hmmmm

This is one of those things that you just really want to comment on but can't think of the appropriate place to start.

Update: OK, I do know where to start. First what kind of woman gets involved with someone who thinks along these lines? Second, how has he gotten to the point where someone actually married him? I am close to this guy's age, and I have discovered that women tend to get turned off when you start with the crazy talk. So what gives? What kind of magic does this guy have that he can get some woman who puts up with this kind of thinking despite the fact that he is facing child pornography charges? Where can I find women this desperate?

Let's hope our assumption was correct

If there is one attitude that needs change in Islamic counties it is that of responsibility. Someone must teach Muslims that they are responsible for their own actions. There is a gut instinct in the leader of every Arab/Muslim country to blame someone else for every problem in their world. There is also a strong cultural trait that makes all the subjects of this leader believe it. This is so ingrained that they tend to believe this now without leaders.

If I got this straight, some Sunnis attacked an important Shiite Mosque. Shiites retaliated against Sunni targets, but made sure nevertheless to blame the US and Israel.

It might be good to blame abstract targets so as to to shift the focus of your rage to something you are not going to get in to a war with. It has also always been a good tool if you are a leader of one of these countries to shift the blame so that your country doesn't get in to a war with you. But this is a stretch, isn't it. Are these people so used to blaming the US and Israel for everything that there is no real hope for reconsiliation?

If one supported the invasion of Iraq, it was under the assumption that Iraqis are capable of one day governing themselves, along with the attending notion of self-responsibility. Let's hope they were right.

February events

February has so far been a very busy month. I have been trying to juggle my 6 classes, write my dissertation, my 2 reviews, and conference paper, &c. I have also been trying to get some culture at the same time. I was at the New York Philharmonic and heard Lorin Maazel conduct Mozart's 39th, 40th and 41st symponhies. I was at a philosophy conference where Alvin Goldman spoke exceptionally well. I also attended a Nets game with a bunch of people. It was all a lot of fun. Now I must prepare for tomorrow.

Review of Maalouf's The Rock of Tanios

Amin Maalouf's The Rock of Tanios is the story of a boy from the past in the Catholic mountains of Lebanon. This is a place of myth, superstition, tribalism, feudalism, and loyalty, and ritual. Tanois, born under dubious circumstances, to an obsequious father and a beautiful mother, fights successfully for his education, and unsuccessfully for his true love. A betrayal forces him to flee from their small village of Kfaryabda to Cyprus with his father. When it is safe to return he does, but things are worse.

The story is extremely well written, and extremely Lebanese. I enjoyed it immensely. It is often about romance, often about something a bit deeper, like the search for identity, and struggle for sense.

The undertone of the story is however sadly cliche'd. You have a feudal society because tradition demands you have one. Though it is shitty, people love it because they see that the alternative is colonialism. Bad colonialists. Too bad he had to ruin such a good plot with such an annoying political message. That is of course not to say colonialism was good, it was one of the worst things that ever happened to humanity - that Europe decided it needed colonies. But, to show the evils of colonialism by romanticising what colonialism replaced is nieve.

World Court

I used to be opposed to the US (or Israel) joining the International World Court. After watching this "trial" it should be obvius to all that they would have to be crazy to do it. This is pretty much what a world court case would look like, if the US submitted to it's authority.

Crazy religious guy in my class

So here's one for the books:

So I am teaching this course that involves religion, so I spend one class giving my one-hour condensed history of Western religion. I have given this talk to this class many many times before. I generally speak really fast and take a bunch of questions. I am fairly glib about the whole thing, and try not to take the subject too seriously. The class is philosophical, so I really do not want to spend more time than is absolutely necessary discussing the historical background. It is not all that relevant, but it does help a bit to orient the students, so that the Immigrant Hindu students are not totally lost with all this Old Testament/New Testament talk, or that the Christian students realize that for most of the world, Jesus is just another dead Jewish guy, or that my Jewish students realize that the Bible has origins that are are more complicated than they expected.

I try to cover the history of the Western religions from the early Israelites wandering the desert worshipping Ba'al, through the birth of Christianity, the genesis of Islam, the Sunni-Shi'i split, the Protestant Catholic split, the Reform conservative splits, the canonization of Jewish and Christian scripture, the writing of the Koran, the documentary hypothesis, and whatever else comes to mind that seems relevant at the time. I emphasize some of the key similarities between the three religions, as well as their main differences. I think I fairly disrespect all three religions just enough to keep people laughing, but not enough to offend anyone greatly.

This was until this semester. Apparently someone called my Chair to complain about my class. So I was getting all nervous. I hoped I hadn't offended anyone. Worse - I hoped I hadn't offended someone from one of those violent branches of some religion, and now I would have to wear a flak jacket to class. (My PhD advisor did that for a while.)

So I wait till my boss gets to meet with the offended student, so I can hear what the outcome is. I really couldn't think of anything I did that would have offended anyone badly enough to complain.

Before my last class my boss comes to me and tells me how lucky I was that the student dropped my class. Apparently this was an older then average student with a yarlmuka - a large black one. Somehow, and this I am getting second hand from my boss, I was not sufficiently sensitive to the Holocaust, or the Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan because I am one of those liberal college professors like all the others. (I honestly cannot recall anything I said about Iraq or Afghanistan, unless perhaps it was so totally in passing.) My boss tried to tell him that I had spent 20 years in Yeshiva and was from Brooklyn, like him, but apparently he was not all that interested. He was offended and could not really get past that. Apparently my sympathy for the American position in Iraq or Afghanistan did not come across. Apparently my liberalism was more than he ever saw in college in New York, and apparently he was unhappy learning about the history of his and other religions. And apparently, the fact that my grandmother spent WWII as a guest of Auschwitz did not come across either. I did not describe the plight of the Jews under the Christians, Moslems, or Nazis in sufficiently harsh terms.

My boss was pretty convinced that this was a person who is really not qualified to be in a philosophy class, though I suspect he feels bad for the next professor who draws this student.

(Mind you, this story is very funny is you know me. If not, I might sound like an insensitive jerk.)

Thanks for the Baloons

I've been so busy lately, I have no time for anything.

I did just want to take a minute to thank whoever sent me the baloons. I have no idea who sent them, but I hope I know you well enough so that you are reading this. Thanks. It was a nice surprise when I got home today.

Two Philosophy Conferences

I was at two philosophy conferences this week. The first one I went to in New York was the Kripke Conference. I was at the first day of the conference, missing what I hear were some good talks on the second day. The speakers were pretty good. I have heard Scott Soames speak many times (He was a teacher of mine). He was good though a bit difficult to follow, as he usually is. He spoke about two routes to Kripke's necessary a posteori, one that works and one that does not.

Kripke (who came late) left us in the dark as to his speaking topic till the last minute. When he got up to speak it was about Identity, and it was a pretty good talk, not ground-breaking, but not bad either. No one was sure what he has been thinking about these days. Surprisingly, the New York Sun had a columnist there who wrote this article. (If anyone has access to the whole thing and wants to send it to me, I'd appreciate it.)

The second conference was JSCOPE. That is a military acronym for Joint Services Conferences on Professional Ethics. The conference was all non-attributional, so that means that I cant really repeat what anyone said (or at least I can't tell you who said what). So I'll just give you some impressions.

The conference was comprised of about 70% military people. Mostly majors, a lot of chaplains, a few philosophers. A lot of the military personnel teach at military academies. Many even teach ethics. For the most part few of the military personnel understood professional philosophy. Some who did were not good at it. On the flip-side few of the philosophers gave useful information to the military people there. That is not a criticism, merely a fact. They each came looking for different things, and they would have all benefited from a brief lesson on the other people there. But two or three of the professional philosophers came off really well and I was really impressed with them. I was also impressed with some of the military people who made some bold indictments against military ethics in general. Things like Abu Ghraib came up a few times.

I met some real philosophers who were interesting and who I would not have gotten a chance to speak with under other circumstances. That was nice. I also got to speak to some chaplains frankly about the two chaplain scandals going on now. The first involves non-denominational prayer at military functions and the second involves missionizing in the Air Force. The chaplains I spoke with (all Christian) were mostly of the opinion that what is done in Church should be Christian, and what is done in one's capacity as a minister to all people as a chaplain, should be non-sectarian. Some went so far as to say that there are some people who are chaplains who should not be. It was a good conference overall, and I hope to go back next year, but I think I'll try to get the government to fund me next time.

Where are Brooklyn Industries' stuff made?

I recently sent this letter to Brooklyn Industries:

Dear Brooklyn Industries people,

Recently while inspired by a sense of Brooklyn pride (which I have much of) I walked in to your Atlantic Avenue store to purchase some Brooklyn products. I thought, of course I want a Brooklyn sweatshirt. I looked around and saw that your products are on the pricey side. But that's fine. After all Brooklyn Industries is imbued with a sense of communal responsibility, and giving back. So being a Brooklynite, if I give to you, I get back. But I looked at all your products, and I could not find anything that was made in Brooklyn. That was incredibly disappointing.

I found sweatshirts made in Macau, sweaters made in Hong Kong, bags made in China, T-shirts (one of which I purchased) made in Canada, etc. I did see one nice acrylic colorful cap with a big pom-pom on it made in the US, but that is about it, and I do not look good in pom-pom hats.

So I ended up with a Canadian BI T-shirt.

It strikes me that the best way to give back to a community is to employ people in it. Then you generate jobs and income. If all your manufacturing is outsourced, how much are you really giving back? I would love to see more products that are inspired by Brooklyn and made here too. There seems like no greater way of giving back.

If not the manufacture of the clothing, what part of the industry is really about Brooklyn?

--Karl Czemer, Brooklyn

UPDATE: They responded with this letter quite promptly. I thought I would share it with you.

Hi Karl,

Thanks for inquiring about our Brooklyn Industries merchandise. I’m sorry that you were disappointed in not finding anything in our store that was made in the USA. Please note that all of the t-shirts in our Retrospective exhibit are in fact made in the US.

I would like to offer you a further explanation about our products:

Some of our merchandise is not made in Brooklyn. It is true that all of our products are designed here in Brooklyn, and many of our t-shirts are also manufactured here. However, we do have the more detailed clothing and bags currently produced in Turkey, India, Canada and China. For years we tried to make additional clothing categories here in New York. Many of our customers were unsatisfied with the results and often didn't pay the higher prices that those garments needed to have.

Unlike companies with products that are made in the USA that we are compared to, such as American Apparel and Manhattan Portage, we are a design company and as such we seek the best quality and standards to make our innovative product. Bags could not be made in NYC and have the same quality and function. Our intent is not as a manufacturer but as a design based company. We have standards that must be met, and we seek to only produce our product in factories that have high standards, that also meet international law for labor etc.

People often equate overseas labor with poor working conditions, but the president of our company has been to our three factories in China to make sure that they meet high US standards. In fact, he commented that all of the factories had much nicer environments than the factory that we use locally, he stressed that they were very clean, that the workers were getting paid well and that international law was being met. Overseas, we do our best to seek good manufacturers. That being said, we are a tiny company and our voice is very small. We would love to make more product in the US but have been unable to due to closing of factories, high prices, and there being a complete shortage (and in some cases non-existence) of manufacturers able to make clothing within the price point that our customers are willing to pay.

As far as our connection to the local community, we are very dedicated to our Brooklyn/NYC area and do our best to offer support. We live and work here, we design all our products here, we build our stores here, and we also donate to local causes.

I hope the overseas assembly of our clothing does not take away from all the local Brooklyn effort that went into creating it.

In our increasingly global economy, this question isn't as simple as a lot of people think it is. We think visiting the factories to ensure decent working conditions, supporting local charities here, and staying connected to local artists is a great way to run a responsible business.

Please email me if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

A

Munich - the movie

I saw Spielberg's Munich last night. I was a bit worried going in to the movie, what with all the brouhaha and all. I had heard all sorts of things from one friend who thought the movie was pretty good, to another who called it "self-hating and anti-Semitic".

I assume that the plot is no surprise to anyone. A bunch of Israeli athletes are murdered in the Munich Olympics. Golda Meir sends a team of people to kill all the people involved with the attack. The three hour movie actually spends about five minutes on the attack and the victims. The rest is spent on the team of people, led by Avner, killing the perpetrators.

This is where the first problem lies, as Charles Krauthammer comments, the victims are statistics, they are practically faceless, and it is almost comical when they are all running, trying to flee the gunmen in the hotel in their underwear. The Perpetrators have lives. They are human. They are polite, they are socialites, and they are literary scholars. Except for Avner, who has a wife and daughter, the team's characters have no depth, nor do the victims. Avner and the team's depth consisted of their moral problems with the mission.

So why do some claim this can bring peace to the Middle East? Why are people so up in arms about this? I think I have it figured out. It relies on a few things that people need to understand about today's Left.

But first, why was everyone so upset about this? The reason seems to be that one only displays moral qualms about some issue if there is a genuine moral problem. Hollywood would never waste our time showing two people agonizing over a moral issue if the answer was obviously cut and dry. Right? Hollywood is a great arbiter of mortality and if it says there is a moral dilemma, then damn it, there is one. So for those who take the reprisals as a natural morality-free response to the Munich massacre, then you'd be upset seeing it portrayed as a moral dilemma.

Incidentally this movie was not the story of what happened. The massacre took place, but after that, the record is a bit hazy. People on both sides (the Mossad and planners of the massacre) have dismissed the book that the movie is based on as inaccurate.

But let me get to the heart of the matter. Here is a sign of a contemporary liberal thinker: every act of killing can easily be construed as being on a moral par. "A" blows up an airline full of children. "B" kills "A" in response. For today's left, both "A" and "B" are both murderers. The big difference is in quantity. In the case of Munich, Black September killed about 10 athletes. Israel responded by killing about 10 Palestinians involved. Ergo both Israel and the Palestinians are mass murderers.

If you are a Hollywood (or academic) leftist, you probably think you are showing a balanced picture here, especially if you follow it up with reports of how this just escalates in a "cycle of violence" after the reprisal killings, where this never seems to end. So everyone is equally wrong here. No one gets blamed in a cycle of violence because . . . well . . . that is the nature of a cycle. It just keeps on going. No beginning or end.

But the movie faces a problem here. Avner, and his team are portrayed as having these moral qualms. That is what the movie is about. It would have been way too much of a stretch to portray the Palestinians as having a moral take on this. And it is this lack of a moral Palestinian dialogue that really shows Munich and Spielberg for what he is. He is a racist, like most liberals.

A liberal, first of all, only holds white people morally culpable. (Jews are white, Arabs are not.) White people know how to think morally, and are responsible for their actions. Lesser evolved peoples, for liberals, do not have such qualms. So when there is a moral issue at hand, only white people grasp the concept of taking it seriously. So the Israelis are portrayed as doing such, Arabs are not. (All liberals really believe this. Notice the lack of liberal outcry at such injustices as Rwanda, Sudan, Communist Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Halabja, Hama, (death toll nearly 4 million) and any mass murder committed by a non-white, and the constant hysterical liberal outcry at the South African Apartheid, and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians (Death toll what, 4000?). Notice that the “Just wars” of this century were against Milosevic and Hitler - white people, and not The Vietnamese Communists or Saddam Hussein (Asians and Arabs).) So I think when Spielberg made the focus of the movie to be the team’s difficulties, he is continuing this racism. I’d bet anything that in reality there was an equal amount of soul-searching on the terrorist part as there was on the team’s – zero.

Spielberg's racism, prima facie looks as if it is sympathetic to the Israeli cause. It is not. It is sympathetic to Israelis, not their objectives. It says "you Israelis are moral, and are to be held to an impossibly high moral standard." He wants to hold Israelis to some imaginary moral standard that exists only in Christian fantasy - the turn the other cheek standard.

At the same time, it condescends to Palestinians saying that they are not capable of moral reflection (which is clearly worth something, otherwise the whole movie wouldn’t have been about it), but nor do they need to be. Their cause is on par with the Israelis, despite the fact that they are incapable of having a conscience about it.

And this is what bothers me most. Non-white people are NEVER portrayed as having second-thoughts about the killing they are doing. It is just how they are. This exonerates them. They are not capable of moral thought, so why hold terrorism against them. As we are told in the movie, killing them just causes others to take their place, because the next generation will not either be able to think about the righteousness of their cause. We do not hear from the terrorist mouth that there will always be Israeli athletes, so why kill these? They, as non-whites are fairly incapable of that.

The movie was not very good, as a piece of morality, psychology, or history. It was a fiction. It was racist. It excused terrorism. It portrayed Jews as turn-the-other-cheek Christians.

Fellowships for who???

Ilan Weinglass has a good piece about Anwar Ibrahim and SAIS.

Greenpeace

Man, these people are pretty sick. Kinda makes me hope that there is enough domestic spying going on to prevent this.

In Florida

I am now in Florida. Walking on the boardwalk between 20th and 50th street at night makes you think you are in the middle of Williamsburg - all 100-year old hassidic couples. What do people do in Miami?

New Year's resolutions

I know I'm a bit late, but it is that time of year again. I am skipping the weight loss resolution, because I am finally in pretty good shape, though I am sure a few pounds off might help.

1) My number one priority is to finish my PhD. My goal is Sept 15. Let's see if I can make it.

2) I want a better social life. I think I need to form a strategy. Until now, I have been taking things as they come, because I had no better ideas. I still don't, but I need a new approach to a social life. It's time for a plan.

3) Work on fame and Fashionistadom. I will become a fashionista, or something closer than I am now. I will definitely dress better.

4) I think I need to advance in rank. I am due for a promotion.

5) Write. Write. Write.

6) See more of New York. There is still too much I haven't seen. I learn more every time I take a walk. I'll definitely read a book or two about New York, or Brooklyn.

Review of How to Become Famous in Two Weeks or Less

Those who know me well lately are probably aware of my interest in fashionista and celebrity culture. It is no surprise to anyone that celebrities, models, actors, and people of that ilk are generally vapid, celf-centered, egotistical, and generally annoying in a host of other ways.

I used to think that it just came with the territory, it was just part of being a model/actor. After reading Melissa de la Cruz and Karen Robinovitz's How to Become Famous in Two Weeks or Less I know better. Becoming as narcistic as most celebs are requires work, lots of work. One does not simply become as vain and shallow just like that.

The book is roughly about an assignment the two authors had from Marie Claire to become famous in two weeks. The book talks about Branding yourself and becoming recognizable, getting publicity, how to appear famous, and how fame breeds fame. There are chapters on how to manage the press, chat people up, and how to get lots of freee stuff.

The basic goal is to get your name in bold in People Magazine. To do this you position yourself around publicists and other famous people, and the hope is that fame will rub off. With fame comes swag and more fame.

One ges the impression that these people are the most self-absorbed people in the world. (One of the authors reminds me A LOT of someone I once dated, it was awful.) Apparenlty it takes that much to become famous.

I wonder if it still possible to become famous without all the self-absorbtion.

Anyway, that being said, call my people, send me free stuff, and pretend I really care about you, and whatever you do, spell my name right - Karl Czemer.