At the Nieman Narrative Journalism Conference at Harvard University in 2002, Bob Giles moderated a discussion between eight writers on the best approach to creative non-fiction. Giles opened the discussion by asking a relatively simple and direct question: “What does it take to do fine narrative writing?”[1] Each practitioner answered differently, some have emphasized technique and theory while others have simply shared their experiences. However, I found a few answers that might be appropriate to describe and maybe help to define narrative journalism. Citeşte mai departe »

The United States have failed to see the evolution of warfare and the political reality of Iraq and Afghanistan before troops moved in. Every war brings changes to society and these particular armed conflicts facilitated the rise of the private military industry. Once the private military firms deployed armed personnel, a series of legal and ethical issues appear: is the employee to be regarded as a soldier or as a civilian? Can private military firms use lethal force? Under what circumstances? If abuses are committed, is the company to be held responsible since it provided weapons and ammunition?

The government failed to provide quick and concise solutions to these problems leading to serious human rights abuses.

Citeşte mai departe »

caption test

Twenty-two years ago, June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan made a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate at the Berlin Wall in which he implored Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Within a year, the wall that symbolized repression and tyranny did in fact come crashing down. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, there is something else that should likewise have been toppled: the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe.

Mr. Obama, Tear down this empire. Citeşte mai departe »

test test test test test test

Some political observers have declared that the election of the first black president signals a new era of post-racial politics in the United States — but the data show otherwise, two MIT researchers say. Through careful analysis of 2008 exit-poll data, the researchers found that Barack Obama won the election precisely because of his race, most significantly because of his appeal among black voters who turned out in record numbers.

“Ironically, the candidate whom commentators lionized for ending America’s debilitating racial divisions won the election on the basis of increasingly distinct white and nonwhite voting patterns,” wrote the two researchers — Charles H. Stewart III, the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor and head of the Department of Political Science at MIT; and Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of political science at MIT — in the current issue of Boston Review. “Racial polarization in American voting patterns was the highest it has been since the 1984 election.”

Despite many predictions, Obama did not “provoke a backlash among white voters,” according to research compiled by Stewart and Ansolabehere. However, the percentage of blacks voting Democratic rose from 88 percent in 2004 to 95 percent in 2008. Hispanic voters — who had been drifting into the Republican camp in recent years — heavily favored Obama; Hispanics voting Democratic rose from 56 percent to 67 percent. “This additional support among nonwhites proved decisive,” Stewart and Ansolabehere concluded.

Indeed, “had blacks and Hispanics voted Democratic in 2008 at the rates they had in 2004, McCain would have won,” they wrote.

This is not to say that Democrats lost ground among white voters; the Democrats did gain white votes but only a modest 3 million. “John McCain, on the other hand, received 2.3 million fewer votes than did George W. Bush in 2004. Most of this loss, 1.5 million votes, came from the net defection of blacks and Hispanics who voted Republican four years earlier; by comparison he lost ‘only’ 1.4 million white voters. Thus, Obama gained not only by bringing new minority voters into the electorate, but also by converting minority voters who had previously been in the GOP stable,” the researchers wrote.

Citeşte mai departe »

There are lots of things that need to be done so that the website can function without problems. Until then, this will serve as a test ground. In case you’ve stumbled upon Strategikon.org, please keep in mind that the posts available here are not relevant.

Strategikon.org will be launched soon!

Here’s some interesting reading material:

1. Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza

What Israel says it does and what it really does. The article follows the official Israeli viewpoints of the attack on the Gaza Strip. In other words, this is how Israel justifies the war.

2. Israel’s War Crimes

Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University and the UN’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, compares Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip with the Geneva Convention.

3. Israel has history of failure in ground attacks

I guess the title is quite true…

4. Escalation in Gaza

With no diplomatic solution on the horizon, Israel launches a risky ground attack.

5. Pacifying Gaza

See what the Israeli Noble Prize winners for Peace think about the attacks on the Gaza Strip.

And finally, I read everywhere in the news that Iran is smuggling weapons in Gaza, yet I never saw an in-depth article on this, only hollow official statements and information coming from the Israeli government. I never saw an article by an independent media outlet or journalist. Anyway, what weapons are they smuggling? If Hamas has Iran’s weapons, especially missiles or low-budget rocket launchers, why don’t they use them?

Caption test

Antiwar.com has published an article regarding some interesting aspects of Israel’s position towards freedom of information. There are two essential things that one can read in the article, among others:

1. Israel is banning the access of journalists in the Gaza Strip

2. The Israeli military is creating its own YouTube channel in order to present footage from offensive missions.

Now this is seriously damaging the right for information and above all the events in the Gaza Strip should be covered by international journals from either mainstream media outlets or independent. The ban of journalists obligates them to rely on different sources that have or have not witnessed an actual mission and, above all, they become dependent of official information that is given by the Israeli government or by Hamas spokesmen. In consequence, they cannot witness events for themselves.

The YouTube channel will, of course, broadcast the footage that the military wants it to be public and all dirty aspects of war will be censored. This somehow reminds me of the ‘Deutche Vochenschau’ which, in the Second World War, Germany presented news of victories to the general public even in the last months of the war.

It seems clear that Israel is tryin to control information, this is a serious violation of the right for information and freedom of speech in consequence. They might try to cover the ‘collateral damage’ made by their attacks such as the killing of civilians. However, in the same time, they might try to cover up something bigger, so what are they hiding?

image: the New York Times

Battlefield archaeology is not a new discipline in any way. It probably started out the very same day archaeology began to investigate the material reminiscence of the past. However, the term ‘battlefield archaeology’ can be misleading and easily misinterpreted. That is because if we use the term ‘battlefield archaeology’ we distance ourselves from the main priority of the battle, that being the studying of the place (i.e. field) where the battle took place, and reach the edges of history by focusing on the event (in the paper below, the authors comment on the terminology). With a mind on this it is preferred the use of the term ‘archaeology of battle’. You can find additional information in the introduction and the first chapter of the paper below.

‘Battlefield Archaeology – A Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict’ means an introduction in the subject and presents the steps taken by archaeologists in studying a battlefield.

The paper offers a decent amount of examples with images attached to the text for a more comprehensive guiding to the archaeology of conflict. However, if you prefer other examples as well, I suggest you take a look at the discoveries and digging methods used in the Teutobugn Forest. There the researchers try to puzzle together the disaster of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, where the Roman Empire lost three veteran legions and their commander. In fact, just a handful of soldiers survived to bring the news to Rome. The victory of the Germans meant the halt of Roman expansion beyond the Rhine.

Another great example worth pursuing is the famous ‘Custer’s last stand‘. For years archaeologists have dug in near region of the Little Bighorn river and with great success. Also, I believe Discovery Channel had a few documentaries about this and also you might be interested in viewing the Battlefield Detectives investigation into this matter.

Of course, through time humanity fought countless battles, thus we are not short of places to investigate. Anyway, those two examples mentioned above may represent also a guide to battlefield archaeology. The sites of the battles are relatively well known and research has proven to be fructuous.

‘Battlefield Archaeology – A Guide to Archaeology of Conflict” can be downloaded here (PDF).

The fortification of Arad dates back in the Medieval Ages as it was first built by the Turks in 1550. Later, however, by order of Maria Theresa of Habsburg the fortress was rebuilt in the Vauban style with battlements and bastions. Additionally, the fortress incorporates a number of baroque buildings within its walls. The construction work took more that 20 years to complete, from 1762 to 1783. Citeşte mai departe »