Salman "Fatwa" Rushdie

I wonder what would have happened if other books had been in print when Gutenberg started that whole best-seller-ever Bible publishing thing?

Because I bet a number of traditional theocracies would have really had a problem. Good thing there's no record of what they thought, otherwise we might have had to learn a lesson.

Everyone knows: sticking your fingers in your ears or eyes or nose is not going to just make it stop.

And by choosing to cut yourself off from unpleasant information and experiences, you thereby limit your own life experience, and the joy of knowing exactly who you are and what you think because even in those deepest, darkest moments of doubt, your integrity and beliefs come shining through as the only possible course of action...for you.

When the leadership of international governments demonstrates a complete inability to behave any other way, you must wonder how effective that social/political system can be.

So it would be really easy to look at Iran and Pakistan and think their traditionalism and religious beliefs are what make this behavior - collective and individual - possible.

But then, the US has its own system of avoiding negative feedback and incorporating criticisms into our decision-making. Banning books?! That's old hat.

What's more likely is a carefully constructed system of financial and social incentives, screened behind an "all-for-one-and-one-for-all" idealism. Rather than "fatwa", we call our campaigns "national security".

Same thing, different object.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Salman Rushdie, whose real message (not filtered by publisher representatives) is: Who the fuck cares?!

Cash for Cooperation - Obvious Award!

At least they're obvious!

Gotta love the US government (and all our cronies) for being straightforward about incentives.

Within moments of Hamas's takeover of Gaza and the subsequent sacking of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority, the US et al had suddenly found money to send in support of the Palestinian government!

This wouldn't, by any chance, be tied to a specific political agenda?

Interesting take on Democracy. Let's walk through this rationale.

1. Demand free elections take place in "Palestine" to secure diplomatic acknowledgement by the West and Israel (which is like a little oasis of Western authoritarianism in the desert).

2. Hold free elections.

3. Majority winners of the free elections are members of Hamas, or at least supported by them.

4. West refuses official recognition of the government because Hamas is "a terrorist organization" and, more importantly, thinks the West and especially Israel, should go to hell.

5. Wait for a violent coup by Hamas.

6. Elbow the sitting President to can the existing government and replace it with one that entirely excludes Hamas (and, therefore, the majority will of the people).

7. West-backed Pres selects new Prime Minister and government.

8. West officially recognizes "Palestine".

9. West finds a whole hell of a lot of money to support the new Palestinian Authority.

Sounds like US-brand Democracy to me!

Today this strikes me as funny. Tomorrow, probably not.

Keepin It Real...Gaza

As the West assigns blame and attempts to cover its collective ass, people are actually alive and thinking in Gaza...

Clean House

As I said yesterday, sometimes it takes a bunch of men with guns to do what needs to be done.
HA!

What horrifies me about the Hamas takeover of Gaza is not Hamas, or their anti-Israeli policies, or even that the grounds for a civil war (if you can call fighting between two bodies that occupy an area not officially recognized as a state a civil war) have been laid out in the road like so many carcasses.

What horrifies me is the idea that the only way for anyone to get their point across in this world is by shoving a gun in someone's face and screaming "Listen to me!"

There must be another way. And there is! It's called diplomacy.

And anyone who has any real concept of power knows that the moment you resort to violence, you are openly admitting that you have no power, no influence, no integrity and no commitment to your ideals. Because if you have to force someone to do something by threatening them with pain or death, you have descended into the depths of animal instincts and no recovery of human sensibility is possible.

If you can't convince someone that you are "right" on the basis of your reason and commitment alone, you can't convince them, and you'd better be ready to hold a gun to their face for the rest of your life, or theirs.

That's why any attempt to assign blame in this situation is useless, pointless, and completely devoid of meaning. It's a game of who-picked-up-the-gun-first, and it's an unanswerable, unwinnable game. Because it's not about having an answer, or about winning.

Ultimately, it's about how humans can live together, and conduct our lives with dignity and self-respect.

Hamas isn't teaching that, and neither is Fatah (or is Fateh?). Neither is Israel or the US, despite skillful manipulation of rhetoric and publicity. The Palestinian Authority has compromised itself so many times that global, regional and local respect are so far away it's laughable, if you are the type to think the debacles of international politics is funny. [And I am.]

Hama, Hamas, Hamatus

I worked really hard on that title, so don't think I'm just being cute. I worked the hell out of that free translation service!

Anyway, drama in Gaza, and Abbas decides to can the government? Sense in that? All suggestions/opinions being considered.

I'd think this was a real disaster if it seemed that a Hamas-driven takeover of Gaza would actually be problematic. I mean, Ireland has been at this how long? And in the middle east, they've been at this how much longer?

All I'm saying is that, maybe it's not such a bad thing. Violence is unfortunate, but perhaps the only way to bring about a unified Palestinian community that is prepared to do whatever it has to to bring about a globally recognized state.

Politics in this little corner of our world are so complicated, and I hate to allocate fault, because everyone is at fault. And where do you start?

It would be easy if one day a bunch of Jews had gotten together and just decided to infiltrate Palestine, massacre everyone, and set up camp - but it didn't happen exactly like that.

It would be easy if, one morning in 2005, a bunch of angry former Palestinians decided they were going to walk over to Israel and start killing as many people as they could.

And neither of these imaginary scenarios even takes into account the outside elements:
is Israel a US operative?
is Abbas kowtowing to the West?
is Hamas a terrorist organization?
is Iran funding all this chaos?

If I had the time and a postdoctoral grant (hint, hint), I could probably follow the money from today back and figure out EXACTLY why the governments and individuals involved in this debacle made the specific choices they made. And I still could not assign the fault to anyone in particular.

But as outsiders, what do we do?

For one thing, we can stop assigning good- and bad-guy roles to the groups involved - we do this with language subtly and with imagery not-so-subtly at all.

We can also take US funding out the equation, so that when the political winds inevitably change and we find ourselves on the wrong team, we can absolve ourselves from a time-limited, value-prejudiced course of action.

I have more suggestions. Each one more insane than the next.

Jesus!! Justice?!! Now??!

I know, I know. I'm a naysayer, and I'm always disappointed, and I'm taking the lord's...excuse me the "Lord's" name in vain, but Jesus! Now?!

Actually, I could also interpret this as the first signs of an awakening, like a spring thaw in the rigid, traditionalist, rule-creating, manifest destiny-achieving winter of the Bush administration's idiot-hold on the US population.

So, what I really mean is HOORAY!