Heretics' almanac

Civil war or earnest engagement?

The riots in France, spreading to Germany and Belgium, and probably beyond, are perplexing European politicians.  Daniel Pipes - accurately I think - points out that the authorities only have a few clear options.  Debka reports that these are not spontanous outbursts of frustration over poverty and disenfranchisement, but rather a part of the war against the west.

The really scary prospect is that all this portends a civil war in Europe, where a minority becomes separatist, seeking autonomy and support for a society that is at odds with the majority.  It's probably an unlikely scenario, but ignoring it only increases the likelihood.

There is a lot of conventional wisdom I don't buy when it comes to all this.  I don't think this is a conflict between two religious systems; nor do I think that hardship plays any part in it.  If I were going to put the blame somewhere, it has to be in the dysfunctional dynamics between the "native" and "alien" groups in Europe, where both are more stupid than sensible.

The propaganda value of a Ahmed al-Khatib for NTB

Front page news in Aftenposten today ("killed because he had a toy gun") is that the parents of a twelve-year old Arab boy, Ahmed al-Khatib. have decided to put his organs up for donation, also for needy Israelis, presumably Jews.  (Norwegian media are generally not aware of the fact that a large number of Israelis are not Jews).  Ahmed was tragically shot and killed by Israeli soldiers who thought his toy gun was real.

The report was filed by NTB to Aftenposten.  There are versions of the same story in Ha'aretz ("Family of boy killed by IDF donates his organs for peace"), WAFA ( "Family of Child Killed by IOF Contributes his Parts to Israeli and Palestinian Patients"), and various other agencies.

As expected, you don't have to read many other versions to note that the NTB edition positions its article to achieve a certain political effect, namely hatred of Jews Israel:

Questions I shoulda asked Volcker

I attended the Conference Board's annual dinner (and meeting, which was a side show the speed of which would put a Boro Park Wednesday shacharit service to shame) last night, with Paul Volcker as the speaker.  Based on his findings in the independent inquiry on the oil for food program, he called for reforms of the United Nations but pointed out it wasn't going to be a "cake walk." 

The press was on hand, wasting their chances on stupid questions.  For example, whether Volcker had any comment about the French company Total given his involvement with the company (someone's trying to say that Volcker himself has a conflict of interest).  Turns out - and this should be easy for anyone to figure out - Volcker advised a Canadian company at one point that sold a Belgian subsidiary to Total.  Then someone said that someone in India wants to sue Volcker and the UN.  For what, it wasn't clear.

Anyway, the questions not asked (and I just didn't have the guts to raise my hand) were:

Maureen Dowd is one hot chick

I actually don't enjoy Maureen Dowd's columns much.  She is annoyingly obtuse and overstated at the same time; a bit like comedians that make a joke where the punchline is so obvious you wonder if you actually missed something.

Her article in this week's New York Times Magazine is a bit of a personal essay, I suppose, about the difficulties of being a woman in today's age.  According to Katie Roiphe in Slate, Dowd complains that the world hasn't gotten any better for accomplished women, that men still prefer the subservient type.

Rophie points out that plenty of men seem to find Dowd pretty attractive.  I saw her on the Daily Show and thought she was enchanting and much funnier in real life than in her columns.  But she's complaining that this "how to get and hold a man" thing still seems to be working.  So my question is:   

Alito and women's right to privacy

Roe v Wade is getting a lot of airtime these days.  Pundits on both sides of the issue are pretty sure that Alito would try to overturn it given the chance, and "abortion" is getting a lot of wind in the fictitious, parallel universe presidential race of Vinick vs. Santos. 

I'm no constitutional lawyer (but then again, neither was Harriet Miers), but I will venture an opinion or two here.

Stunt? What stunt?

There should be a website (maybe there is one) for monitoring all the ways in which the Republicans are using their majority in both houses of Congress to marginalize the Democrats from the political process.  Meetings held in basements, lights shut off in the middle, are things we've witnessed that obviously pass as proper parliamentary procedure in the GOP.

So when the Dems force a closed Senate session to discuss something as, well important, as the basis the president had for bringing the country to war; and the Republicans complain bitterly; it is very hard to take the GOP lawmakers seriously.  The war in Iraq is costing us well over $200 billion in financial terms and well over 2,000 American lives (and countless Iraqi lives) in human terms.  Seems ot me it's something that ought to be questioned, again and again.

Cynical about the Archbishop of Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury - who is the spiritual head of the Church of England - recently said:

'There is one thing that is always common to any sort of terrorist action, wherever it happens and whoever performs it. It aims at death * not the death of anyone in particular, just death. It does not matter to the killers if their victims are Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Humanist; what matters is that they show that they can kill where they please.'

People quickly asked "what about Jews," and the archbishop quickly responded by saying:

This [omission] was drawn to our attention immediately following the service and the Archbishop has been in touch with the Chief Rabbi's office to give his assurance that the omission was entirely inadvertent and he has expressed regret at any offence that might have resulted.

I expect that most people will now say this was an honest mistake, he apologized, let's lighten up, give the guy a break. There are those who are skeptical, who believe that the archbishop prepares his speeches with great care.

If I were to be really cynical, I might suspect the following: