Monday, May 31, 2010

Israel Failed in Executing its Response to the Turkish Flotilla

Israel’s number one navel Special Forces unit, Shayetet 13, succeeded in its mission to halt, commandeer, and divert the “aid” flotilla to Gaza. However if the underlying objective was anything more than stopping unauthorized aid, they failed miserably.

First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.

Four questions:

1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?

2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?

3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?

4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?

If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?

Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?

Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea

China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.

Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.

The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.

The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.


Why is the reality being ignored?

Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.

In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.

A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.

Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.

I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?

To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.

But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?

In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.

So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?

Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.

To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.


In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (2) "Society and Potential"

In the previous post discussing the potential roots of "will", we concluded that potential can be an individualized source for "will". Before responding to the next question I would like to respond to one readers comment.

They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?

I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).

Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?

I would like to elaborate on this question.

For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?

For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.

Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.

All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.

However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.

1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.

The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.

What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.

Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?

Or perhaps they may ask:

What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict

This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.

On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".

All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!

If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.

The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Between a Mosque and a Hard Place

Let’s say that Christians decided that it is important to have a Church overlooking Dachau, a German concentration camp where 100,000s of Jews and others were exterminated . Would that be wrong?

On one hand just because the Nazi’s of Germany happened to be both from a Christian nation and expressing an extreme manifestation of Antisemitism is not a reason to besmirch the whole Christian faith 60 years later.

At the same time it would be in very bad taste and completely unnecessary. Not because the Church was directly responsible for the Holocaust, but because there is an association. Thankfully the Church has not placed Jews in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between commonsense-respect or being labeled anti-Christian.

Yet what would happen if the Church did insist on building a towering church overlooking Dachau BEFORE the actual Dachau memorial was constructed, say in 1955? Then Jews would be forced to choose between being seen as unjustly stereotyping all Christians or feeling that the memory of their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters was not receiving the respect it deserved. After all most individuals visiting the site would easily make a hurtful connection between the Cross, Antisemitism, and the Nazis.

Why then have some in the American-Muslim community placed us, average Americans, in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of choosing between the victims of horrific Islamic-terror and our values of absolute tolerance?

Who gains from building a Mosque 15 stories above the site of ground-zero, BEFORE ground-zero and the wounds that it opened recover? Bigots will become more bigoted, stereotypes will be affirmed, and many victims will feel once again victimized. Is there no location available for 100 million elsewhere in Manhattan?

How can the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba (this term has very sinister connotations, accidentally?) Initiative, be so sure that they can raise the 100 million necessary to follow thru on this project? Are there so many supporters of this project IN our country? If not who is funding this and why?

Perhaps it is a ploy to “reveal” Americas anti-Muslim and hypocritical nature, and was never intended to actually be built, or even a right-wing conspiracy to galvanize anti-Muslim sentiment in America. Or a left-wing conspiracy to force America to accept Islam while affirming American values to the rest of the world.

Whatever the warped meaning, they, whoever they are, have put us between a Mosque and a hard place.

The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (1) "The will to will"

The CHABAD masters discuss the relationship between will/want (ratzun) and enjoyment/pleasure (tanug). One way to frame the following conversation is to ask “which one plays the role of cause in the relationship?” Do I will because I enjoy or do I enjoy because I want? The masters respond that will precedes enjoyment, to the extent that it can dictate that one enjoy what they previously despised. For example, I will to be healthy so I begin to do that which I despise, exercise. Eventually I begin to enjoy exercise.

The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.

Two Questions

The first question:

How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?

This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.

EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.

The next potential response to our question is potential.

Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.

But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.

Imagine or remember.

You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.

You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).

If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.

Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.

Question number two:

Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?

In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Why the United States Should Buy ALL the Opium in Afghanistan

One of the great existential problems facing Western culture generally, and America specifically is our “happy drive” -we justify almost any means to feel happy. The implications are far reaching and sometimes indiscernible. Thus one means to achieve happiness in our smile-craving society is easily identifiable, drugs, opium. However the effects of our pursuit of smiles through opium are far less obvious. All this is directly tied to our boots-on-the-ground war in Afghanistan, and may actually offer us an unprecedented opportunity. Hear me out.

The history of opium use in the US goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and is connected to every day terms like snake-oil salesman and hippies ( those who lay on their sides in a opium induced stupor, and developed hip ailments). Opium has both a physical and more symbolic affect on our society. Despite the DEA’s efforts and our tax dollars, opium, in the guise of heroin, continues to afflict the US - both as a destructive drug and as a major cause behind the spread of HIV/AIDS. Its affects are also more subtle as the relationship between the materialistic/superficial tendencies of American culture and drug use (illicit and otherwise) is often used a propaganda tool of the anti-west coalitions. Islamists, are quick to point to the West/Americas decadence as reflected by its drug problem. Just as the Soviet Union was accused of facilitating drug use in America (true or false), as a way of undermining US society, and damming it.

Yet the opium problem has not gone away and unbeknownst to the general public, has actually grown exponentially in unforeseen ways. I am not talking so much about South America; that is primarily a cocaine and marijuana issue.Instead I refer to the international terrorist drug-cartel alliance. That terrorist groups like Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Qaida (Sunni) use drug trade to finance their illicit activities is an old and well researched fact. Moreover the fact that our battle against drugs, one evil, is also a battle against terror, another evil, is not coincidental considering the unifying factor. Putting that aside.

Al Qaida and the Taliban should not be conflated –the former practices terror to destroy the West the latter for a disparate number of reasons. Regardless, both use Afghanistan’s number one cash-crop and export, opium, to fund their actions. Indeed according to some estimates 93 percent of global opium originates in Afghanistan, at a gross profit of over 64 billion. The ramifications of this are simple, if America destroys opium they also destroy the number one source of income for over 200,000 Afghan families. The Taliban and other associated terror groups buy the opium and the loyalty from the famers and export it for a exponential profit.
It is also true that Afghanistan experienced a decrease in opium use after the Taliban takeover in 1994, as its cultivation was seen as un-Islamic. At the same time the current reality stands; the anti-western factions in Afghanistan love their opium. Also true is the fact that the Petraeus/Obama approach has been to move away from targeting opium production, as it alienates the local tribesmen.Why don’t we go a step further.

Let us buy the opium at a higher price than the Taliban and “others” –all of it. Furthermore we should help develop and support an opium cartel in Afghanistan, thereby centralizing it and controlling it. What we do with the drugs is irrelevant to the producers. The bottom line is we have a unique opportunity here to cut off a major source of income to terror, and the global drug trade. Furthermore, it will be cheaper than our current strategy of dumping more troops into an impossible situation. As we have troops on the ground we can implement the strategy immediately, and ensure that it becomes a reality.

I wonder if the State Department considered this strategy and then rejected it because of the fear that we will perceived as facilitating the drug trade, or worse that our soldiers are actually the muscle protecting it.

Let us be realistic, we have a chance to take 93 percent of opium of the market, cripple terror funding, and even win in Afghanistan. Most importantly we should not forget that this opium strategy is central to our nation building approach. After all a coherent and functioning Afghan government means a government that can take control of a opium sector that we will have hopefully tamed. It is not as if the drug problem will disappear but that fact shouldn’t stop us from dealing the terrorists a resounding blow.

Monday, May 17, 2010

The only path to defeating the emerging Iran and Others coalition:

A costly strike on Iran’s nuclear arsenals by Israel or America is the only way to draw out Iran’s poison short-term. Yet all agree that it is only temporary solution.
The only way for peace-loving nations of the world to defang Iran and to reclaim the allegiance of the "non-aligned" nations of the world is to take away their unearned source of power, oil.

This is not a new idea. But oil interests both in and out of the United States have not only prevented US replacement of oil, it has also prevented Israel from turning its powerful technological industry focus on an oil solution.
While there are no clear indications that Israel’s lack of major progress in this field is due to American interests, the rational is clear.

1. If Israel is willing to continually freeze building in Israel, and place its people in danger because of American peace demands, i.e. American interests. Then it would be a cinch for American government urged on by industry, and Saudi Arabia, to influence Israel away from oil replacement.
2. In 1991, after the UN/US coalition invaded Iraq (1) Israel was attacked by a barrage of Iraqi scuds, and did not retaliate. One of these scuds was responsible for killing scores of US service-people in Saudi Arabia. Because it would endanger the US Arab/Muslim supported coalition.

These are just two KNOWN examples of Israel taking it on the chin for the sake of its alliance with America.

Now that the Obama’s efforts of reconciliation with Russia/Iran/Cuba/Turkey/Syria etc. failed, gaining nothing but a weaker America, that is not pursuing much needed missile defense in Eastern Europe. It is time for America to be smart and realistic about the future.
We can defeat the enemies of America, ALL who just happen to be the enemies of Israel, but depriving them, Russia Iran, of their unearned source of income. Oil. Besides it will result in a cleaner world, more jobs, and a more predictable economy. Let Israel and America focus their collective brilliance and do away with oil dependence.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Erdogan and Turkey: Are the Israelis right and has Ataturks legacy failed?

Israel attempt to bolster its relationship with Turkey with a February transfer of Herons (one of the most advanced Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems) to Turkey, had failed. This is due in no small part to Turkeys rhetoric prone Prime Minister Recap Erdogan, who is fixated on destroying the Israeli-Turkish relations.

The Israeli-Turkish relationship has always been emotionless, uncaring, and uneasy. At the same time there has been undeniable strategic partnership since Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, in 1949. The relationship has paid off. Turkey has gained entrance into NATO, and has the 5th largest, and very well equipped, military on earth.

However this April’s revelation that Israel rejected Turkeys request for the Barack 8, a 360 degree naval defense shield, is a tangible indicator that Erdogans rhetoric driven campaign against Israel is succeeding. Israel, and its research partner India, fear Turkey will transfer advanced technologies to belligerent nations like Pakistan and Iran. The fact that Turkey is moving away from its historical relationship with Israel was affirmed when they pulled out of a NATO exercise due to the participation of the Israeli Air Force (AIF). If Turkey had not then staged military exercises with its neighbor Syria, and openly declared that it will not stand by if Israel launches an attack on Syria or Iran, the former move could have seen as simply a protest of the Gaza war of 2008.

The bottom line is that Erdogan has been rather aggressive and successful in his attempt to separate Turley and Israel. But why?

Unless Erdogan is looking for war, Erdogans effort to elevate Turkey to the regional power will have include the collaboration of Israel. Clearly Erdogan is not furthering that goal, at least not through peaceful means. Likewise, the view that Erdogans need to bash Israel to gain the trust of the Arab world is untenable. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all work closely with Israel and would certainly accept Turkey into their alliance against Iran.

Instead Erdogan has aligned Turkey with the minority alliance in the region Syria-Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah. This too is confusing considering that Iran is aiming for regional hegemony, by pursuing nuclear weapons, weapons that would essentially obviate Turkey’s powerful, but un-nuclear military. Is Turkey submitting to Iran!

From a regional perspective it is difficult to defend Erdogans policies towards Israel. Then again that may be the key to understanding Erdogan – his aims are domestic not regional.

Over the last two years Turkey has seen two alleged coup attempts by the military, or so the AK, Erdogans Islamist-leaning party, would have you believe. The first in 2008 ostensibly was executed by the ultranationalist gang, "Ergenekon,” That aborted coup resulted in 400 arrests and zero known convictions ( Interestingly, the left/liberal-leaning new paper, Taraf, broke the story (http://www.csmonitor.com) and later alleged that the Israeli foreign intelligence unit, Mossad, was behind the attempt. The evidence rings of blood-libel proportions –a sack with an Israeli flag and Mossad memorabilia (?!) was found in a conspirators home. The left/Islamic relationship in secular countries is an established phenomenon; suffice to say it requires a separate analysis).

The second coup occurred in 2010 and included the arrest of 7 high ranking military officers, including the three former heads of the navy, air force, and Special Forces, along with 50 others.

For those that are unfamiliar with the modern Turkish system, this is part of the Turkish political process. The Turkish secular revivalist, and founder of the Modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk, established a system whereas the military in Turkey is empowered to ensure the secular nature of Turkey –a check on the government if you will. Since 1945 there have been 3 major coups conducted by the military in 1961, 1970, 1980.

Some explain Erdogans attack as an attempt to subdue the military which impedes Turkey’s aspirations in the international community -and has often been pointed to as a major barrier to Turkey’s acceptance into the EU. At the same time Erdogan has repudiated Turkeys desire to join the EU, and his recent alliances with Syria and Iran do nothing to further Turkey’s acceptance into the EU.

What is infinitely clear is that whether the military coups were fabricated or real, the military and Erdogan perceive each other as a threat.

Were it not for this week’s resignation of Turkey’s long standing leader of the secular Republicans People Party, Deniz Baykal, over an alleged sex scandal, the above discussion would do little more than affirm the belief that Turkey is in the midst of a struggle over its nature Ataturk/secular/military or religious/ Muslim/Erdogan. Yet taken as a whole it seems that Erdogan is keen on taking complete power or at least minimizing all his opponents.

Placed in this light, Erdogans attack on Israel is really an attack on the two major forces of opposition in Turkey, the military and the secular parties. To be fair both of these groups are not friends of Israel, but they do have close ties with Israel and are actually supported by Israel. In other words Israel is not stupid; it did not transfer huran UAV’s because they trusted Erdogan. They did so because it would strengthen the hand of the secular/military in Turkey, who can claim “look it pays to be secular, it pays to ally with Israel”. Moreover, it indicates that Israel still believed that Turkey’s staunchly secular military would be able to reassert themselves against Erdogans political onslaught. After the latest failed coup, Israel’s decision not to provide further military hardware reflects Israel’s conclusion that the Turkish secular/military alliance has faltered (fatally ?).

Only a secular Turkey could ally itself with Israel, and Erdogan seeks to undermine his secular opponents in any way possible. By fostering anti-Israel sentiments in Turkey, Erdogan is also engendering negative attitudes towards Israel’s perceived allies within Turkey –the secular/military. Furthermore Turkey relationship with Israel is predicated on a simple trade, advanced military hardware, for political allegiance. But now that Israel refuses to give any more advanced weapons to Turkey the military in Turkey is further delegitimized. After all it was the military that pushed an alliance with Israel, but what has it done for Turkey, Israel won’t even provide weapons!

This also explains Erdogans alliance with Iran. If he is going to lose one nuclear regional power and supporter of his military he needs to trade it for another regionally and nuclear strong ally. Since Erdogan is focused on domestic hegemony, for the moment, his ire aimed at the larger barrier to that goal -Israel.

Erdogan is savvy politician and employing exceptional stratagem. The mistake of the observer was to accept it as a given that Erdogans main focus was regional, and that Israel was the ends of his strategy. In fact Israel is but one piece, one means, to Erdogan ends -national subjugation to his will.

But what are Erdogans national aims, and are the Israelis right, has Ataturk’s legacy failed Turkey?

Monday, May 10, 2010

To Divide and Conquer with Elena Kagan! Paranoia or reality?

Obama recently nominated, Elena Kagan, a Jewish gay women, to replace Justice Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Stevens served as the leader of the so called progressive wing of the SCOTUS. Stevens was also the only Protestant serving on a court otherwise dominated by minorities, five Catholics and two Jews.

Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.

One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?

The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.

(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).

Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.

Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.

The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.

Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan

“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

On the other hand

“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.

Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?

Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?

Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.

Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.

What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.

I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Poetry with an explanation: "I don't see"

I wonder. I imagine. But I don’t see

Technology and the divine

Oil and the uninspired

Hate, love, commitment, and guns

Why does the obvious occur

How do you define obvious

The last of the undeveloped?

Surrounds the developed?

The body surrounds the soul?

No, we have ignored the obvious

We are blinded by the oil

By the mobile phone and cures for cancer

But did we not dig to discover oil,

Did we not innovate to discover technology?

Why can we not see the obvious,

We have done it before?

Are you looking for motivation?

LISTEN.
Iran is alienating everyone. For the first time in 60 years some Arabs and Jews see the common ground. But only after being exposed to an even greater tyranny. This is not a new. The Soviets and Europe found common ground only after being exposed to an even greater totalitarianism.
History repeats itself. We are exposed to two great tyrannies. A collapsing economy and nuclear Iran.

Instead of recognizing the obvious.

The Middles east is highly underdeveloped it is a perfect place to poor inflated capital -to invest. Here are untapped human resources and markets. You ask how we can help the undeveloped develop, I answer Israel. In 60 years they turned sand into a soon to be continental power. They have the know-how, the technology, the will, we recognize the motivation.
Imagine if Israel became the engine of growth in the Middle-East. An emerging Middle-East, could offer the ENTIRE WORLD, not just the Chinas and 3rd world not just the Europe’s and 1st worlds BOTH. Because BOTH are represented. The world needs a shot of economic success. The Middle needs a shot of vision.
Meanwhile a backwards Iran would have two choices submit to the will of the people, the united region, and world or experience the decay of recognized but unrealized potential.

For those that know that, don’t worry the pain becomes dull. Or perhaps you become dull.

I do not see because I am blind?

I do not see because they are blind!

But today the blind "see"

And the one that sees is called "blind".

Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (II)

Disclaimer: The following is a highly incoherent series of ideas drawn from a number of times and places. It is NOT an easy read.

The “Irrational Perspective” sees the finite/rational human attempt to comprehend the infinite/irrational nature of providence, and how choice fits into this larger “scheme”, akin to one attempting to draw a picture of an undiscovered galaxy, it is mere speculation.

Example A.
A higher force controls EVERYTHING i.e. providence and knows what the human will choose, and at the same time we do have choice! It is simply a wonder of existence, it is incomprehensible it is irrational. Thus Hitler had a choice of whether or not to kill over 6 million Jews but the higher force was already aware of the ultimate result, yet the final solution could have come about if it was chosen. Providence and choice, together. How? It’s a wonder!

Example B.
Another way of understanding this is the Jewish and Sufi notion of a holy man who can see the future. What is behind this assertion, how can one see know the future before it occurs, unless they can exist both in the future and the present? Indeed this is the Jewish conception of the Holy/Righteous person (tzaddik). What makes a person Holy is the subjugation and elevation of their body/animal to their soul the source of their existence (for more on what is meant here by “existence” please see post “Is Soul the Global Consciousness”). This source is not physical, it does not have mass or take up physical space nor is subject to concepts like time.

This last point is exactly what allows the tzaddik to see the future. Because the tzaddik is so close to this source they can consciously access this sources reality where the past present and future exist as one, and are not subject the rational notion of time. In essence the tzaddik can see the future because they have conscious access to a place where the future is indistinguishable from the present. It time is a place where time does not exist.

On the other hand, choice is a reflection of our need as rational beings to order our lives, through time. Choice is a result of time; the future requires us to make choices now, for later. For example, is it a good idea to invest three years and over 100,000 dollars towards legal education? This question is in itself a manifestation of time as it’s an attempt to predict the future, likewise time is a result of our need to rationalize, because we are human. Humans, unlike the rest of nature make choices based on the future (human>rational>time>choice).

I’m tempted to continue this line of reasoning but I’m already losing myself.

Providence is above time, there is no future thus choice and result -choice and providence- occur simultaneously. But they both occur. Is this a rational explanation? No, but then again the second view sees the answer as irrational, but that doesn’t mean the path to discovering the irrational need not be explored rationally.


CONVERSATION:
Still according to the above view the answer exists in the irrational realm where time and space do not exist. Yet our choices are made here in the finite realm of time and space?! This question opens up a can of worms but here we go.

The potential explanation is understanding that every organism is made of two elements, the infinite clothed in finite.
1. Our mass, and that which we use to sustain that mass, food, money, time, etc. (external)
2. That which allows our mass to exist, and grow. The ex nihilo of creation, the source of material that made up the mass of the big bang. (internal)

A question can further help us understand the ramifications and relevance of this distinction .

Why is it that all live mass returns to dirt after it dies?
Because there are two forces in play the mass/physical, and the limits that come along with that. Then there is what gives that mass life and allows it be alive. When that unseen force leaves the mass the mass eventually returns to the anonymity.

The point is that just because we are unable to access this level of “no time” does not mean it doesn’t exist here within every one of us. Indeed we know of its existence from rational questions, that lead us to irrational explanations. Thus once again we are left with the plain wonder of the possibility of the coexistence of the two- not into binary realms but here and now, with you!

Then again the mere fact that the source of life is infinite yet it can take up residence in a finite body is yet another irrational wonder. It does not mean it is not the reality. Thus choice and providence can coexist.

Why is it impossible to comprehend? For the same reason we need to eat and sleep, human-physical-rational-reality that necessitates time, so obscures the we find it hard to even accept the possibility of the irrational.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (I)

One of the oldest unresolved conversations facing the religious scholar or the theological philosopher surrounds the belief in a divine providence that allows for free choice.

On one hand humanity wields free will and can influence its own destiny to the extent that we can destroy ourselves.
This notion of free choice equally apples to nature. Thus a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.

On the other side there is this idea that all of humanity is subject to a universality -whatever that source of universality. This universiality can also be called providence, or as I call it "the Unifying Factor". This higher providence is termed by some "nature" for example a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
Or that millions of people religious or otherwise read their horoscope, implying some greater force is at work making choices.

I offer these examples to make the point that just as we all accept free choice as an inherent good and fact of life, there is evidence pointing to inherent lack of choice and control.Indeed from and environmentalist perspective nature has no choice, thus a polar bear cannot wake up one day and decide it wants to go vegan, are we different...?

In other words:
From the conventional religious perspective the notion that everything happens for a reason is akin to the environmentalist asserting that there is a direct link between polar ice mass and weather global weather patterns.

One can go so far to assert that this question does not exist solely in the realm of speculative religion.

So is there free choice, from nature and providence?

Some like the rationalists seek a logical path to coexistence between providence and choice:

Example A.

We make choices but the result is the same, so we choose to practice law over teaching cause it provides more money. The higher force, has deemed that you should not make more money, so your choice becomes moot in relation to the providence. You are now a lawyer that makes less money. Thus providence dictates the results, and choice exists so far as the human can either reconcile themselves with providence/results or reject it.

Example B.

Imagine that each human is an individual line these lines like humans seem to move independently from neighboring lines/humans. As these lines develop (as your life unfolds) they begin to converge into a collective destiny. But on the way to this destination each line/organism can wiggle this way or that, representing choice. The general trend however is towards the universal mission that each organism, by virtue of their existence, plays an integral role in called providence/nature.

The rationalist sees choice as only relevant to the individual, and not having an effect on providence/result.

Conversation:

The rationalist view is premised on reinterpreting the term providence. In other words providence ad choice reflect to different perspectives. Providence is a top-down imposition that is both uncaring and removed from the present individuals choice. Whereas the individual choice boils down to an illusionary belief that they exercise control over their lives.

This is not merely a difference in belief structures of the prime mover vs. the active mover.

After all, if we accept the proposition that nature is a manifestation of providence, and that nature is the sum total of a complex system that exists in the here and now, then how can we separate the here and ow from the larger result? Put otherwise, if providence/nature was explained as merely the result and not requiring active participation of a multitude of present variables/choices then how do we explain the real implications of every action we take?

For example: if the ice cap does melt then the weather will change, and the eco-system will be disrupted. For a positive or negative result to occur it requires that the present choices “cooperate”. This approach to reconciling free choice and providence seems, rationally, untenable.

In the part 2 of this discussion we will look at the irrational perspective.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Understanding Syria

Once a mainstay of the pan-Arab consensus, Syria’s relationship with its neighbors has taken an expected turn. Over the past 5 years Syria has become the only major Arab ally of Iran; despite the fact that Iran aims for hegemonic dominance of the Middle East. At the same time, Syria has moved closer to another non-Arab power in the region, Turkey. As evidenced by recent joint military drills.

One way to understand Syria’s present and future behavior is reflecting on its recent history.

In 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1981 Syria joined other Arab nations in their war on Israel, and failed. It watched as Egypt and then Jordan made peace with Israel, but refused to do the same. Ostensibly because Israel held the Golan Heights, ignoring the fact that Israel has shown its willingness to return captured land for peace. This split was publicly affirmed when Israel destroyed Iran’s nuclear reactor in Syria territory. No Arab nation came to their aid; on the contrary the Arab world silently applauded the implicit Iranian defeat. Syria seeing the lack of Arab support moved even closer to its non-Arab neighbors.

It is important to note that the Arab world has a historically ambivalent, if not hostile relationship with Iran. Iran is a Shia theocracy historically rooted in rejection of Arab Sunnism. At the same time Turkey is viewed through the eyes of an Arab world subjected to Ottoman imperialism, albeit Muslim, for over 400 years.

Yet Syria has seen its relationship with its Arab brothers as failed and even counterproductive. Failed because pan-Arabism has failed - most of the Arab world agrees. Counterproductive because Syria correctly understands that’s its alignment with the Arabs requires them to subject their national aims to larger Arab-league sentiment. The thrust of that sentiment is formed by a teetering Secular Egypt and the Gulf States love affair with elitist capitalism -the Arabs current position is stability first.

The way Syria sees it, whereas the Arab world, failed in its war against Israel, and was quiet while it was attacked, Iran and Turkey will not abandon them and will serve as an even bigger stopgap then the former Soviet Union –as Syria will be placed under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. Syria’s behavior as the regions lapdog is historically consistent. It was Egypt’s minority partner for 30 years. Egypt no longer maintains that position, and the Russians are not nearly as supportive as the failed Soviets; Syria has reason to move on.

The implications of this shift are made relevant only by the effort to isolate a belligerent and increasingly dangerous Iran. Obama’s overtures, like his decision to return an American ambassador to Syria, as well as failed Western efforts to foster Syria’s reintegration with the Arab consensus, reflect that. Syria has watched the war-fatigued west and is positioning them to be the preferred ally of what they perceive to be the future rulers of the Middle East. The interesting point here is that instead of learning lessons from the past as the Arabs have, they are predictably repeating them. Did they finally make the right bet? Only time will tell.

Why do I Hate Jews?

My first cousin was once attending a rock festival outside Prague. A local approached him and asked him, in all seriousness, “Can you explain to me why I hate Jews”?

There are many explanations, here is one:

“You G-d know, and you are my witness, that in all the evils they perpetrated against me, and in all the acts of vengeance they have wrought upon me, their sole intent was to annihilate and destroy me not because of my sins, but because of what I am." Arama (commentary on lamentations appended to Aqedat Yizaq, p. 17a).

This above statement underpins Benzion Netanyahu scholarly work the Marranos of Spain (3rd edition Cornell University Press, 1999). The Marranos of Spain were a community of Jewish converts to Christianity. The story of the Marranos, Netanyahu argues, is popularly misconstrued. Whereas most scholars, Jewish and Spanish, assert that the Inquisition was implemented by Spain to discover and destroy the crypto-Jewish movement, the truth is that the inquisition created the crypto-Jewish movement.

In other words, many of the Jews of Spain after decades of arbitrary riots, forced Christian sermons, and threats of communal death, caved in and converted. The official narrative is that they kept their Judaism in secret, and where thus a threat to Spain’s Old-Christian communities faith and made Spain a target for G-d’s wrath. Netanyahu argues that the forced-converts became estranged from the unconverted Jewish brothers and due to a variety of variables, desired assimilation. The new-chrisitnas like every Jewish community in history achieved great success and power, making the old-Christians jealous. The inquisition was a way to justify, in the guise of religious zeal, a deep seated animal urge –to destroy their successful competitors.

My question on both Arama and Netanyahu is why? If the Jews became Christian and assimilated then why are they seen as competitors any more then poor old-Christians and/or rich old-Christian see rich old-Christians?

Hold your horses this cannot be explained by Marxist conceptions of class warfare. Neither do I ignore the fact that the inquisition DID target rich old-Christians. The bottom line is that the inquisition was ONLY established AFTER the mass conversions of the Jews, and their subsequent success. If it was a reflection of class, why wait till the Jews convert?

What is behind this extreme hate? First they scream don’t be Jewish, convert! Ok we converted. Not enough now cease to exist!

The inquisition rationalized an irrational desire; it humanized the animal (the animal acts out of ingrained instinct, any rationality that is evident is used solely to further their instinctual desires).

Just as the jackal still hunts as it has since its creation so too does this same irrational instinct targeting the Jew exist today, as it did in 1391-1492 (first wave of forced conversions-the expulsion). It is everywhere and it can be identified specifically by its irrationality -by its source in the animal.

The UN obsession with Israel is irrational, and is justified either by the idealists who claims Israel is a greater violator of human rights then say Sudan or Saudi Arabia. Or by the pragmatists, who correctly claim that Israel is the only state that the UN can consistently muster a majority to condemn, thereby legitimizing the UN existence. Need I say more?!

Even more animal is the anti-Semitism emerging, once again, across the globe, rationalized by Israel’s perceived abuses- yet the scope and types of criticisms targeting Israel are in themselves irrational.

This does not mean that we should automatically reject the irrational. Nor does the question of why they hate have an answer.

Perhaps one needs to accept the irrational animal within, but subjugate the animal with the rational question. Maybe.
I do not have an answer but neither will I create an inquisition, or hate a country so as to create an artificial answer, because that answer is just as irrational, as the reason why they hate Jews.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Victims mentality on a societal level?

The only thing Western Society savors more than its right to free speech, is defending that right. The recent melee between Comedy Central’s South Park censorship of a show depicting Muhammad and the American public is a perfect example. The Muslim group, revolution, “informed” South Park and co. that Theo Van Gogh was on their minds. Comedy Central capitulated and the American free speech obsession -no pun intended- was set in motion.

I wonder whether we have been completely fair in our criticisms. Free speech has evolved over the last century and has been extended to protect everything from explicit novelettes to good old Hugh Hefner exuberance. However, before you go streaking through your neighborhood, claiming artistic expression, know this. Our supreme court, has ruled that

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. falsely shouting fire in t a theater (Schenck v. United States,1919).

Thus our free speech loving society has already drawn the line, when life is threatened speech is no longer free.

As far as I’m concerned the only difference between Comedy Central and Co., which many now abhor, and the Supreme Court, in all its subjective glory, is that Comedy Central didn’t wait until the government confirmed that there was a clear and present danger. Put otherwise. The real tragedy here is that we have targeted the victim, for their spinelessness while suppressing the perpetrators brazenness.

Victim mentality on a societal level?