Behind the Green Wall

Rich Hailey is unintentionally misleading in this brief article on walls in history.  He offers as examples of failed walls:

• The Great wall of China
• The Maginot Line
• The Berlin Wall
• The US Mexican Border

The Great Wall of China was not, and was never intended to be, an absolute barrier to the barbarians.  Rather, like the Roman limes (an example which he does not offer), it was intended to be a semi-permeable membrane, allowing the Chinese to control the comings and goings of the barbarians on Han territory, whilst allowing them to be Sinicized by trade and contact.

(Of course, it also had other purposes, not related to barbarian control:  Shih Huang Ti made it, quite deliberately, the longest cemetary in the world.)

The Great Wall worked well, too, as long as it was in the hands of a stable, Chinese dynasty.  Its usefulness is illustrated by the one extent of time that it was not in Chinese hands:  from its seizure by the (non-Chinese) Liao in 907CE until the Yuan (Mongols) were driven out in 1368CE.  (The Wall did not fall to the Manchus in 1644; they were deliberately admitted by Wu San-kuei as part of his feud with the bandit who had seized Beijing, Li "Dashing King" Tzu-ch'eng.  This, incidentally, suggests a problem with fortifications:  make certain that the commander that you put in charge of them is reliable.  This will not be a problem for the Israelis in the foreseeable future.)

The Maginot Line was planned and built as a fortification of the northeastern frontier of France against Germany -- and served its purpose admirably.  What was not anticipated in France was that Leopold III would order the poorly-organized and -supplied Belgian army to surrender after only eighteen days of combat (which led directly to the necessity for Dunkirk).  Had the Maginot Line been extended along the Belgian frontier (which, granted, would probably not have been politically acceptable either France nor among European chancellaries) its reputation in history might have been very different.

The Berlin Wall, unfortunately, directly contradicts his position.  From our vantage point in time forty years later, with the XSSR and the DDR safely consigned to the dustbin of history, we forget the mass flights of refugees through West Berlin, the one bastion of freedom behind the Iron Curtain.  From January to August 1961 alone, more than 160,000 refugees escaped the claw of Red fascism via Berlin; more than 2.7 million since the foundation of the DDR in 1949.  The number of escapees dropped dramatically -- only about 5,000 in the period 1961-1989.  The official East German figures state that 289 people were killed trying to cross the Wall, whilst about 5,500 were captured (although these government figures may be a gross underestimate).

I diffidently suggest that, were I to build a set of fortifications on the "Green Line" that would reduce the number of incursions by more than 99.9%, I would be elected king of the Jews by acclamation in Israel -- even thought I am not Halakhically eligible for the position.

As for the U.S.-Mexican border -- after we stop laughing at the suggestion that it represents fortification, we may treat the suggestion with deserved comtempt (although, as I alluded to in my previous article, if a "Green Wall" proves at all effective, how long before nativists and isolationists in the U.S. call for a "Rio Grande Wall" to be built along the same principles?)

A wall (and again, it should be noted that the conceptual "wall" being discussed here cannot be limited to, or even necessarily incorporate, a continuous physical barrier) will not -- cannot -- be 100% effective, nor will it do anything without being manned and watched (I believe that there is a "New Testament" verse to this effect).  But such could well be preferable -- anything would be -- to the current atrocities.

What the fuck does "Akatsukami" mean?

It means "incarnate deity" in archaic Japanese, and was formerly used as an Imperial title.

I know the feeling of having an itch that you can't scratch (I have this pimple on my ass), and I wouldn't my withholding of this datum to be the cause of Doubting Thomas going to his grave a bitter old man.

If and when and maybe

Jim Henley (whom I understand has vaguely alluded to the "Green Wall" idea once or twice...OK.  I owe him an apology.  I apologize to him) writes:

What if it's true? That is, what if (Warning: Fictitious Entity Invocation!) "The Pakistani Government" really is playing footsie with al Qaeda and the Taliban - or at least the ever-popular "elements of Pakistani intelligence" are, and Musharraf and the Army either can't or won't stop them?

Well, that's the thing.  Henley doesn't know.  I don't know.  I very much doubt that anyone in the blogosphere knows (if anyone does have the smoking gun, or a video of it being fired, let me know).  We may well have our suspicions, but not the kind of evidence that we could get a conviction on in court.

And for that reason, I think that Jim Henley has done a very wise and admirable thing.  To look at both sides of a question, particularly when one's character inclines one to one or the other side, is a Good Thing.  I try, and I hope that I don't fail at it too often.  Henley does it very well.

Sometimes, as I've said, after looking at both sides of a question, we find that it has a right side and a wrong side, after which we'd better all be lining up on the right side.  But we'd also better be able to make the case that it is the right side.

Warbloggerwatch Water

(Yes, I know, but I feel that the dysphony is called for in this case.)

In this instance, let us look at Virulent Memes, the web site of Graham Freeman.  Now, let it be said that, although Freeman appears wrong and wrong-headed, he's not nearly as bad as the pseudonymous coward "Eric Blair".  Moreover, whilst lefty bloggers (and non-bloggers) keep screaming for "alternative ideas", they generally don't have any; Freeman does.  Again, I think it wrong and wrong-headed, but he has been courageous enough to put it forth it public.

Let us look at his idea for solving the Middle East problem:

- Send UN Peacekeepers into the occupied territories.

Now, of course, in the past UN peacekeepers have shown themselves from useless (as in the Sinai in 1967, where Nasser's frown was sufficient to send them scurrying, and in  Srebenica in 1995) to vicious thugs themselves (as in the Balkans in the late 1990's).  Therefore, we should consider in this connection:

1. How to get the UN Security Council (the organ that authorizes peacekeeping missions) to agree to this;
2. How to ensure adequate manning levels;
3. How to prevent UN peace-keepers from scuttling at any sign of trouble
4. How to prevent UN peace-keepers from again becoming the type of predators that they have shown themselves able to become

Next, he suggests:

- Hold a conference, with a view to the Arab neighbours (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt) acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and correspondingly with Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist.

I think that a formal declaration by Jordan and Egypt acknowledging Palestine's right to exist (and, of course, "exist" must mean "exist in peace", and "peace" does not mean "constantly punctuated by terrorist attacks) should also be made, as it was these nations that occupied the territory allocated to a Republic of Palestine in 1948.

We might also give consideration to an only partial success; e.g., what if Egypt and Jordan acknowledge the Israeli right of existence, but Syria and Palestine does not (the Lebanese government is generally acknowledged to be a mere puppet of Syria).  Shall we exclude Syria and Palestine from whatever benefits the conference may agree upon?  This question is particularly significant in the light of Arafat's repeated betrayal of the Oslo "peace process".

Finally, Freeman calls for:

- Guaranteeing the various faiths right of access to their particular holy sites. And perhaps, at worst, demarcate an international zone around the city of Jerusalem, removing it from the jurisdiction from any existing state.

What guarantee does Freeman suggest? And, if this guarantee is violated by any of the parties to it (e.g., the Jordanians' refusal to allow Jewish access to the "Wailing Wall" between 1948 and 1967), what penalties would be appropriate?  (For the moment, I ignore that fact that not all "holy sites" are in or even near Jerusalem.)

Freeman has, as I have said, advanced some concrete ideas.  Now, let us extend and further define those ideas, reifying what we want to see, to avoid vague and unrealistic expectations.

As Netcomments is currently down (although I know that Jonty is working on the business problems), I particularly welcome comments by e-mail on this.

No cute title

Via Ginger Stampley comes this piece of stupidity and possibly criminal negligence (IANAL, thank Heaven) by SFX.

I know some diabetics.  Some, frankly, I'll stay in the same room with only because of family connections.  Others are, however, very good people indeed, for whom I weep that, being only mortal, I cannot cure even with the sacrifice of my life.

I have about a tenth of a gnat's whisker's worth of sympathy for SFX:

"My guess is that it's just easier for SFX to have a blanket policy than to carve out exceptions that take time and training to enforce," said Gary Hartman, associate dean for information technology at UH's law school and manager of Tapir Productions.

And my guess is that if they did carve out such exceptions, some greedy slacker would decide that lack of a "zero tolerance" policy towards legitimate injectable medications meant that they could sue SFX for not having one, and twelve pliable idiots and/or an ivory-tower judge would find that SFX should transfer big bucks to said greedy slacker.

But, like the "Palestinians" committing terrorist atrocities, this kills any possible sympathy for and understanding of their cause:

Four people are named in the suit, including a woman who had her diabetes kit confiscated at a nightclub in Philadelphia in 2000.

(Emphasis mine).

Are the fools and sharks at SFX unaware that this could have meant death for the woman?  Or are they so stupid and greedy as to reckon that the settlement in a wrongful-death suit would be less than the cost of defending lawsuits claiming that SFX and its employees have committed an offense by using their judgment instead of reading a boardroom memo.

I'll say that "zero tolerance" policies, whether towards nail clippers at school or diabetes kits at a nightclub, are stupid, evil, and indefensible.  And, certainly, it is our responsibility to ensure that groundless suits that Billy got four days' detention whilst Susie only got three, or that Heather was warned about carrying needles whilst Babs wasn't. should, are thrown out, and that those bringing them are publicly ridiculed and humiliated.

But it is also our responsibility to see that potential defendants proceed in step with us, if they are yet too small to lead.  They cannot be allowed to use a faux legal responsibility as an excuse for committing real crimes.

It doesn't happen here

A number of bloggers have become exercised over the rantings of Neale Talbot at his aptly named wrongwaygoback blog.

Some of them thought it an attack on certain warbloggers, or on warbloggers or warblogging in general, when he wrote:

[S]ome don't have a problem with [tip jars]. If you don't have a problem with it either, why not donate to one of the following 27 warbloggers who have tip-jars on their site? But before you spend that dollar, just bear this in mind - if each of these warbloggers makes a dollar a day, after a year they'll have collectively made almost $10,000. $10,000 that could have gone to the victims of 9/11.

Talbot's true attitude, however, is best shown by own words:

Do you have something, whether it be in real world the weblogging world, that you think should be investigated, commented upon, or brought to bear in the minds of others?

(Emphasis added.)

So, we can go back to our war profiteering and our frothing, secure in the knowledge that Talbot didn't believe anything that he wrote in the first place.

Great Minds Think Alike

Doubting Thomas writes an essay that, despite causing some slight dissention early on independently displays the "linker/thinker" dichotomy that has entered the blogosphere.

Thus, he writes:

I do not engage in the "hyperlink with attendant commentary on the link" type of blogging that is so prevalent.

and is echoing Steven den Beste, although Steven is perhaps less disdainful of linkers (finding a linker that you like is like finding a critic that you like; the more than you agree with him, the less likely he is to point to anything that you haven’t seen for yourself).

Likewise, when he says:

For instance, I typically write an original essay intermittently, and that's it

he is allying with the thinker category (den Beste originally called the two categories "editors" and "writers", but later accepted the comments of others that they should be called "linkers" and "thinkers", apparently for the sake of euphony).

Thomas also mentions disparagingly the "’Banality of Being Jenn’ style of blogging", something that, keeping with the linker/thinker categorization I called a "sinker" (as in "i had this really k00l donut 4 breakfast 2day"). Increasingly, though, I find "Jennblog" to be more appropriate, despite the disservice that it probably does to some Jenns.

(Riffing on this: a parody of a Jennblog by Jeff Goldstein, an actual Jennblog written by someone named Jenn, the webcomic Absurd Notions by Kevin Pease, who is under the impression that nearly every American woman born in the 1970s was named "Jennifer", and some evidence that supports him.)

What do you say to a Scientologist?

"Get thee behind me, Thetan!"

How do you say "limites" in Hebrew?

The idea of a "wall" between Israel and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria has merit. It also has some disturbing implications, however, and I think that we might do well to look at them before settling on this policy.

The principal advocate (not necessarily in the sense of believing it, but certainly in the sense of putting it forward) of this idea in the blogosphere is Tony Adragna. Let us look at some of what he has said.

In his most recent article on the idea, he wrote [quoting me!]:

 

Now, Adragna stipulates that:

The Israelis are going to have to give up the political in order to finally have some semblance of secure borders.

The question becomes then: is the "Green Line" established in 1948 secure? If not, where should the borders be drawn? And, wherever we draw these borders, what of those dwelling on either side of them?

That is the all important question. I don't have an answer, and I think that it's a question that Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to settle between themselves once they finally decide to make peace. But, the border that I'm talking about "securing" is the one that exists right now (remember, the West Bank is still not a part of Israel - there is a border that Israel recognizes as the limit of "sovereign Israel").

That border is essentially the 1948 "Green Line", plus the Golan and East Jerusalem. I have no more idea than Adragna whether that border is defensible (a case can be made that no border west of the Jordan River is), but let us assume for the sake of discussion that it is.

Now, Adragna states that the fortified border must be essentially closed (and he implies, although he does not state, that it must be closed in both directions). I would not go quite so far here; the fortified boundary, it seems to me, would be serving the purposes of China’s Great Wall or, even more precisely, of the Roman limes (of which the most famous, but by no means the only, examples are the Hadrianic and Antonine Walls in Britain). The dual purposes of the limes were to allow the Romans to control the influx of the barbari beyond them in times of peace, and to serve as a fortified base (not a purely defensive line) in times of war. Thus, there might – there almost certainly would – be accesses through checkpoints in the "Green Wall", but such would be entirely under Israeli control. Moreover, a "Green Wall" would serve as the IDF’s forward line of defense, and its jumping-off point for offensive operations, should the Arabs resume any form of warfare in the future.

(One thing that should be made clear here: I am not, and I very much doubt that Adragna is, talking about fortifications limited to, or even necessarily incorporating, a physical wall. Such would useless against, e.g,, aerial or airborne assault.)

In the short run, of course, it must be as Adragna says: no enemy alien (and all "Palestinians" must be viewed as "enemy aliens" in this context) must be allowed across the "Green Wall". As he correctly notes, there is no way to distinguish a terrorist supporting Arafat from a moderate that repudiates him by appearance alone. This will have a devastating effect on the economies of both Israel, and even more so, of the Judea-Samaria area (that should and would have been the Republic of Palestine, had they not been occupied and annexed by Abdallah I of Jordan). Israel must now get used to doing its own scut work; the Arabs must get used to doing without that employment and money (which, exiguous as it is, may loom much larger if subsidies from Sa’udi Arabia and the Gulf emirates are cut or cut off – one way or another).

Hadrian’s Wall was, IIRC, 77 (English) miles in length, and manned (at the Empire’s height) by one legion and its associated auxiliary troops – about 10,000 soldiers. I have no idea if manning ratios should be the same (perhaps Sgt. Stryker could weigh in here), but, as that is the only number that I have right now, I’ll run with it – there should be about 130 armed troops per mile. The CIA World Factbook 2001 gives the land boundaries of Israel at 1,006 km (== 625 miles), so that we would need about 81,000 combat infantry to reinforce the "Green Wall". Obviously, the logistical "tail" of an army has grown very much since the time of the Roman Empire; OTOH, modern sensors and weapons very likely mean that a much lower manning ratio is permissible. I shall assume that this is all a wash. The level of military manpower needed is a bit high; an aggressive program of military recruitment (including, perhaps, mercenaries), combined with a high economic growth rate would be necessary to support this effort – by no means undoable, but something that Israelis must keep their eyes on.

This article is getting a bit long, so I will close it with this question: what would the military, economic, and cultural consequences, successful or not, of a "Green Wall" tell us about the consequences of a "Rio Grande Wall".

Not your father's Baby Boom

Posted by S.M. Stirling (yes, that S.M. Stirling) to the stirling mailing list:

The latest population projections have been ratcheted down yet again; world
TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is now 2.8 -- only 0.7 above replacement level,
and will probably hit 2.1 by no later than 2020, possibly as early as 2015.

This is due to very rapid, and accelerating, declines in the TFR of the
underdeveloped areas.

Current estimates based on a continuation of present trends see the world's
population topping out at about 7 billion within the next 30 years, and then
declining.  Gradually at first, and then with ever-accelerating speed.

NB: the UN estimates were, until this year, extremely unrealistic because
they presupposed that countries with TFR's below 2.1 would increase to that
levels, and that countries with declining TFR's would fall to 2.1 and then
hold there.

In fact, the "floor" for TFR's seems to be about 1.0, and there's every
indication that the developing countries' TFRs will pass right through 2.1
and keep falling.

This has some interesting implications. 

Eg., the US has an unusually high TFR, at almost exactly 2.1, and it's been
increasing slightly rather than falling, partly due to the immigration of
young adults, and partly due to somewhat sharper increases in the birth rate
among longer-established groups.

American TFR is now sharply higher than that of most of East Asia --
considerably above China's for example -- and higher than much of Latin
America's.  Mexico's TFR is now 2.4, and Brazil's is 2.0  It's even higher
than much of the Middle East; Tunisia's TFR is 1.99, Turkey's 2.01, Iran's is
2.1, and the other North African countries are at about 2.5 and falling fast.

Many of those countries have sharply increasing populations due to
'demographic intertia' -- the previous high fertility rates have left
"bulges" of potential mothers moving up the population pyramid.

But that's a temporary effect; once TFR is below the magic number, population
will start to fall.  Previous high fertility just delays that by about 25
years.

By the 2030's, the proportion of the world's population in the US will
probably be higher than it is now, and increasing sharply (in relative
terms).  By 2100, barring some drastic upset to present long-term trends, the
American proportion could easily be twice what it is now.

Many of the people now posting on this [mailing list] will live to see the world's
population smaller than it is now.

Aside giving us one more reason to spit on Paul Ehrlich, this suggests the importance of the "multiculturalism" wars in the Anglosphere.

By 2100, the American complexion will (barring that drastic aspect) be darker than it is now.  But that could easily be a change in complexion without a change in the fundamental principles of the U.S. and the Anglosphere.

OTOH, the academic left is wishing with all its might for a gaggle of unassimilated, hyphenated-Americans among which, as they so like to intone, there is no majority group.

Divide et impera, perhaps

What kind of D&D character am I?

Since just about everyone else in the blogosphere appears to be finding out what kind of D&D character they are, I thought, "WTF, I'll try it, too!"  I got:

I Am A: True Neutral Dwarf Ranger Fighter

Alignment:
True Neutral characters are very rare. They believe that balance is the most important thing, and will not side with any other force. They will do whatever is necessary to preserve that balance, even if it means switching allegiances suddenly.

Race:
Dwarves are short and stout, and easily recognizable by their well-cared-for beards. They are hard workers, and adept at stonework and engineering. They tend to live apart from other races; generally in deep, underground excavated systems, and as such tend to be distant from other races.

Primary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.

Secondary Class:
Fighters are the warriors. They use weapons to accomplish their goals. This isn't to say that they aren't intelligent, but that they do, in fact, believe that violence is frequently the answer.

Deity:
Dumathoin is the True Neutral dwarven god of buried wealth, ores, gems, and mining. He is also known as the Keeper of Secrets under the Mountain. His followers are typically miners and explorers, but also respect the beauty of the earth. They also stand guard over the dwarven dead. Their preferred weapon is the maul. Dumathoin's symbol is a faceted gem set inside a mountain peak.

Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy ofNeppyMan (e-mail)

Huh?  A "true neutral"?  A dwatf?  (OK, I'm short, but not that short)  And a ranger?

Oh, well, it could have been worse, I guess.  I could have come up as a chaotic evil Chomskyite whining terrorist.

What does "is" mean? It means "is"

(With apologies to any devotees of General Semantics who may read this.)

A correspondent sends a pointer to this Spiked article. Another sees him and raises with this NRO article.

The first is a description of the unholy (and probably unconscious; both sides would likely be horrified if they realized who their allies were) alliance between the religious right and the academic left in support of creationism. (When pundits speak of "the religious right", of course, they always mean "the Christian right"; as West is British, however, and other religions, as much as they actually exist in the U.K., do not show up much on the radar screen there, I shall grant him absolution). The second is Dave Kopel’s take on Heisenberg and postmodernism.

Both West and Kopel apparently assign the root cause, or at least the root excuse, for postmodernism (by which they mean reactionary fascism with a Marxist face) to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Thus, Kopel writes:

What does all this have to do with Werner Heisenberg? The answer is that Heisenberg provided what was seen as the scientific foundation for postmodernism.

whilst West writes:

For a generation now, the academic left has been engaged in a war against science as we know it: propagating the notion that science is an inherently Western concept, that it is culturally perspectival, but most of all, after Werner Heisenberg, that it is an imperfect and thoroughly flawed 'discourse'.

and even goes on to say:

In addition [to the Uncertainty Principle] was Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which - it seemed - suggested that how one saw the cosmos depended upon the point from which one was looking.

Of course – aside from the irony of basing a fundamentally anti-scientific pseudo-philosophy as postmodernism on scientific ideas – the academic left stands in total ignorance of both Einstein’s and Heisenberg’s meaning. This is not surprising, since an understanding of either general relativity or quantum mechanics requires mathematics, a discipline which is repugnant to both academics and leftists as requiring thought.

Einstein’s principle of relativity was after all, based on the notion that there was no privileged frame of reference – that the fundamental laws of physics were the same no matter where you were. (Purists will correctly note that this refers to unaccelerated frames). This is, of course, the complete opposite of postmodernism, which falsely insists that the appearance of the universe depends not only on one’s point of vantage, but on one’s point of view. What Einstein in fact says, in contradiction to postmodernism, is, "The universe not only is the same, but looks the same, whether you’re a DWEM, a feminist, a Palestinian apologist, or even Noam Chomsky".

As for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, it is not the vague-sounding "The observer somehow affects the process" that poseurs and academics like to intone. It is, if the apparent oxymoron may be overlooked, an exact uncertainty:

Dx * Dp > h
Dt * DE > h

(If a capital "d" shows up your browser, it should be interpreted as a delta; i.e., a change)

The "h", of course, is Planck’s constant, which is an exact value: 6.62606891x10^-34 Jsec. To any unreconstructed postmodernists reading this, that is a very small number. Is it possible that all the air molecules in my study will suddenly relocate to the other side of the room, leaving me to strangle in vacuum? Sure. Am I holding my breath (literally or figuratively) waiting for it to happen? No: it won’t happen my lifetime, nor the universe’s, nor in as many universes as my lifespan could fit in to this one.

A "true" postmodernism based on Einstein and Heisenberg would take, as its principles:

1. No matter where you’re coming from, things are the same
2. Any uncertainty in saying this is too small to make any difference
3. You’ll never be in a place where these statements are not true
4. Deal with it

Quote of the moment

"There are valid technical reasons why a chicken sacrifice is required when setting up SCSI drives!" -- Andy Love

Neko drinks

Wagimoko got Nezumi-chan a new water dish this week:  a big, heavy, stainless-steel bowl with a rubber gasket on the bottom.

After she came indoors, we got her an off-white plastic dish.  This got skidded all over the floor and pushed under the bathroom rugs, spilling its contents in the process.  Wagimoko put the dish in a glass pie plate, but not only did Nezumi-chan use it as an exercise machine ("pumping Pyrex"), quickly building up her muscles until she could push it around, but learned to flip her water dish upside-down.

So, this past week, wagimoko went out to the local animal supply and feed store, and got a new water dish.  I imagine that the conversation between her and the clerk must have gone something like this:

"I'd like a big, heavy, stainless-steel water dish.  Something suitable for a Rottweiler to drink from without knocking it all over the place."
"Sure.  Do you have a Rottweiler?"
"No.  We have a cat."

So far, the contents have stayed in the bowl (aided by the fact that this one is about three times the height of the old one).  If the floor gets wet again, wagimoko says that she's going to put cement in the underside of the dish.

Stupid AND evil

Mac Thomason (whom I'll respect in the morning, even if he's a liberal :) ) points to this Washington Post article, writing of the protesters:

These are real people who really hurt; that they are on the balance on the wrong side doesn't make them stupid or evil.

I must disagree; they are stupid or evil.

In the very article that points to, we read:

Regev also noted that other U.S. nationals have been killed in terrorist attacks and other violence since the latest uprising began in 2000. Yaakov Mandell, a 14-year-old whose parents were born in the United States, was stoned to death in a cave in May 2001.

Where were these -- where were any -- protesters then?

"Hearing about a 21-year-old Palestinian woman, holding her 9-month-old baby, being shot and killed is an unspeakable crime," said Art Laffin, 47, of the District.

The stoning death of a 14-year-old boy is not an unspeakable crime?  Or do these cranks (to use Thomason's word) only care about Muslim deaths, whilst Jewish ones are of no consequence to them?

Farhan Saleh, the "Palestinian"-American whose daughter's death he rightly mourns, is quoted as saying:

"I don't understand politics. I don't go to any side. I don't believe in politics," he said in a telephone interview yesterday from the West Bank. "I just want my life and my kids' life in peace. I ask God all the time to finish this problem, and we live in peace all around the world. Stop the killing. Stop the people dying for nothing."

"Stop the killing" must mean "Stop the killing of Muslims and Jews".  Those who ask blankly, "You mean Jews are dying, too?" are stupid.  Those who say, "Oh, no, we only mean 'Stop the killing of Muslims'; all Jews can die horribly, for all we care" are evil.

Are these protesters stupid or evil?

(And, incidentally, that I seriously disagree with Thomason in this case certainly does not mean that he writes nothing worth reading.  I should have added him to my blogroll long since; I have done so now.)

Poo on you, AW.

AW, who I alluded to before in this article, sends me a chat transcript with a well-known ex-blogger and the comment:

So, in a sense, the claim in those Leftist blogs WERE *sort of* true?...

The leftist blogs to which he refers are, again:

http://jim.blogspot.com/?/2002_04_01_jim_archive.html#75052799

http://stommel.tamu.edu/%7Ebaum/ethel/2002_03_24_ethel-archive.html#11247894

For some debate on the matter, see the comments over at Sgt. Stryker's (article for 3 April 2002, 0420 UT) .  I agree with Andrea:  AW seems to be pretending to a naïveite that he does not, in fact, possess.

In Ethel the Blog, it is stated:

Arafat has been negotiating with Israel for years. The Hamas charter bluntly states that all peace initiatives are contrary to their beliefs. Hamas is behind the suicide bombings. With Arafat and the PLO out of the way, the Hamas will be the negotiating organization for the Palestinians. And since they'll utterly refuse to negotiate, Sharon will be able to negotiate entirely with his favorite tool: the military. No more compromises. Just more massacres along the lines of 1982.

But Arafat's negotiations Israel have been barren for years.  Perhaps what Baum is trying to imply here is that he and other hard lefties and EUnuchs would be successfully deceived by a tactic that has consisted of empty words and live bombs on Arafat's part, whilst they try to wring more and more concessions out of Israel.  Of course, this is an argument that we should ridicule Baum and ignore the EU.

Baum quotes Arafat as saying:

"We are doing everything to stop the violence. But Hamas is a creature of Israel which at the time of Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir [the late 1980s, when Hamas arose], gave them money and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of [Egpytian President Hosni] Mubarak."

Ah, yes, Yitzhak Rabin z"l, the man who was so dovish that he was assassinated by an Israeli who felt that he was giving away too much to the "Palestinians". If Peres and Rabin had not so done, might Baum not have written: "The hypocrisy of Peres, who pretended to negotiate with Hamas whilst in reality conceding them nothing"?

(Curiously, whilst Baum asserts that Arafat's statement is "a matter of public record, the only link that he provides is to the anti-Semitic (and generally psychopathic) LaRouche organization. Perhaps Arafat's "statement" is not as public -- or genuine -- as he would have us believe?)

Michael Lerner complains, and is approvingly quoted by Baum, that:

Sharon refuses to negotiate unless there is a period of non-violence

So? No one else has demanded at least an armistice during negotiations? Lerner and Baum, of course, assert (without further evidence) that this is merely a device by Sharon to avoid negotiation with St. Arafat, as they admit that Hamas will never give up violence.  Yet, leaving aside the involvement of Arafat's own Fatah in the murder of civilians, he is evidently helpless to restrain Hamas, and to admit this, even privately.  What good, then, negotiations with someone who cannot carry out his end of a bargain?  The best interpretation, again, that can be placed on Lerner's and Baum's words is that they value negotiations as an end in themselves, not as a means to peace and justice, and are willing to sanction any atrocity, so long as the parties committing and suffering it keep talking.

The other link is to Objectionable Content, which is, to my mind, objectionable indeed.  He mostly repeats the rantings of Lerner and Baum -- not in itself a problem, for it is thus that ideas (even bad ones) are propagated around the blogosphere, and this merely puts him in the "linker" category -- but commits the solecism of quoting approvingly and linking to the openly fascistic Jak King (to whose website I shall not link, may his name and works be forgotten by future generations).  Quoting King puts him somewhere in the spectrum between "useful idiot" and "fellow fascist".

AW protests:

But I was hoping that by posting those links in this manner, I would provoke an "objective" retaliation. Have the good info drive out the bad.
But all I seem o be getting is assertions.

But of course, it is the anti-Semites who have made the positive assertions, and failed to back them up with any evidence.  Mocking them and demanding some proof of their ridiculous statements, not trying to prove a negative, is the proper course here.

Kosher Petfood III: The Final Conflict

Esther (the same one, very probably, that Howard Fienberg quotes) writes to say:

Your analysis of this issue is deeply off-base, if well-intentioned.

On Passover, Biblical law bans Jews from owning hametz (leaven) over
Passover, or having it in their possession when they have authority or
responsibility over the food (Exodus 12:19, Exodus 13:7).

The analysis in terms of benefit (for mixtures of milk and dairy)  is
relevant the rest of the year.  The issue then is not, as you write:

"But we are constrained in what we can feed it.  We can no more give it a
forbidden mixture, and claim that it's merely following its nature by eating
it, than we can put two fighting cocks together and that they're merely
following their nature by trying to kill each other.  In each case, the
violation of Halakhah is our fault."

Jewish law is not concerned with our indirect blame for what animals eat.
It's concerned with material benefit to Jews.  That is to say, we can't sell
meat and milk mixtures for cash.  We can't benefit by giving it as gifts.
And we can't sustain our animals with it.  In none of these instances would
the problem be what others do with the food.  The problem is the material
benefit to the Jew him/herself that derives, indirectly, from these foods.
If you own an animal, and keep it alive with meat and milk mixtures, these
foods are tangibly benefiting you.   If you could run your car on a meat and
milk mixture, that would be forbidden also.

Judaism is legalistic, really.  You don't have to search for larger moral
meanings.  The moral is embedded right there, in the law itself.

Yes.  This is what I tried to say, and failed.  Esther did not fail.

In a second e-mail, she said:

BTW, the pet food at [KosherPets] seems to be only from Kosher animals (in
addition to being made without leaven or milk products).  I can't see any
reason why that is necessary, halachically - can you?

I can't think of any either.  But, that seems to be the way even with ordinary pet food -- in my own cat's two-month supply of tinned food, there are only beef, lamb, chicken, and turkey.  Pork would seem to be an obvious choice, but I can't recall ever seeing pork dog or cat food.  The only tamei animal used in petfood that I can think of off-hand is ostrich, and that in a medically-prescribed food for animals allergic to other sources of protein.

The reasons are probably not Halakhic so much as that we buy petfood as much for our own tastes as for the animals' (a dog's favorite flavor would be "rotting carrion", and a cat's would probably be small-rodent-'n'-bug), and that there are a lot of kosher animal parts left lying around to make petfood out of.  Why this would lead to no pork petfood, however, I have no idea.

Tonight

A simple, but rich and deliciouis dinner: filets, portabella caps, baked stuffed potatoes, and a salad.

I have more to write, but tonight is not the time.

I'm impressed

Looks like the commenting system works.

A deserved slap

Ken Layne states about this article:

The column you reference is a *satire piece.* That's all. Just an attempt
at humor regarding the dreadful news we're hearing today.

So, for the record, I possess neither perceptiveness nor a sense of humor.  Not that there's anyone who hasn't already figured that out.