Slouching Towards Bethlehem III: The Inadvertent Pontiff

Unbelievable. Who would have thought Pope Benedict could get his foot that far down his own throat. Shocking.

Might turn out yet more shocking, to the faithful of Islam, than the Muhammad cartoons. Already, in one week, riot squads have been deployed, the Pope has been burnt in effigy and three churches have been firebombed.

Nothing to worry about, of course. As Heri Budianto, organizer of a protest in Jakarta is quoted to have clarified, “Only Muslims can understand what Jihad is. It is impossible that Jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

And now, quite properly, Pope Benedict has made complete, full and tremulous apology. He didn’t mean anything by it, since, as he put it, "This was a quote from a medieval text which does not express in any way my personal thoughts." Moreover, no way did he intend to shock Islamic sensibilities. He was actually trying to pay his respects – attempting to “.. frankly and sincerely express my great reciprocal and mutual respect with the Muslim faith." He really and truly is “deeply sorry”.

Let’s hope Pope Benedict’s apologizing proves adequate. He can’t do much better – short of begging forgiveness on his knees or converting to Islam. Let’s hope. The Muslim Brotherhood said it is good enough. Though a former deputy of the Al-Azhar Mosque said that it isn’t enough. And, presumably, whoever gunned down the Catholic nun in Mogadishu didn’t think it good enough either. Finally, close readings of recent statements from an al Qaeda group could also be interpreted to indicate the apologizing was not enough. The Mujahideen Shura Council’s statements read, in part, that, “… God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen."

Pope John Paul would never have done anything so inadvertent. Certainly, he was capable of shocking. Shockwaves originating from his support of Polish Solidarity were such that some blame the world-wide collapse of state communism on him. Some blame the end of the Cold War on him more so even than on Lech Walesa or Ronald Reagan or the Afghani Northern-Alliance. It’s not that Pope John Paul didn’t cause shockwaves. It’s that Pope John Paul never caused inadvertent shockwaves, for.. well, for God’s sakes. Pope John Paul was definitively purposeful. And isn’t that what being Pope must be about? Isn’t that what pontificating means? What conceivable sense does inadvertent pontificating make?

Whereas Pope Benedict was reported very upset that his speech on Islam offended Muslims. Like, what’s the big deal? It’s not as if Pope Benedict himself declared the Prophet to nefariously have commanded spreading Islam by the sword. It’s not even as if the Pope mentioned that someone sitting next to him had so declared. Nope. Not even. All the Pope mentioned was that someone back in the 14th century – some Byzantine emperor – had declared it. And that emperor is long dead. All Byzantium no longer exists – long gone to dust. It’s only academic, now. So the Pope doesn’t get what’s so shocking, what the big deal is.

But it is a big deal. And it absolutely is shocking for the Pope to mention anything whatsoever about Islam being sword-happy. Because there’s no forgetting the sword-happiness of Christian fundamentalism. There’s no forgetting Christian crusading, for instance. Christian crusading repeatedly started by Papal decree. It’s a huge deal. Given the abandon with which Crusaders plied swords at heathens by Papal decree, how dare Pope Benedict even allude to the faithful of Islam wielding swords at infidels? Sure, on March 12th, 2000, Pope John Paul apologized for past sins of the Church. But so what? That apology clearly didn’t go far enough. It didn’t go anywhere at all. Pope John Paul failed even mentioning the Crusades. He failed mentioning anything in particular. He might have been apologizing for the Crusades; or for the Inquisition; or for other persecutions of Muslims or Jews or Protestants; or for endlessly forcing conversion against heathen cultures; or for countless other divisive, unjust, totalitarian and murderous acts so effective in bloating temporal church power – provided the infinite pretext of Divine mandate. Merciful, soul saving Divine mandate. To save their souls, for the heathen’s own good. The bible and the sword – one in each hand. No way are church hands appropriate for pointing fingers. Such stains. Totally shocking just waving them hands around. But pointing fingers with hands like that – regardless advertent or inadvertent? Unbelievable.

No doubt Islamic reaction has been due to perception that Pope Benedict was pointing fingers at Islam. No doubt Pope Benedict put his foot in his mouth – all the way down his throat. Thing is, though, that prior to choking on his foot, Pope Benedict was raising critical questions concerning the role and significance of religion. Pope Benedict might not be well advised to raise such questions. He might not prove adequate answering the questions he was raising. But that doesn’t mean we can afford continuing ignoring the questions he raised.

We must answer the questions Pope Benedict raised. Otherwise, we remain in ignorant denial while confronted by conflict and culture clashing of potentially biblical proportions. Better not. The questions raised by Pope Benedict, while hazardous to raise, are not too difficult to answer.

In broad strokes, the questions raised by Pope Benedict aren’t so difficult – so long as we eliminate one delusion prior answering. One delusion likely clung to with a death-grip by Pope Benedict and his Catholic church. Just one delusion: that there are three rival world-major religions. Not so. There have been three world-major religions. There now remains only one.

No rivalry between world-major religions exists. Any rivalry now existing is not between world-major religions.

In fast broad strokes, then. The prototype world-major religion was Judaism. And Moses totally brought something new to religion – and to culture and to politics and even to the battlefield. Something new of unparalleled significance: the principle of God’s singularity and corresponding capital injunction against idolatry – against worshipping ought but the singular God.

It can’t be over-estimated – the significance of the singular God principle. It constituted a novel federalism, an unprecedented upgrade in nation building. It forced and re-enforced cultural unity – rooting culture not merely in shared experience but in shared principle. It transformed a rabble temporarily distinguished by shared experience into a people, a society entirely distinguished by interpreting and understanding experience – whether or not particularly shared – in light of shared fundamental principle. It was first and chief of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This singular God principle brought about a collective identity so cohesive that it persists to this day – despite all intervening, interfering vagaries of history.

To start grasping the significance of the singular God principle, contrast the siege of Jericho with the siege of Troy. The walls of Jericho came tumbling down within days. Whereas the walls of Troy, if they were tumbled at all, took years. And though Homer’s Iliad makes incomparably better reading than the Old Testament, and though neither might turn out literally true, it’s the contrast between the stories themselves that illuminates and signifies. For the Greeks were fractious, factious and divided. Inevitably divided – Greek divisiveness inflected and reflected the petulant squabbling atop Olympus. The siege of Troy wasn’t war. It was soap-opera. Athena having her own agenda meant, definitively, that Achilles stood apart from Agammemnon – sometimes even against. So much for unity and dependable chain of command. On the other hand, the Jews besieging Jericho suffered no such collective Achilles’ heel. Their unity, formed and informed as chosen of the singular God, proved rock-solid. More solid than the walls of Jericho. They hardly had to lift a finger. Their unity vested them with seemingly miraculous powers. So the walls of Jericho came tumbling right down.

There followed, eventually, the second world-major religion. And Christianity was no prototype. Like Moses, Jesus too brought something new to religion – and to culture and to politics and even to the battlefield. Something completely overpowering. To the singularity of God, Jesus added universality of access. Provided adequate submission – unconditional surrendering to Christ – anyone could become a member of the Christianity club. More even: everyone had better become members of the club. Lest their immortal souls be damned to perdition. Lest unbelief damn their souls to everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41) and everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46). Best rush to saving souls – regardless what pain to impure, impious, sinning heathen flesh. For all pain of flesh passes – but the soul’s damnation continues everlasting.

It was an utterly, totally overwhelming innovation. Never mind whether the innovation was Jesus’ or Saint Paul’s – it’s not about taking names and fixing dates. What matters, what signifies, is Christianity’s provision for converting – for browbeating or intimidating or threatening or cajoling or guilting or burning or nagging or torturing or proselytizing or missionaring or deceiving or however otherwise transforming the heathen, both individual and cultural, into foot-soldiers. Into junior recruits. Into more Christians. Ever more Christians. It was unprecedented sales-forcing – sword in one hand, bible in the other.

It started small, Christianity. But it conquered the Roman Empire in a hurry – and, albeit more slowly, sought continuing from there. Initially and for a while, nothing could stand before it. Judaism, the initial world-major religion, never came anywhere near qualifying as a rival. It made no provision for converting ever more Jews. To the contrary. Jews never got over gleefully thumbing their noses at everyone else for not having been God-chosen onto their team. Judaism never had a chance. Yet, Christianity did encounter a rival. Before Christianity could manage saving the world for Jesus, the third world-major religion emerged. Islam.

Who knows whether Muhammad brought anything new to religion. It’s debatable. What is self-evident, though, is that Islam managed everything religious that Christianity did – and managed it just as well. The singularity of God remained. And so did the provision for converting. The zeal for converting. All that changed was converting style. But otherwise, apart from style, what effectively was the difference between Christians converting heathen souls regardless damage done heathen flesh – and Muslims forcing infidels to choose between converting to Islam, dhimmitude or beheading? No effective difference. Perhaps the Quranic Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5, which abrogates numerous earlier verses – such as Sura 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error.") or Suras 17:16-17 ("When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.") dictate Islamic converting zeal more overtly – but that’s just a matter of style. Not of substance. There’s no effective difference.

And so, with the emergence of Islam, there began a vying between two rival world-major religions. The prototype first world-major religion failed to qualify. It remained prototypic. The rivalry between the second and third, between Christianity and Islam, however, was acute – and unabated. It was stalemate between them. Christianity conquered the north. Islam conquered the south. They never managed conquering each other, though. It was stalemate between them.

But Christianity stumbled. A host of new prophets – from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton and Darwin – emerged preaching materialism. They tripped Christianity up so bad it fell on its head. The Christian church collapsed, crushing Christian fundamentalism in wreckage.

It’s considered a good thing, the collapse of the church. We refer to the collapsing as enlightenment. And it was earth-shaking. For while it caused no truth of nature to alter,
it entailed categorical transformation in the nature of truth.

Thus collapsed the church. The very foundation pulled out from under it. By transformation in the logical character, in the very nature of truth. Where churches had once stood there remained but wreckage; and in that wreckage, crushed, lay fundamentalism. All fundamentalism. Any fundamentalism. Irrelevant whether Judaic, Christian, Muslim or whatever else. Governance by fundamentalism was past reviving where churches had once stood.

What was the transformation in the nature of truth? Simply this. Imagine whatever biblical doctrine. For instance, imagine a bible passage declaring, “All crows are black.” Prior enlightenment, had anyone claimed to have seen white crows, the response would have been, “Which part of all crows being black didn’t you get? If it wasn’t black then it wasn’t a crow.” And, had the person continued claiming to have seen white crows, it would have gone badly for them. Since crows being black would have been received as definitive prior enlightenment. There was, therefore, no coherent claiming otherwise. Talking white crows might easily have resulted in shunning or leeching or exorcising or staked burning. Not so subsequent the enlightenment. Post enlightenment, claiming to have seen white crows would have elicited a completely different response: “Really? Maybe it isn’t the case that all crows are black. Maybe there are white crows. Show me.” It would no longer have gone so badly talking white crows. Since crows being black would have been taken as a – descriptive – matter of fact post enlightenment. And thus, there emerged the possibility that describing all crows as black was, as a matter of fact, incorrect. False.

Not only was biblical doctrine opened to questioning in terms of personal security. Falling into materialism meant that biblical doctrine came to be taken as potentially false in fact – rather than received as definitively true in meaning by divine fiat. Everything was opened to questioning. Any even biblical doctrine came to be regarded as possibly false. Truth ceased being a function of privileged biblical revelation. It became a function of material evidence. God could not be harmed by this – but where churches had once stood, fundamentalism lay crushed.

People ceased being certain of truth. And since beliefs contrary to their own might turn out true – well, people began tolerating disagreeing. People became tolerant. They abandoned convictions that those disagreeing established doctrine were damned or possessed or insane – and, if persistent, better off dead than continuing such devil working. That’s what the fundamentalism crushing collapse of the Christian church meant. That the disagreeable were no longer better off dead.

In truth, it was a new dawning. Ideas were conceived, exchanged and investigated. Innovation in science, culture and politics flourished. From the rubble of Christian church and the corpse of fundamentalism, technology began blooming exotic, perhaps unnatural profusion. Much was gained. Something fundamental was lost. But never again would fundamentalism grasp truth in definitive grip. Not on grounds where churches stood. And there were no other grounds for governance to issue from the church. As far as governing went, the Christian church no longer stood.

Fundamentalism was mourned by some. Some pined to grasp truth definitively again. But all attempts marrying materialism with definitive certitude – state Marxism, Germanic supremacism – proved abortive. Materialism abides no definitive certitude. And now, where once churches stood, we have fallen into post-modernity. We have fallen too deep in materialism. Our tolerance has become too absolute for us to conceive our own former principles. We can’t conceive any definitive character of truth – and have thereby lost our faith in truth. And though we retain some our former principles, it is just by habit. We don’t understand what our principles meant, what we once stood for. For sure something has been lost – even though so much was gained.

Meanwhile, however, what happened to Islam? What happened to Islam since Christianity stumbled? What’s happened to the mosque since the church collapsed? Since Islam became the sole world-major religion – since mosques alone retained that old-time fundamentalist grip on governance? Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. The Mosque remains firm as ever. Definitively firm. It is not challenged by temples. It has never been challenged by synagogues. No collapsed church has stood once more to challenge it. Just the mosque remains – un-assailed in that fundamentalism whereby it governs regardless shifting sands of time and circumstance. Un-assailed – yet for a long good while helpless.

Helpless. For what was Islam to do while modernity waxed in such material ways where churches had once stood? Not much it could do. Not much but hold definitively tight to old grudges.

But the day of Islamic helplessness is over now. Now mosques govern the world’s most affluent regions. Now Islamic affluence can purchase whatever arsenals it needs at open markets. Now Islam may not even require arsenals as it penetrates obliviously tolerant splayed open societies – where once churches stood – with relative impunity. And now Islam likely builds nuclear weapons just for good measure.

Post-modernity can’t begin understanding Islamic fundamentalism. Nor can Islamic fundamentalism conceive or appreciate Post-modernity. But Islamic fundamentalism totally can take advantage of Post-modernity’s confused weakness.

When a mujahideen explodes himself and as many infidels as possible, it is not because he hates us so much he’s prepared to die in order to strike back at us. It’s not like that at all. He is expressing truths. Definitive truths. Truths about his eternal rewards – God willing. Truths about the greatness and glory of God – and what befalls those who refuse to acknowledge and submit to His greatness and glory. It’s not that the mujahideen is prepared to die for these truths. He’s eager to die for these truths. Eager to die killing all disagreeing the truths of Islam. It’s not like he might be wrong. Definitively not. For the meaning of Islamic doctrine received in light of true belief is faith – God-given definitive truth upon which doubt may cast no shadow. And mujahideen of exemplary faith express God’s truth most absolutely in martyrdom. They aren’t merely willing. They are eager. It is such joy unto the Lord as Christians are no longer able to appreciate – not since Christianity has been reduced to a hobby.

There have been three world-major religions. Major by virtue their overwhelming all opposition. Their overwhelming was invariably founded in unifying authority of divinely revealed definitive truth and unified enforcing of truth revealed. Holy book in one hand. Sword in the other.

Judaism, the prototypic first world-major religion dropped from the competition – thereby ceasing to qualify as major. There remained two world-major religions. Neither managing to submit the other. Then Christianity stumbled. So now there remains but one world-major religion. Islam.

There is no difference between the swords of Islam and Christian swords. A sword is a sword. It’s just that there are no Christian hands remaining to take it up. And isn’t it natural concluding that’s what’s really agitating Pope Benedict?

SO You Thought You Had a Softwood Deal

David Emmerson's disastrous software lumber deal whttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifith the US Gov't looks even worse in light of the latest housing start figures from the United States. Give up a billion dollars, half of it to the gentle fingers of the White House.
(I quote Dr.Eliot Feldman in his testamony before the Standing Committee on International Trade:
"So here we have the Government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The Government of Canada is thus making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the President. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6.")

Now we have this report, via Bloomberg:

The 6 percent decrease in housing starts to an annual rate of 1.665 million followed a 1.772 million pace in July, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Building permits dropped for a seventh straight month to the lowest level in four years and a sign home construction will keep slowing.

So the price of softwood lumber will be... soft. Good timing for a bad deal, guys.

Why Johnny can't code

Salon Technology

BASIC used to be on every computer a child touched -- but today there's no easy way for kids to get hooked on programming.

By David Brin

BASIC used to be on every computer a child touched -- but today there's no easy way for kids to get hooked on programming. Quietly and without fanfare, or even any comment or notice by software pundits, we have drifted into a situation where almost none of the millions of personal computers in America offers a line-programming language simple enough for kids to pick up fast.
[read more]

Guilt washes away

U of T study; covered in the Toronto Metro

Experiments suggest a scrub eases conscience

If you’re trying to cleanse a guilty conscience, soap and water can do the trick. According to a University of Toronto study published today in the journal Science, washing your hands or showering after impure thoughts or deeds can literally scrub your mind of guilty pangs on a subconscious level.

“We showed that physical cleansing alleviates the upsetting consequences of unethical behaviour and reduces threats to one’s moral self image,” says the study, co-authored by Chen-Bo Zhong, an assistant professor of organizational behaviour at the U of T’s Rotman School of Management.

“Daily hygiene routines such as washing hands, as simple and benign as they may seem, can deliver a powerful antidote to threatened morality,” Zhong writes.

He labelled the phenomenon the “Macbeth Effect”, after Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, who famously scrubbed away at that “damned spot” on her hands after the murder of a king.

Zhong and his team devised a series of four experiments that involved about 165 undergraduate students at Chicago’s Northwestern University.

The experiments tested the psychological connection between physical and moral cleanliness, or the soothing effect that washing can have on the conscience.

[CLB: If you have access to the research paper, I'd like to read a copy. These results may have an interesting bearing on my day job advising others on ethics and integrity.]

Classism in Canada

By Carolyn Burke, Sept 09 06

How free are you really? Let's take a survey.

Do you rent your home or own it? And if you own it, do you have a mortgage? Have you purchased a car, or do you take the TTC, or perhaps like me you take cabs everywhere? Do you own the company, or do you work for someone else?

If you own outright, you have entered a different class in this society, the class of people who aren't scrutinized.
If not, then you need to deal regularly with bureaucrats who can affect major parts of your life: where you live, where and how you work, and how you get there everyday.

Most of us work. that's just a fact of life. You're either draining your savings (or trust funds), or you are accumulating wealth, saving for the future. Wealth is a funny thing. Unless you're super wealthy and can live off the monthly returns, you need to earn a living. And you're either saving more than you make, or you are draining your reserves. Even worse, you could be living on credit, generating a debt. Where are you in this range? I like to accumulate personally.

And even if you can accumulate, you still service debts, like your mortgage or monthly rent, like the car lease or loan payments. And you show up to work regularly to earn your paycheck.

It doesn't have to be like that. Being free includes being free of all these obligations. No debts to honour. No bureaucrats to report to.

Sound good? I highly recommend it.

=====

So what is it like to be free of bureaucrats?

I've lived for 4 years in my own home, free and clear of a mortgage. I don't have a car. I could, but instead I take cabs everywhere. Turns out to be less expensive overall. And I own a company from which I earn a good enough salary to save a little more away each year. I don't owe money to anyone. No bureaucrats. No mortgage company. No leasing company, or car loan debts to cover. I don't have furniture that was shop now, pay later. And although I use credit cards to pay for almost everything, I manage to avoid monthly interest charges. I'm generally one of those people who pays the card down every month. (Yes there are exceptions, but rare enough.)

Most of my friends are the opposite. They rent their home, pay monthly to cover their car lease or loan, and work for someone else. Each of my friends seems to be free of at least one of these outside obligations, but are still subject to the others.

And now to my story.

A few weeks ago - less than 3 - I had been planning a move to the United States on a TN visa. A client was sponsoring the move, and covering relocation costs. Seemed like an exciting adventure. Living in San Francisco for a year or two, meeting new people, doing important work for a non-profit. I was ready to go. Very ready. I had all the paperwork for the visa lined up, and was ready to make a cross-border dash to validate the visa. A moving company was booked, and I was looking seriously for a modest apartment in San Francisco. I spent a few days there last month in sticker shock. Price are high there. Meanwhile my wonderful real estate agent succeeded in finding a tenant for my home here in Toronto. I was almost ready to move to the US for October 1. So far, no surprises. And then, two weeks ago, a Friday, I signed the offer to lease. I didn't do this in a vacuum. I spoke with the client to let them know this was it, the real deal. After signing this offer to lease, there'd be no turning back. Were they sure I should come down. "Of course. Absolutely. We need you here. Sign the lease. We'll see you in a month!" I felt good about this decision, confident and ready to go. And as you might imagine, a little scared. This was going to be a big change for me. Moving to San Francisco. So many songs running through my head.

In San Francisco, I'd be renting an apartment. From a landlord. Credit checks in a foreign country that doesn't have much of my credit history. I can't provide a letter from my former landlord. I was my former landlord. And my own former boss. I lack that thing most people have when they rent an apartment. I lack references. But okay, I'd deal with that. My banker and accountant both jumped in with letters to assist. I was ready.

In San Francisco, I'd be focusing on one client, one contract through my company. I'd be reporting to one person, a boss. A little loss of freedom, in exchange for a big adventure for an important cause. Exciting!

And I'd need a car there. I'd decided to lease one when after I moved.

All told, this decision to move was going to allow bureaucrats back into my life, to effect my life. A landlord, a car dealership, banks, and a boss! Yes, even entrepreneurs have bosses - their clients. The difference here was that I was switching from having many clients to just one. The cause seemed that important.

So I signed the offer to lease with my new tenant.

Now, I'd leased my home already, signed the paperwork accepting the offer from my new tenant, when 20 minutes later, the executive director called me back. My client was pulling out, no reasons stated. My contract ended right then and there.

I wasn't going to be moving to San Francisco. I wasn't going to rent an apartment, drive to the office, and work for the non-profit. I was staying in Toronto.

Normally, I wouldn't blink. Clients go sometimes, and new ones arrive. It's just business. They have their business reasons. But in this specific instance, I had already rented out my home.

I have to move now before October 1. But I'm not moving to San Francisco! I have to move, to here. Even though I own my own home. The costs for breaking the lease are too high, and there'd be a lot of bad will.

So in a few weeks I am moving, in Toronto.

And here's where the real story begins.


=========

I've switched classes. I have a landlord with bureaucratic procedures and policies. There are restrictions on what I can do, when I can do it, who I can do it with. There were forms to fill out. And since I'm my own boss and since I'm my own former landlord, many of the forms can't be completed. So the bureaucrats made up all sorts of other requirements for me to meet instead. I ended up visiting the rental office 7 times, the bank 5 times for letters of reference and certified cheques, and I made dozens of phone calls to my accountant, banker, and credit card companies. Why?
To prove to this new landlord that I'm an acceptable tenant.

I realize in this age of easy digital fraud that protective measures are important. It's vital that when large sums of money are involved that we verify peoples' claims. It is reasonable precaution.

But the process also puts you into a different class, the class of people who aren't immune from scrutiny. And since the people doing the scrutiny are generally also in this class, they seem to enjoy making the process humiliating. You know what I mean here. Suddenly, I'm not trusted, at least in these procedures. I've put myself out there to be judged worthy or not worthy. Can I really pay the rent monthly? Am I reliable? Will I obey all the landlord's rules? Am I the sort of person they want anyway?

I'm used to lacking this scrutiny. I show up to work when I want to - when I need to based on my clients needs. I grab a cab when I need one, no need to worry about parking regulations, spots or tickets.
And I live at home knowing that it is mine. I'm used to freedom.

I am used to living freely, without scrutiny.

So through a set of unfortunate or at least badly timed decisions, I'm about to lose this. I'm about to be scrutinized. I already am. I've filled out reams of forms. I've smiled disengenuously at bureaucrats who can effect my life choices. And said nice things about their kids. Or their earrings.

I've entered the class where sweettalk and asskissing pave the way to pretend freedom.

And I remember the feeling. It was what drove me to succeed in business. The need to be free.

So while my circumstances are now surrounded by bureaucrats scrutinizing my every move with their procedures, I find myself suddenly envigorated again, to attain freedom from them.

When I was younger, I bought myself a plant everytime I had to fill out a form or smile at a bureaucrat. Now I think I'll land a new contract, and grow my company faster than I had planned to, and with new clients.

There is nothing like living on your own terms. I want that again. And it's time to create that space again.

In a year, my new tenant's lease will expire, and so will mine. I'll move back into my home and re-attain my freedom. I know that. But for the next year, I'm switching classes, backwards. It's going to be interesting, humbling, and motivating. After all, we each work hard to pay down the mortgage, pay off the car, and save to retire. I quite liked having already done those things.

I quite like being in the unscrutinized class.
I'll get there again!

Now let's take the survey for real:

>>>> Click here to take the personal freedom survey <<<<

Check back here in a few weeks for the summary results. How free are we?

Carolyn

Why the World Bank Sucks!

If the World Bank really wants to help third countries, they can start by ensuring that every third world country has free and publically accessible potable water for every citizen in the country.

To provide clean drinking water to all individuals, is a short step to irrigation which is a short step to argriculture, which is a short step to a local self-sustaining economy.

Clean drinking water also means freedom from many communicable disease.

In the long run, if the world has more self-sustaining economies, large western corporation would have more "good consumers" to sell to. Instead, all the world bank has now is a bunch of bad debts and a bunch of indivduals living below the poverty line, wanting to buy things that they can't afford.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem 2: Boyz n da Hudna

Peter Fruchter, September 6th, 2006

A couple weeks back, in Toronto’s Globe & Mail (“Judging Israel and Fidel”, August 18th, 2006), Rick Salutin commented thus:

[Israeli] attempts to impose peace by withdrawing from Gaza, erecting a wall on the West Bank etc., on its own terms, without negotiation. I know that got a good press here and sounded on the surface worthy. But it ignored a huge need that humans have: to be recognized; it is the basis of our sense of dignity. That need can supersede even the necessities of survival.

Seems odd, though, doesn’t it? That in Gaza, they continue to attack Israel at any and all costs – survival included – regardless occupation or withdrawal by Israel. And why? Because they’re not getting the respect they need from Israel. Because, according to (not only) Salutin, they’re not getting the recognition they require from Israel. Because they can’t live and won’t survive without dignity and self-respect – and in Gaza, self-respect hinges on getting Israeli respect. In Gaza, dignity hinges on Israeli recognition.

Wow. Radical. Maslow, who so chiefly emphasized self-actualization, wouldn’t have agreed. For Maslow, survival necessarily preceded self-respect. Nor would Marx have agreed. Far as Marx was concerned, nevermind self-respect – one can’t even think on an empty stomach. But I agree. I totally agree. Without self-respect, there comes a point at which mere survival is meaningless.

Seems odd, though. Not that, absent self-respect, there comes a point at which mere survival is meaningless. Not that. That’s insightful. Rather, what seems odd is the notion that, in Gaza, self-respect hinges on getting Israeli respect and recognition.

Let’s give the notion a chance, though. However odd, let’s go with it – let’s see where it takes us.

We know, for instance, that when individuals are abducted or otherwise sufficiently coerced, their self-respect may plummet. We call it Stockholm Syndrome. Like falling into a kind of childish dependency, an infantile helplessness – likely adopted for sake of survival. Although, too often, suffering Stockholm Syndrome impedes survival. Like when abductees foil rescue attempts. Even though no guarantee of abductor approval or leniency follows. Likely, at least sometimes, just the opposite results: the more self-respect abductees abandon, the greater abductors’ contempt for them. Abductees suffering Stockholm Syndrome may indeed confirm abductors’ beliefs that the abductees are expendable. After all, self-respecting human beings wouldn’t act so despicably. Maybe what makes them despicable isn’t their lacking self-respect, even. Maybe they’re not even human. But no matter. Despicable either way. And having proven despicable, it becomes less trouble expending them. Makes the job easier.

Makes the job so much easier when the coerced abandon self-respect. Perhaps, for some coercers, it makes the job pleasant. Cleansing, even. Not just ethnic cleansing – since coerced may share ethnicity with coercers. Viscerally, quintessentially cleansing.

Whether circumstances involve abductors and abductees, guards and prisoners or any other sufficiently coercive relating – it comes down to this: survival of those coerced may be most impeded precisely by their abandoning self-respect for sake of survival.

So, might something of this sort not also occur collectively? Let’s assume it might. And let’s call it Helsinki Syndrome – if and when Stockholm Syndrome occurs collectively.

Let’s assume that due to Israeli coercion – occupation – the Palestinian population of Gaza is suffering Helsinki Syndrome. Let’s assume that the Palestinian population of Gaza has been coerced so badly – by Israel – as to abandon self-respect; and that surviving in Gaza is thereby impeded. Let’s assume that what impedes surviving in Gaza is abandoning self-respect in order to survive Israeli coercion. To survive Israeli occupation.

Gazan Helsinki Syndrome: Israeli occupation has proven so damaging to self-respect that, in Gaza, they can’t stop shooting at Israel. Regardless whether Israel is occupying or ceasing to occupy. Even if doing so impedes and threatens surviving in Gaza – by eventually and inevitably forcing Israel to shoot back.

Talk-Show host: “Alright, fine. It’s conceivable. But what about Hezbollah, in Lebanon? Why can’t they stop shooting at Israel? Surely they don’t suffer Helsinki Syndrome too, do they?”

Talk-Show guest: “Sure they do. They’ve experienced Israeli occupation in Lebanon too. So their self-respect has been damaged too. Irretrievably damaged. Helsinki Syndrome isn’t just Gazan. They suffer it in Lebanon too.”

Host: “Alright. Even that is conceivable. But what about far away places? Places Israel never occupied. Like Iran, for instance. In the past they were too far away to shoot at Israel directly – but they’re doing their utmost to rectify that. They’re developing nuclear capabilities and the missiles required to deliver nuclear payloads over the intervening distance. They deny doing this – though they don’t bother making a secret of it. Some years back Rafsanjani pointed out Israel is so tiny, one nuclear bomb would annihilate it – whereas Iran could withstand ten nuclear bombs. And bear in mind, in Iran Rafsanjani is among the moderates. Meanwhile though, until they can manage shooting at Israel directly, they pay the big bucks and provide every encouragement – not just military – to anyone and everyone that’s willing to shoot at Israel on their behalf. But Israel never occupied Iran. So what’s their problem? How could Israel have damaged self-respect in Iran? How come they can’t stop trying either to shoot at Israel or to make sure someone else is shooting at Israel for them? Surely they can’t be suffering Helsinki Syndrome in Iran too. Right?”

Guest: “Wrong. Of course they’re suffering Helsinki Syndrome in Iran too. Not for having themselves been occupied by Israel. But for knowing that their Muslim siblings have been occupied by Israel.”

Host: “Oh, come on. That’s absurd.”

Guest: “Nope. That’s Islamic solidarity for you. They even suffer their Helsinki Syndrome together. Kind’a like the Jews. They sure do their suffering together, no? They do lots of things together, them Jews. It’s a conspiracy thing. The Jewish conspiracy. No doubt you’ve heard of it.”

Host: “Christ.”

Guest: “Ayup. That too. Absolutely. What, you think the crusades are over? Let me tell you something about Bush and the Templar..”

Host: “Hold it!”

Guest: “What? It’s right on the American dollar..”

Host: “Hold it. Even assuming you’re right. We still can’t go on calling it Helsinki Syndrome.”

Guest: “Why not?”

Host: “Because Helsinki Syndrome is just like Stockholm Syndrome – only applying collectively. It’s counter-productive excessive compliance due to coercive trauma. But what’s going on in the Middle-East is the exact opposite. They can’t stop shooting at Israel. No matter what. That’s no excessive compliance. Just the opposite.”

Guest: “Fine. Call it resistance, then.”

Host: “No, I don’t think so. It’s a syndrome of some sort, alright. Remember, that’s one of the original premises we’re working with. From Rick Salutin’s comment, that there’s a lack of respect and recognition, which leads to a lack of dignity and self-respect – which, in turn, can be so destructive as to even interfere with surviving. And it’s true, I think. We in the media are constantly hearing about this sense of Islamic humiliation, about Islamic low self-esteem. Not just from Gaza or from Lebanon. From everywhere in the Middle-East.”

Guest: “Fine. So there’s a collective low self-esteem syndrome in the Middle-East brought about by Israeli occupation – and we can’t call it Helsinki Syndrome. So what do you want to call it?”

Host: “How about Tehran Syndrome?”

Guest: “Tehran? Why Tehran?”

Host: “Well, twenty-five years ago I would’ve suggested calling it Cairo Syndrome – but they’ve totally managed to stop shooting at Israel in Egypt.. so it doesn’t fit any more. They don’t seem much suffering the syndrome in Egypt now.”

Guest: “Ok, whatever. So Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome throughout the Middle-East. Are we done?

Host: “Hardly. We’ve yet to understand it.”

Guest: “I thought we just did.”

Host: “Not in the least. It’s Stockholm Syndrome we’re familiar with. And Helsinki Syndrome, which would just mean Stockholm Syndrome plurality. But Tehran Syndrome – this inability to stop shooting at Israel – well, that’s the exact opposite. Right? The opposite of familiar. But I can explain it. It’s not so hard to understand.”

Guest: “It’s your show. Wake me when it’s over.”

It’s not hard to understand if we take into account an unfamiliar notion – unfamiliar to us, but entirely familiar to Islamic culture. The notion of hudna. The Islamic notion that it’s entirely proper and legitimate to enter into false treaties with infidels. Perhaps with any enemies. But for sure with infidels. Thus, when Islamic forces are weak, they may well sue for and enter peace treaties with stronger infidel forces. However, once Islamic forces become stronger than the infidel forces, it’s entirely proper and legitimate to declare war – regardless breaching peace treaty terms agreed to during relative Islamic weakness.

Hudna precedent was set by the Prophet Muhammad himself, when, on gaining in relative strength, he declared war – contravening terms of a peace treaty he had committed to during times of relative weakness. Now he was stronger, war suited him again. So, on pretext it was the other – now weaker – side breached the peace treaty, he declared war. Now the other side was weaker, the treaty no longer suited him. Peace no longer suited now he was stronger.

So, in Islam, the hudna precedent is better than ironclad. It’s definitive. For being Muslim means following such precedent as the Prophet set. And wherever governance is by Islamic fundamentalism, it’s the only way to go. In the footsteps of the Prophet. Faithfully following his precedence. There’s no other fundamentalist Islamic way to go. Fundamentalist Islamic following must be faithful. That’s not open to debate. It’s not subject to questioning. It’s God-given – in infinite mercy and wisdom.

Hudna isn’t just legitimate – in Islam, it’s quite ubiquitous. For instance, Hamas proposed hudna with Israel. Arafat, after committing to treaties with Israel – treaties which were taken seriously by most everyone – literally burst out disclaiming the treaties as hudna. And why not? Why shouldn’t hudna be ubiquitous in Islam? Why not sue peace and disengage the enemy when weak; regroup, rearm and reinforce; and then resume warring when strong, timing and placing the battling to one’s best advantage? Why not get one’s enemies to fight at such times and places as one chooses for them? If the ignorance of one’s enemy leads that enemy to self-defeat – what’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with adopting any means necessary to defeat the enemy? Even Shakespeare – not likely Muslim – acknowledged all’s fair in war. Of course, Shakespeare might have advocated asking a few questions to determine who one’s enemies are. Asking a few questions before starting shooting. Shakespeare might even have considered it tragedy, killing those not one’s enemies. But he wasn’t Muslim. No doubt he would have understood, had he been. Had he been fundamentalist Muslim, he’d not have been confused. Faithful Islamic following rather precludes asking whether enemies eager to treat for peace might not be inimical. Definitively not if infidels. For infidels are subject to the Surah of the Sword. To the faithful, infidel means enemy. That’s not all it means, of course – but it can’t conceivably fail to mean it. Infidel meaning enemy is definitive.

However, outside Islam, we’ve been relatively unfamiliar with hudna. Not ignorant, precisely – but unfamiliar. Sufficiently unfamiliar for Arafat to have received the Nobel Peace Prize for his peace treating with Israel. Regardless his bursting to disclaim his peace treating with Israel as hudna. Sufficiently unfamiliar that, instead of striking back while the iron was hot and shrapnel yet flying, we splayed for him and lavished him in Nobel fashion. In Shakespearean terms, this was comedy: many rolling on the ground – some laughing, more dying. In more current terms, this was slapstick.

Lately, outside Islam, we’ve become somewhat more familiar with hudna. We’ve debated the tactical significance of hudna. We’ve even touched on the moral significance of hudna – for what does repeatedly repudiating solemn commitment on flimsy pretext suggest? But this is silly. What solemn commitment? What fidelity is owed infidels by the faithful?

Nevermind tactical and moral significance of hudna. The former is obvious. The latter does not signify. What does signify, what requires understanding, is the cultural significance of hudna.

Going on sixty years now, it has been the avowed fundamentalist Islamic goal to genocide Israel. Since 1948, Islamic shooting at Israel has never stopped. At times the shooting has been concerted. At other times, the shooting has been sporadic. But either way, it’s never stopped.

Typically, the shooting pattern has been this: when the shooting becomes too concerted – or too sustained even if sporadic – Israel defends herself; one way or another, Israel manages to make shooting at her too painful for shooters to maintain sustained or concerted shooting; the shooters commit to stop sustained or concerted shooting if Israel will stop making it so painful to shoot at her; Israel invariably agrees, and; the shooting at Israel becomes intermittently sporadic – neither sustained nor concerted. Until it becomes sustained and then concerted again. Repeat.

Islamic countries attack Israel. Israel counter-attacks in self-defence. Islamic countries sue for peace. But, of course, the peace they sue for is actually hudna. Regardless whether tacit or outright, it’s just hudna. There’s no intention to stop shooting for good. There’s no abandoning the avowed goal – genociding Israel. There’s just a kind’a, “Oh, hell, you’re really making this difficult.. you’re making too much trouble for us. How about you calm down and we’ll try again later?”

That’s what Islamic peace suing amounts to – whether express or implied: only hudna. Almost if not always. Thanks to Sadat, Egypt’s given up on hudna. But Sadat’s thanks for getting Egypt to give up on hudna was an early grave. Courtesy Islamic fundamentalism. Other than that, though, that’s what Islamic peace suing amounts to. Regardless terms, the shooting won’t stop. Concerted or sporadic, directly or by proxy – everyone knows by now. The shooting won’t stop. It’s merely hudna.

It’s about time we look over the border – or fence. Let’s try to see it from the Islamic side. Be the Islamic side Sunny or Shiite, Wahabistic or Iranian revolutionary – regardless any of that. Let’s see it from the Islamic side.

Going on sixty years now, Islam has been shooting at Israel. Seeking to genocide Israel. Seeking to drive Israelis into the sea, over the sea, into the grave – whatever. And Israel? Every time the dust settled for a bit, the Israeli flag was still there. Israel was still there. Sometimes with expanded borders, even. Occupying as surety against future shooting. Rubbing in the salt.

Imagine that. See it from the Islamic side. Here’s this tiny infidel country. Eradicating it is religious service to the greater glory of God. God willing, it should be a cake walk.. or rather, no trouble at all making falafel of Israel. And why shouldn’t God be willing? He didn’t even give Israel oil.

But God doesn’t seem willing. Not in the least. Not at all. In 1948, Israel survives as if by divine intervention. How else could one explain it? In 1967, Israel wipes the map with the combined might of Islam. In six days. How is that to be explained away? And then, in 1973, Israel is caught not just with downed pants – but with undergarments lost. Yet Israel survives. More than just survives. Thanks in large part to Sharon’s insubordinate antics, Israel winds up in shelling distance of both Cairo and Damascus.

So it’s back to hudna. Had the situation ever been reversed – just once – Israel would not exist today. But Israel, even if not winning outright, has never lost. The proof of it is in the pudding of Israel’s continuing existing.

Nope. Israel has not lost to Hezbollah. The Israeli flag is still there. So is Hezbollah’s, of course. But what of it? Hezbollah is no military threat to Israel. It took Hezbollah an average of more than four Katyushas to kill or wound one Israeli. That’s burning bushes. The bushes in Israel are at greater risk – at least three times greater risk – from Hezbollah than Israeli civilians. This is not Egyptian and Syrian tank columns on Israeli soil on Yom Kipur. This does not qualify as concerted shooting. It is only sporadic shooting – though unusually densely sustained for a couple months.

For sure, after too much sporadic shooting, even Israel will defend herself. Yes. It’s a shock. We call it over-reacting, Israel defending herself from sporadic shooting. But there’s no helping it. However spectacular, 9/11 and Pearl Harbour didn’t qualify as even sporadic shooting. However spectacular, these were singular shots. Whereas at Israel, the shooting never stops. There’s no helping it. It eventually gets exhausting even for sitting ducks. Particularly when sporadic shooting begins to be punctuated with flagrant cross border raids, killings and abductions. By avowers of Israeli genocide. After going on sixty years of genocide avowing. Gets pretty fragrant, even just avowing genocide for sixty years. Too fragrant. Too flagrant. Them straws will break any camel’s back – particularly one that’s been sporadically shot at like a sitting duck for too long. Since the last time the shooting turned concerted. Since the last time Israel stopped sitting, stopped ducking and started shooting back.

Admittedly, though, it wouldn’t be sporadic were Iran to begin shooting nuclear weapons at Israel. Hell. Nothing could be more concerted, far as shooting goes. That would be Armageddon. But, let’s face it. Nuclear Iran isn’t just Israel’s problem. Armageddon isn’t only Israel’s problem. It’s the world’s problem. We all know it. For while Armageddon might start at the plains of Megiddo – Armageddon will not finish there. It will finish everywhere.

In the meanwhile, it’s back to Hudna. And while Israel hasn’t managed to ensure Hezbollah will stop shooting – what of it? When has Israel ever managed to ensure Islam will stop shooting? Not ever. Never. That’s what hudna means. That regardless what is said, the shooting will not stop. Whether sporadic – all Hezbollah really ever managed – or concerted remains only a matter of timing and placing. Regardless treaty terms. Regardless ceasefires however brokered. The shooting never stops. That’s what hudna means.

It’s back to hudna now. And what does it mean to Islam, this returning, this eternal returning to hudna with Israel? It means a kind of madness. For if hudna means it’s legitimate to devise false treaties with stronger forces – especially stronger infidel forces – then any hudna with Israel means that, for the duration of that hudna, Israeli forces constitute stronger infidel forces. Infidel forces stronger than Islamic fundamentalism.

It’s maddening. It’s unthinkable. Tiny Israel. Stronger infidel forces. Population less than some large cities. Stronger infidel forces. It just can’t be. But that’s what hudna with Israel means. It’s intolerable. Once would have been unacceptable. But this eternal returning to hudna with Israel.. words fail. The shooting cycle starts again.

It’s too intolerable for words. It defies description. But let’s try an analogy. A soccer analogy.

Let’s imagine ourselves Englishmen. And let’s imagine the pride we take in our national soccer team, the very spirit of – let’s say – England United. So. Pound for pound and leg for leg, England United is the best. There’s no disputing it. But. Imagine if, for the past sixty years, during World-Cup play, England United had invariably been knocked out. So far, not that much of a stretch. Here’s where imagining really comes in, though. Let’s imagine it hasn’t been Germany knocking England out. Nor even Portugal – some respect’s due there, surely. Nope. Nowhere near. For the past sixty years, England United hasn’t been making any finals. Neither semis nor even quarters. Nowhere near. For the past sixty years, England United’s been getting knocked out in the first or second round. Over and over and over. By this one shitty little country. That’s how the French – all too gleefully – put it: shitty little country.

England United is the best. There’s no disputing it. But.

Imagine it. What would happen? Vanity bonfires? Rampant hooliganism? Torched stadia? All of the above and more?

Well, hudna with Israel is worse. For the faithful of Islam, it’s worse. It’s so much worse that we, outside Islam, can hardly conceive it. Words can’t describe the sting of it. The humiliation of it can not for long be borne. Nothing withstands it. Inanimate ploughshares beat themselves into rocket launchers – while foreign rockets and missiles, on pilgrimage from the north, arrive and go ballistic.

Never much mind the tactical or moral significance of hudna. It’s the cultural significance of hudna that stings. Hudna with Israel is intolerable. With the international non-Islamic community, in a pinch? Sure, makes sense. With the United States, the world’s sole current super-power? Alright, in extremity – but not too often; it seems too much a paper tiger. With the European Union? Hah. Hardly. But with Israel? With that shitty little country? That shitty little infidel country? Inconceivable. Intolerable. Unspeakable. How could God humiliate the faithful in the midst of utmost religious service – the religious service of erasing, of genociding that shitty little infidel blemish?

The cumulative humiliation of repeated hudna with Israel is unspeakable for Islam. Over the past going on sixty years, the sting of it has sored and festered to such a boil as can but erupt incessant outrage. That’s why, in most Islam, any political legitimacy whatsoever requires, demands Israel bashing. Regardless how relatively moderate the politician. It’s also why that Islamic leader who best provides for Israeli genociding prospects quite directly acquires the mantle of pan-Islamic authority. Regardless that leader’s particular affiliation within Islam. Thus, while Bin Laden has acquired some pan-Islamic authority for striking the United States, it is not nearly what he was hoping for. He has not sufficiently threatened Israel. It’s Ahmadinejad who’s been acquiring the mantle. With Nasrallah tailoring. May it fit well. The pan-Islamic authority mantle once worn by Nasser, Saddat, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein. The mantle any Islamic politician of any Islamic stripe must hold the hem of – or discharge Islamic authority entirely. That’s why the Saudi Crown must participate, at times even incite Israel bashing. Either that or lose it’s head. That’s why Allawi could not concur, even on American television, that Israel is entitled to self-defence. That’s why Saad al-Hariri must start with bashing at Israel even when expressing his anger at Syria. Even though he and his family and his people have suffered at least as much at the hands of Syria as Israel. More, even. Whether directly or indirectly. And by no means least, that’s why Sadat lost not only his authority but his very life when he dropped the mantle. It was suicide, his abandoning all prospects of Israel genociding – his abandoning hudna with Israel. And he used to own that pan-Islamic authority mantle. He’d been the principal, at that time maybe even the sole provider of Israel genociding prospects. He knew it, too – that it would cost his life. He said it would. But he’d made honest war with Israel and, when he gave up shooting, the peace he made with Israel was honest too. He was honest in war. He was honest in peace. He was honest even with infidels. He was honest regardless circumstance and personal consequence. He was that one honest man.

But, festering to boiling by the humiliating sting of hudna with Israel, Islam unremembers Saddat. When Hezbollah celebrates victory among the dead, they are saying something. They are saying, “This hudnah is not for long. We beat them. Not for long shall we be weaker. Not for long this hudnah. The day is coming.” And thereby, Hezbollah acquires increasing pan-Islamic authority. Al-Qaida would like to get in on some of that too – but how have they threatened Israel lately? Wannabes. Most of all, most intimately, we see how the festered hudna sting boils when an Israeli is captured or abducted. When that Israeli is dismembered and gutted and some run the streets trailing organs while others hand out chocolates. They are saying something. They are saying, “Look how Israelis bleed! Look how weak they are! Look how they fall apart in our hands! We are stronger. We are stronger. Not for long this hudnah. God willing, the day is coming.”

So, yeah. Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome throughout the Middle-East. It’s true. All fundamentalist Islam is humiliated by Israeli occupation. But, outside Islam, to understand what this means, we must begin appreciating how the festering sting of hudna with Israel boils. What does it mean when a Hezbollah fighter tells western cameras he feels humiliated by Israeli attacks? What does it mean when Kofi Annan urges Israel to lift the humiliating blockade? What is the meaning of this humiliation?

It is hudna. Hudna with Israel. Repeating hudna with Israel. For however tactically advantageous the hudna with Israel, it entails that pan-Islamic fundamentalist forces are, albeit temporarily, weaker than Israeli forces. Weaker than the forces of a shitty little country – as the French so gleefully put it. Temporarily weaker now going on sixty years. Inconceivable. The once happy religious service of erasing an infidel blemish has become boiling festers throughout Islamic culture.

So, yeah. Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome in the Middle-East. In Islamic Middle-East, they are humiliated to the core – so humiliated that they can’t stop shooting at Israel. But, as Rick Salutin noticed, Israeli withdrawal from occupation has equally proven humiliating. And, once we begin to comprehend the quality of humiliation entailed by near sixty years’ repeating hudna with that shitty little infidel country, something else begins to come clear. Something entirely counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam.

Some of us outside Islam might naturally expect that, since Islam can’t stop shooting at Israel due to feeling humiliated by Israel – well, Israel should just stop humiliating fundamentalist Islam. Then, when Islam ceases feeling humiliated by Israel, it will cease shooting at Israel. Sure. Yeah. But what’s it gon’na take for Islam to cease feeling humiliated by Israel? We must ask this question. Once we even begin appreciating how hudna stings, we’ve got to ask what is it that can ease the stinging. And on appreciating how deeply stung by hudna with Israel Islamic culture has become, there can follow but one answer: stamping out hudna with Israel once and for all. There can be no halfway measures. Perhaps there never could have been. By now, though.. not a single raindrop’s chance on the plains of Megiddo. Stamping out hudna with Israel once and for all – it’s the only answer.

But how might stamping out hudna with Israel be accomplished? Two ways are obvious – and absolutely contrary. There’s Sadat’s way: abandoning the definitive principle that the meaning of Israel essentially is infidel entity genociding which is mandatory to the greater glory of God; acknowledging Israel’s right to not be genocided – to exist; allowing for the conceivability of enmity with Israel ceasing; allowing for the possibility of enmity with Israel winding down, and; engaging Israel in genuine peace treating and becoming a real partner with Israel in stretching for peace. Then there’s the standard way. The tried and untrue way. The raised expectations of sufficient relative strength to accomplish the genociding; the attempt; the dashed expectations; and the ever deepening boiling festering humiliation of returning, returning, returning to the hudna. Except not this time. This is the last time. Hudna over once and for all. This is the final time. Finally, finally the faithful are stronger and, God willing, we take their women before their dying eyes as we put them to the sword… Yeah.

If Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, we need never wonder whether Ahmadinejad prepares landing pads for the Twelfth Imam. For Islam will not cease and Islam can not rest until the sting of hudna with Israel has been pulled once and for all. And going the tried and untrue way to pull the sting will eventually, inevitably take Islam to a final conflict with Israel. A final conflict near, or even at the plains of Megiddo. It really could start there. Regardless where it starts, though, it will finish everywhere. And it so doesn’t matter what Ahmadinejad prepares for the Twelfth Imam. For if, wearing the mantle of pan-Islamic authority, he leads Islam the tried and untrue way to the plains of Megiddo – well, then, Ahmadinejad becomes the Twelfth Imam.

One last thing. That counter-intuitive thing – at least for some of us outside Islam. So long as Islam continues the tried and untrue way, what must Israel do to cease humiliating Islam? Well, what can Israel do? Any time Israel succeeds in self-defence and strikes back sufficiently to dissuade the forces of Islamic fundamentalism – nevermind occupying additional territory for surety against future Islamic offensive – yet greater humiliation is heaped upon Islam. Forced back to hudna with that shitty little country. That shitty little infidel blemish. But if Israel tries the exact opposite – as Israel actually has tried – then what? What if, in order to cease humiliating Islam, in order to pacify Islam, Israel progressively gives up its scant territories? What then? With each retreat, the forces of Islamic fundamentalism would feel themselves stronger relative to Israel. With each retreat, Israel would seem a yet littler and shittier infidel blemish to erase. With each retreat, Islamic forces would become increasingly persuaded that the infidels are running, that they are stronger – that the infidels are running because Islamic forces are stronger. Teasing like that would totally be asking for it. How could Islamic excitement resist such incitement? Why should Islamic forces resist such flaunting? Such brazen flaunting. No. Should not and ought not. There would be gunfiring celebration. There would be abductions. Running the streets trailing abductees’ organs. Chocolates on little platters for everyone. Hudna over. Finally over. Pulling at the stinging, at the erupting boiling festering – putting an end to humiliation once and for all. What then? If in self-defence Israel struck back so hard yet again to force returning to hudna on Islamic forces? What then? How humiliating would that be – being forced back to hudna, yet again, with a yet smaller, shittier little country?

So long as the forces of Islamic fundamentalism keep going the tried and untrue way, their only hope for ceasing to be humiliated is to finally accomplish their goal – and never have returning to hudna forced upon them by that shitty little infidel blemish again. So long as Islamic forces will not conceive of Israel as essentially other than infidel entity genociding which is mandatory to the greater glory of God, there is but one way for Israel to cease humiliating Islam: cease surviving the onslaughts of Islam. Cease forcing Islam returning to hudna. Just die already.

So long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, only Israel’s final genociding will salve the stinging festered boil of sixty years’ incessant humiliation. The incessant humiliation entailed by endlessly being forced back to hudna by that shitty little infidel blemish. So long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, there’s no other option. Further surviving by Israel, any further forcing returning to hudna on Islam, can only compound the humiliation. It can only work the sting deeper still.

And that is counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam. Counter-intuitive to those of us who naturally thought ceasing humiliating would result in ceasing shooting. Not false – just so incomplete as to be utterly misleading. Far as the humiliation entailed by repeated hudna with Israel is concerned, ceasing humiliating would result in ceasing shooting – but only once there would remain no Israelis as such available to be shot.

It’s only counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam. To some others, I suppose it isn’t news at all. That, so long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, calling on Israel to cease humiliating Islam is calling on Israel to die already. But it needed saying. Overtly.

lost and found

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"The scoreboard said I lost today, but what the scoreboard doesn't say is what it is I have found. Over the last 21 years, I have found loyalty. You have pulled for me on the court and also in life. I found inspiration. You have willed me to succeed, sometimes even in my lowest moments, and I've found generosity. You have given me your shoulders to stand on to reach for my dreams, dreams I could never have reached without you."

- ANDRE AGASSI, to the fans after the last match of his professional tennis career.

When you have no prejudices...

Things can seem really different when you forget your prejudices and just judge things on their evident merits.

For example, The Bible Letter petitions Walmart to stop distributing the Holy Bible due to its hate speech and incitement to violence against women, homosexuals, and even Walmart employees. Sounds funny at first, but maybe it's not.

For a totally different example, it should be obvious that cats are carnivores, not made for eating grains, and yet we cat lovers persist in feeding them what are essentially breakfast cereals dipped in meat juice, and then wondering why an increasing number of them contract diabetes. (In Ontario, a majority of complaints to the Veterinary association are regarding vets and feline diabetes) The disconnect is promoted by vets, and vet researchers, who are more than 90% funded by pet food companies. Interesting, eh? In the US, NPR (National Public Radio) just called my pet diabetes wiki "very important". Maybe that's why.

There's a form of cognitive dissonance, I suppose, that keeps people thinking what they've always thought, even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.