Qana

How many children did the Israelis kill in Qana today? Anybody know? I heard 30. Could that be true?

Our wonderful politicians (a ramble)

What bemuses me about the whole conflict is the relative silence by our elected European leaders, apart from Tony Blair, of course , on the whole conflict. Mutterings of making truces, giving humanitarian aid and solving the conflict are heard, but that's it. So the US vetoed a resolution condemning Isreal for its actions, thats the 35th time the veto has been used to bin resolutions critical of Israel, and what do the other European leaders do? Do they stand up and condemn the veto? Do they loudly insist that the US must move for a truce and peace process? No, they just sit back and shut up. Or are they just scared of being labelled "Anti-semitic"?

And how can the US on one side accuse the UN of being ineffective, on the other hand do everything to undermine and negetate it? Why does no politician stand up and say something about that?

In the meantime the US is busy selling arms to Israel and other countries in the Middle East, threatening Syria and Iran, and letting India build nuclear weapons. But to do anything to stop civilians being killed in the Lebanon, Israel and Palestina, well I guess that would be bad for their arms sales. Do our politicians complain about those arms sales, given the current situation? Of course not, as the UK, France et al are doing the same, just more quietly. Plus if they said something they might lose some perks, just check how many politicians have links to the arms industry.

In the mean time the propaganda machine is running overtime persuading people that this is a necessary struggle, not just because we want to provoke armageddon. That the machine is working smoothly in the US is evident, as "Seventy-two percent (72%) believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true). " Well, they did not have an occupation, civil war and the theft of their natural resources before the war, so does having all of those make it better? And the main starting point of this new war is lost in oblivion, seldom reported. Most people only know that it was because two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. What came before that, where they were kidnapped is all lost as history is rewritten to suit the various parties. And again, our politicians (and media) just go along without a question.

Let's face it we are being governed by a bunch of spineless cowards, and as the oppostion in most countries is equally silent, when we get a chance to vote its a matter of chosing the lesser evil, but never a real change.

Heatwaves

So we better get used to this excessive heat, or so the experts tell us. It's all a result of global warming. And what to do in order to survive this weather? According to some experts we should have three hours of air conditioning a day, if we don't have it installed in our own homes: "a body needs at least three hours of cooling - preferably by air conditioning - to survive excessive heat." Oh yes, and you'll probably need a car to get to that air conditioned center, another minus on the environmental front. So the solution seems to take steps that will actually increase global warming. Nice.

What puzzles me is
a) how will using air conditioning, which requires electricity and thereby contributes to global warming, help solve the overall problem?
b) how come we Americans and Europeans cannot cope with this heat, whereas people in Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc have survived these temperatures for generations without air conditioning, etc?
c) how healthy is it to go from 20C to 40C 2 or 3 times a day? Surely such extreme temperature changes are even worse for your body?
Surely the solution is not to have universal air conditioning, but to review our housing and our lifestyle.

Make the houses better insulated, that keeps the heat in during the winter thereby reducing the heating bill, and keeps the heat out in the summer thereby reducing the need for air conditioning. Look at the clay houses and fortresses built by the Omanis and Yemenis which show how our houses should be built for such conditions. Or is this just another ploy to not address the real issue, but just increase consumption?

Also, if areas are so hot, why live there? The Arabs have tended to live close to water, be it the sea or oasis, but not smack in the middle of a desert or any hot area without adequate water supply.

If we are facing hotter weather, it might also be worth while considering whether teleworking is not a better idea. Or follow the examples of the Mediterranean states and have naps, long lunch breaks and live in the evenings and mornings . The first reduces ozon levels and contributes less to global warming. The second gives you the opportunity to fit your lifestyle round the weather, not forcing your body to cope with high temperatures. Who said we must stick to our 9 - 5 routine anyway?

For what it's worth, and if you cannot change your working hours, just remember to close all shutters and windows in the morning when you leave for work. That will keep your house cooler during the day, making it easier to cool it down in the evenings. Wear only cotton, and have a cool shower before you go to bed. All that helps you sleep better and your body to cope better. And instead of whacking on the air conditioning try putting cold water on your neck and arms up to elbow level, which also serves to reduce the body temeprature.

What the...?

"a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ." Yup thats' what one of the reports on the Israel Lebanon conflict said. The sad thing is you read those sort of remarks a lot when looking at the events of the last five years. Somehow the evangelical movement in the US seems to have persuaded itself that the bringing on of Armageddon is its role. The quote was from an article in counterpunch about the conflict. What I don't get, is why on earth they believe that this will benefit them.

I gave up on church and priests at a tender age, when my local priest informed me that anyone who was not Catholic might as well take a rope and hang themselves now. As we had just returned from Asia (where our friends were Muslims, Hindis, etc), I was stunned and disgusted. The thing is, as far as I am aware the most radical Jews believe that only they will go to heaven, same as the Christians believe that only they will go to heaven. So there we have radical elements on both sides trying to provoke the end of the world, together, both sides firmly believing that only THEY will reach Nirvana. Er, is that not a gamble? Or is it a showdown "Hell, we'll see who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell!"

Worse yet that such an attitude can influence the actions and decisions of presidents and prime ministers. What happened to the seggregation of powers? Surely a prime minister ( or president, or whatever) must first consider the wellbeing of his country and people, not let himself be guided by his own religious beliefs. Yes, the US population is more devout that the European population, but is that actually a good thing? Religion is not just about going to church, but also about carrying out ALL the teachings. Last time I checked most world religions still contained passages about forgiveness, kindness and understanding others. What has happened to those passages, were they expunged?Maybe I'll have to swap my King James Bible for a newer version.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against religion, everyone needs hope and beliefs to function. What I do not condone or understand is how you can say your religion is the only right one. And how you can singlemindedly chose some bits, but not others. How can a religios person actually justify a war to themselves? They are causing hunger and suffering, discrimination and death, just so maybe, maybe they can cause of the world? Am I nuts or are they?

Cultural Illiteracy Exposed among Dems in Congress

Sadly, in today's Washington Post, Howard Dean showed himself to be culturally illiterate by referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as an anti-semite: "Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean called Maliki an 'anti-Semite' for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel. " (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072600230.html)

Unfortunately, other Democrats in Congress also exhibited this same level of ignorance. Here then is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word, "Semite":

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, especially British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
(end of definition)

Thus it is just about impossible for an Iraqi Arab to be anti-semitic, unless of course he is declaring his hatred for himself, which I don't think Maliki was doing. For that matter it is similarly absurd to imagine Arabs from Lebanon, Jordan, West Bank/Gaza, or Syria as being anti-semitic since they themselves are almost all semitic.

A quote...

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.

Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955)

Our tax dollars at work....

In today's New York Times, Steven Erlanger reports the following:

JERUSALEM, July 18 — The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israel soldier has died from his own army’s fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants....The cold figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations, that Israel is guilty of “disproportionate use of force” in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of “collective punishment” of the civilian populations....(end of quote)

These figures reflect similar proportions from previous conflicts involving Israel such as the violence that followed the Sharon Al-Aqsa Mosque visit. It seems that every time Israel fights militants, the casualty ratio is always about 10 Arabs killed for each Israeli. How do they expect to ever get peace with these ratios? It's as if they WANT to radicalize their neighbors. After all, the whole reason that Hezbollah exists is that it formed itself in reaction to the last Israeli invasion into Lebanon. What do the Israelis think is going to be the result of this current nonsense? If the past is any measure, the result will be an even more radicalized southern Lebanon. Is that what they want? Why would they want that?

It's just so hard to be sympathetic to the one side in a conflict that regularly kills ten times over in retaliation for a given wrong committed against it. It's hard to be sympathetic to a side that seems to believe that shelling civilian residential neighborhoods is a reasonable response to a kidnapping!

Hezbollah is a danger to Lebanon and Israel, maybe even to the whole region, so why then do the one thing that will strengthen Hezbollah? Apart from the questionable morality of disproportionate retaliation, it's just plain stupid.

The 80s are back!

I have proof that the 80s are back. Here are the indicators:

Washington DC has recently gone back to being a hyper-violent city;

Israel is in Lebanon fighting Hezbollah;

The Russians are back to being nakedly authoritarian;

Italy won the World Cup (last time this happened was '82);

Afghanistan is in a shambles following an unsuccessful attempt by a great power to use overwhelming air power to get rid of its Islamist tendencies;

The US is supplying Iraq with weapons and training in an attempt to counterbalance the power of Iran in the region.

The Space Shuttle is back to being a gee-whiz-would-ya-take-a-look-at-that kind of thing;

Prince is playing music as Prince.

I wonder what's next? Brightly colored thin leather neckties? Collars up?

The Middle East's petulant hot-heads set the agenda...again

It's been hard for me to form an opinion on what's happening in the Israeli/Lebanese border areas. I've read the news over the last couple days constantly asking myself, "Who benefits from this?" Several opinion articles in major US papers have accurately said that it benefits the most uncompromising and/or radical elements of all the societies touched by it. That's true for Lebanon in that Hezbollah has no reason to exist unless there is conflict where it can play the self-declared role of militant defender of Shi'ites (first), all Muslim Arabs (second), and all Muslims (third). I would think that the leaders of Hezbollah are truly afraid of the extent to which they would be trivialized, ignored, and forgotten in a fully functional Lebanon. Maybe this recent action by them is proof that Lebanon actually was straying into functionality. Maybe Hezbollah wants to bring back the good old bad days. I hope they fail in that, but in order for Hezbollah to fail the moderates of Lebanon need to not lose their voice in all the violence. What are the chances of that when they are being bombed along with Hezbollah? It's sort of like the idea that if someone is going to be accused and punished for a crime simply by association, and no matter how innocent or virtuous they might really be, then they might as well go and do the crime.

Which brings us to Israel, 'cause this idea that violent conflict benefits the uncompromising and radical elements of a society definitely also applies to Israel. Whichever political parties in Israel espouse simplistic, violent revenge measures as being viable policy moves for a country calling itself the Middle East's only true democracy, those parties are benefitting from this current conflict. Israel probably has very many people that would feel cast adrift in the absence of the huge unifying threat of annihilation. Again, the moderates need to not be drowned out by these fear-driven, tribalistic elements of society.

I've also been reading the news on this conflict with a higher level of scepticism than ever before. What are we NOT being told? How is what we ARE being told shaped and worded so as to limit us to a smaller selection of acceptable points of view?

In 1899, Rudyard Kipling wrote this cautionary poem about imperialism

THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN

Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Rudyard Kipling wrote this in 1917

Mesopotamia

They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?

They shall not return to us; the strong men coldly slain
In sight of help denied from day to day:
But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,
Are they too strong and wise to put away?

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide--
Never while the bars of sunset hold.
But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,
Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour:
When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
By the favour and contrivance of their kind?

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their
friends,
To conform and re-establish each career?

Their lives cannot repay us--their death could not undo--
The shame that they have laid upon our race.
But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,
Shell we leave it unabated in its place?