I have to say

I actually got quite a bit of work done last night. I still have a lot of work to do, of course, but I'm getting there. I have six or seven books in my to-library bag, with at least one more to add to the collection after a few more pages. I also did some writing on PF (730 words), which is good because it's the one I have the fewest of my own words on paper for. I'm sure I'll add to that today while I'm reading. It's important to write things down as soon as I think about them (seems obvious, but it's easy to forget), instead of telling myself I'll remember things later. I won't.

I was going to start working earlier, but I wanted to read about what's going on in Kosovo. The wording in some of the quotes is ...interesting. Do I go on a little rant? I don't know if I want to. Given the subject matter of the books I've been reading (cultural paranoia, apocalyptic temper, inevitability, etc.), and the historical example of rapidly escalating bifurcation into opposing sides over a relatively small-scale event, I don't want to come off as pessimistic. It's not that I don't think there is inherently something wrong with Kosovo being an independent nation, especially given recent history. What concerns me, moving beyond the region, is something we talked about in my intro to international relations class or whatever it was called way back when: unilaterally declaring independence usually results in going unrecognized by the international community because if we (whoever "we" are) recognize one, we'd have to recognize more than one, and who gets to make that decision - who deserves self-rule and who doesn't? The answer may seem fairly obvious - the richest and/or most powerful nation-states - but as the example of Kosovo makes perfectly clear, "we" do not always speak as a group.

And another thing: How does Kosovo not set a precedent? I fully understand that saying “Kosovo cannot be seen as a precedent for any other situation in the world today,” (Condoleeza Rice) is a warning - not necessarily just to Russia-backed movements in Georgia - but to other regions aspiring to self-rule, but even given the legal definition of the term 'precedent,' that a past action justifies whatever it is the justifier is trying to do, the word 'precedent' simply means something that has happened in the past, something that precedes. The fact that it 'cannot be seen' is completely nonsensical. Of course it can be seen and will be seen as a precedent or as an example, whether positively or negatively from one angle or another.

If this event doesn't result in violence, hopefully it does set a precedent. There are so many secessionist movements around the world that inflict daily violence on their communities, I just... I don't understand why violence is preferable to non-violence. I just don't. And I never will.