Jews on Bikes

A few years ago I was at the Israel Day parade in New York and there was a group marching there called something like "Jews on Bikes" or something like that. At the time I remember thinking to my self "Now there is a Jewish organization I can join".

Anyway there are a few Jewish Biker organizations that are now operating. I wish I was a biker. I never really had the time or money to get a bike, but I wish I did. It really is a fantasy of mine. There is an article about them here finally giving them some of the recognition they deserve.

Confession of a Dangerous Mind

Last night I saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" at Union Square. It was an OK movie. I clearly remember the Gong Show, the Newlywed Game, and of course, The Dating Game from my youth. He was really messed up though if all the stuff in the movie was imagined. If it was real, the CIA really did pick the wrong guy for the job. Then again, if it got done. . .

But the movie was entertaining. If you get in cheaply, it is certainly worth it.

Passing of Mr. Rogers

Mr Rogers passed away. Another American icon lost. Who does not remember him being on right after Sesame Street on PBS for all those years. Who can forget lady Elaine and King Friday in the land of Make believe, and that trolley he had. Who will forget that "won't you be my neighbor" song and that weird habit he had of changing his shoes and sweater when he walked in to his house.

The British DO have a sense of humor

I just discovered that in England's last census about 390,000 people wrote "Jedi" in the optional "religion" slot. Apparently there was a large internet campaign to do so, with the mistaken belief that if 10,000 people did it, then Jedi would be a nationally recognized religion.

And why shouldn't it?

At least we can't really accuse the British of having NO sense of humor.

New Archbishop. . . I'm not impressed

There was a new archbishop of canterbury "enthroned" today. Rowan Williams, who is pretty much as lefty-commie as they come is now pretty much in charge of the Church of England. Among the many other things I see wrong with that he said something that I thought was really annoying. The NY times wrote "He called the United States-led bombing of Afghanistan "morally tainted," hit out at the capitalist "market state," and attacked computer games, talent shows and the Walt Disney Company for exploiting young people's obsessions."

This man is a religious leader. He is in charge of exploiting whatever it is in human brains that make us need to believe in some greater power. Then he claims to represent that power, and is the official representative and chief exploiter. Then he goes on to criticize some company for exploiting that which makes us happy. How does Disney and video game companies exploit us? By giving us that which makes us happy. So naturally it is wrong.

Mind you this was from the guy who exploited Christians by writing a useless spiritual piece of crap about post 9/11 beareavement.

You would think that a man who wrote 14 books has something intelligent to say. . . but you'd be wrong.

Cute chick running

Today I was running up the east river, as is my want, and I stopped at the UN to turn around and do a minute's worth of stretching, when this *really* cute woman comes up to me and asks me where a good place to run is. So I invite her to go running with me down town. And she did. I thought it was weird just accepting these kinds of offers from strangers, but it happened. It turns out that she is from Pakistan. She is at the UN for their annual conference on Women's issues or something. So I asked her which were the worst countries when it came to this kind of stuff. Naturally, her answer was "The Islamic countries". And then she was careful to point out that there was a difference between discrimination against women and religious discrimination that is de facto against women. I was not sure I saw the difference. But the important thing is that she was cute.

Stupid Israeli politics

"The ultra-Orthodox parties are gearing up for their new role as members of the fighting opposition, and are already planning cooperation with Labor and Meretz on socioeconomic issues" reports Ha'aretz.

To that I say "go ahead, you whores". After years of denouncing Shulamit Aloni and her ilk, they finally realize that maybe they can work together after all. Their politics will forever be tainted by their associations. (So will Meretz's, by the way.) This now officially resembles middle-eastern Arab politics, where enemies are enemies of convenience and friendships are made only when you want something. Shas and UTJ officially have no ideological backbone. It is all now seen to be just about money and power.

Israel's elections

I think that most of Israel is greatly relieved that Shas has not made it in to the government. They have been on a campaign to insult Sharon since not having been asked to join. And that is fine. They have been holding the government hostage for way too long, and frankly everyone is sick of it.

I think that everyone was hoping to see a government that included Likud, Labor, and Shinui. But Labor apparently couldn't stomach another term together with Sharon, so they are babies and not taking part.

So Sharon is suddenly the centrist member of the narrow majority. Shinui is the leftist party, and the NRP is on the right. That is kind of weird. This looks like it can be a strong government. Everyone is pretty much in agreement on most issues. NRP, while it is religious, is not in the habit of making crazy demands on the government, like Shas, and could probably get along with Shinui, as they are only mildly clerical.

Friend from Germany

Last night I was surprised to hear that "S" was in from Heidelberg. She called and we went for dinner with a friend of hers at Madras Mahal, an Indian place on Lexington and 25th. We had a good meal and a good time. It was fun seeing her.

Acronym organizations for the war needed

There are a few organizations that need to be formed as a show of support for our country and the opressed people of Iraq. 1) USSR - United to Stop Sadam and Racism, 2) PASH - Poetry Against Sadam Heussain, 3) HCAS - Hot Chicks Against Sadam. (Need a better Acronym for that.)

honest thinking person

Ah honest thinking person can be most aptly characterized by his willingness to have his mind changed by reasonable arguments or presentations of fact. To the extent that one is not willing to be influenced by reality, they are either not honest, or not thinking.

ANSWER is not the answer.

Sadam . . . the good guy?

The latest argument from the pro-Sadam camp (my friend "C" said this to me explicitly) is that he really is a good guy, and therefore we should not be going to war against him. Why do they say this? Apparently the 180,000 Kurds who he gasses were not really gassed by him, but rather by the Kurds' Iranian allies. There are many "reliable sources" who can corroborate this. It is simply a case of mistaken identity. Next we will no doubt be hearing that the gassing of the Kurds is a Zionist fabrication propagated to gain sympathy for Israel.

It would be hard, but not impossible to convince me this is true. Just show me some evidence that despite all common sense and reports up until now, the Iranians really gasses their allies, and Iraq ignored their ethnic enemies. To convince me this that people actually believe this, you would have to show me that they really want to be making war on Iran and getting the Iranian dictator out of power. People are such disingenuous liars.

Akademics

Here is a cleaned up version of a letter I sent to a newsgroup, about the war and the war rhetoric. The group is mostly for professors in the City University of New York. I thought I would share it with you:

I frequently emphasize to my own students the purpose of reason and clear thinking, but alas, while listening to their other professors (like many on this forum) all they manage to pull out of college is the power of rhetoric, protest, repetition. If I taught marketing, I would consider myself successful. But I do not. I teach something that requires critical thinking about reasons and arguments.

In an environment like the one in academia everyone seems to act on some sort of pack mentality. I do not understand why everyone thinks that posting messages about how many French people oppose the war is akin to a good _argument_ for opposing the war. Do I put my students at a disadvantage by asking them to think about these issues for themselves?

I really do not want to get in to every piece of nonsense given on this list lately, but when a legitimate part of debate is to just sit around and call people you don't like Nazis, and offer up what amount to a bunch of words that barely make up sentences, let alone arguments, you do a service to your agenda at the expense of truth. Any expense of truth is an expense of justice.

To claim that since we once supported someone (40 or so years ago) therefore it immoral to oppose him now, reflects a profound misunderstanding of the English word "therefore". I am no philosopher (or philologist), but there must be a fallacy named after that mistake.

To claim that we are "rushing" in to anything, reflects a similar misunderstanding of the word "rushing".

Conspiracy theories about the government cutting your phone lines, or the media not covering the anti-war rallies does not help anyone become clearer
thinkers about this issue issue.

etc.

The reasons why the administration wants to go to war is a function of a complex political dynamic which includes Middle Eastern stability, the embargo on Iraq, the protection of the Iraqi people, economic factors for the US, internal American political issues, the proliferation of WMDs by hostile countries, the distribution of WMDs and conventional weapons to terrorists, the protection of the gulf states, the protection of an ally - Israel, and a chance at Arab democracy in the long-term.

Also significant are the complaints of the American Left and the Arab world against the Iraq embargo which if the left is taken seriously it seems we can paradoxically neither lift nor perpetuate.

The presumption that the United States, Israel, and other countries that you don't like have only _interests_ while other countries that you do like, like Iraq and France have _morality-based foreign policies_ is also about as naive as they come. The fact that some countries oppose the war should not tell us anything about the justice or injustice of the war, all it tells us is about the respective interests of the countries. At the very least the presumption of the fact that countries are making these types of decisions based on the reasons you attribute to them needs proof or at least an argument. It is equally plausible that France and Germany have interests while the US is taking a moral stance.

Any debate that does not reasonably address these issues really amounts to ranting. Now if you could think of a clever little slogan that throws in the word "daddy's war" somewhere in there, that does not mean that you should not be taken for profound. You should realize that you are missing the point, and depriving less-informed people the opportunity to have a real understanding of the factors that go in to the situation in the Middle East.

Depriving students and colleagues of reasonable avenues for debate is up there with plagiarism and taking advantage of students as a top academic sin.

Encouraging others to miss the real points the point is no doubt good for you, if a person is inclined to listen to your cute slogans without thinking. And of course that is what you want, no doubt. But I challenge any of you to admit it in public.

Telling our students that in the absence of a democratic forum for promoting your agendas, all you need to do is take 10 people or any other significantly annoying minority and have them force people in power to take them seriously. Is it the case that if students are not listened to, you'll be telling them to "martyr" themselves in the university president's office? To what lengths of irrationality will you go?

I suppose that just to be fair to my own views, I should not close off any avenues of rhetoric to myself. Though I have not bothered to share any war views with you folks on the list (other than to say how complicated the questions are), I would be happy to allow you to think clearly about it, like I try to do. However, you have shared your views with the list and your tactics of persuasion as well. Thus, I would like to take up your methodology, just to be fair. So for all of those on this list who sit around (or whatever you do) and oppose war, consider yourselves compared to Hitler.

Best,
Karl

Not in my freaking name

If you are like me, you are still getting all these emails and articles and analysis addressing and analyzing the fallout of the the protest this past Saturday. I was not there, of course. I was not there because I do not oppose the war. However there were all these shits from my university who were there marching under the banner of my university. Not in my freaking name. I can't believe that people would protest in my name. It was bad enough that the official posters said something like "the world says no to war". I DO NOT SAY "NO" TO WAR. I support the decision of my country. I am really tempted to get school T-Shirts and sew American flags on them and write something like "We Support Bush".

Anyway, as I understand it, the whole thing did not have any impact on our troop morale. That is good. If there are any military personel out there reading this, I hope they realize that they are protecting our right to protest, and even our rights to say stupid things. That is democracy.