same for Hamas.

Both immitate the Muslim Brotherhood and of course Iran's clergy, from Qajar times forward. They move into social spheres, including the law, education, and other services, to exploit state shortcomings and/or failings at the grassroots level. They collect taxes from their base via donations, and from foreign funding and advice that you seem to ignore or at least downplay dishonestly. In any case, they thus position themselves as a counterstate, contesting authority.

On the other hand, you completely, if predictably, ignore their extremist Islamic identity politics. This makes you sound like their apologist, their PR man. Is that how you wish to sound? If not, try a tact that does not so firmly go against the legitimate government of, say, Lebanon.

[Pluto]

[LosSeoul]

[Gopher]

I know very well how Lebanese politics have been structured and have functioned -- I can go back to the French mandate, I can even go back to Ottoman Tanzimat times if necessary.

Hezbollah remains (1) Tehran's creation and an Islamic identity movement; (2) the legitimate and popular political party and social services agency that you want to emphasize; and (3) an illegitimate military force that has no qualms at all about resorting to terrorism, especially against Americans such as Lt. Col. W. Higgins, and also against Israelis. And when I say "illegitimate," I mean that within any given nation-state, only the national govt and not the political parties, especially not the oppositionist ones, may decide and conduct foreign relations, and only the national govt may legitimately use military force within its borders and across them. The Iranian govt, and before it the Syrian govt, has completely violated the Lebanese govt's sovereignty here.

Now, you may want to defend Hezbollah's politics and methods by citing Israeli politics and methods. And that is a neverending argument, depending on one's personal politics. But the question of legitimacy with respect to foreign relations and military force remains clear. And I think you need to begin by acknowledging all of this and not just the parts which place Hezbollah in a purely favorable light. Hezbollah exists in a very grey area, white in some cases, but very black in others.

Surely, you can appreciate this?

[ytuque]

[LosSeoul]

[Gopher]

[Reggie]

I definitely forgive Hezbollah for destroying those tanks I bought Israel. Easy come, easy go.

[LosSeoul]