Wednesday, April 18, 2018

David Grossman

Israeli writer David Grossman is not what's technically described as a "Torah sage" by today's ultra-orthodox theocrats, but when it comes to the reality of Israel he seems to me very much a sage. At any rate, he is someone I look to in times of crisis, such as this one — not that Israel, and beyond Israel, Jewry ever lack for crises.

Here is a remark I've chosen from Grossman's "Israel Is a Fortress, but Not Yet a Home," his Memorial Day Speech to Bereaved Israelis and Palestinians:***

When Israeli snipers kill dozens of Palestinian protesters, most of them civilians — Israel is less of a home.


Not much of his talk is dedicated explicitly to the conflict at the Gaza border. Most of it is directed to Israel's existential situation — not existential in the sense usually used, as in "Iran represents an existential threat to the Jewish State" **, but morally existential, in the ways Israel consistently undercuts much of its own meaning.

For example, he says: Israel is painful for us. Because it is not the home we want it to be. We acknowledge the great and wonderful thing that happened to us, by having a state, and we are proud of its accomplishments in many areas, in industry and agriculture, in culture and art, in I.T. and medicine and economics. But we also feel the pain of its distortion.

I'm not Israeli but I care profoundly about the country. From the relative safety of the United States, I acknowledge "the great and wonderful thing that happened to [Jews], by having a state."

Were I Israeli I'd hope to care about that state the way David Grossman does.

** Worth noting is that Grossman does not criticize the Israeli attack on an Iranian outpost in Syria, coterminous with the conflict at the Gaza border. Not to speak for Grossman, but that may be significant. At any rate, I do not challenge Israel's right to neutralize in advance an Iranian or any other threat in advance of it becoming militarily existential.


***The full text of Grossman's speech can be found at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/full-text-speech-by-david-grossman-at-alternative-memorial-day-event-1.6011820

If a pay wall prevents viewing the whole text, I will supply it on request.



Monday, April 16, 2018

Comey

For those who missed James Comey being interviewed on ABC Sunday night, (4/15/18), I'm including bits from a Times summary that I find most striking.

• I don’t buy this stuff about him being mentally incompetent or [in] early stages of dementia. He strikes me as a person of above average intelligence who’s tracking conversations and knows what’s going on. I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president.

• It was him talking almost the entire time, which I’ve discovered is something he frequently does. And so it would be monologue in this direction, monologue in that direction, monologue in a different direction.

And a constant series of assertions that — about the inauguration crowd, about how great my inauguration speech was, about all the free media — earned media, I think was his term, that I got during the campaign. On and on and on and on. Everyone agrees, everyone agrees, I did this, the — I never assaulted these women, I never made fun of a reporter.

And — I’m sure you’re wondering what question did I ask that would prompt those? None, zero. I didn’t ask any questions that I recall.

• He will stain everyone around him.

• [NY Times]: During much of the interview, Mr. Comey seems disciplined and almost dispassionate. But at the end, he lets loose in a remarkable way. It is hard to think of a time that such a senior official of the government has gone on to so directly question the moral fitness of the sitting president. He said that he hoped Mr. Trump would be held accountable for his lies, but that impeachment would be a cop-out for a public that should also be held accountable for electing Mr. Trump in the first place.



So, as per Comey, Trump is neither intellectually nor neurologically challenged. To explain him in such terms — as, say, stupid or declining into dementia —is, in effect, to excuse him, to get him off the hook, to give him a high office version of an insanity defense. No, Comey sees Trump more simply as a bad man, morally deficient by most standard but extravagantly so by the norms of the presidency.

And give that high office, Trump's immorality can't be quarantined; it has the capacity to "stain everyone around him." I think other escapees from Trump Tower, if and when they gather the courage to tell their stories, will confirm Comey's view.

Comey takes a similar view on impeachment. Sure it would be nice to rid ourselves of Trump by any possible legal means but impeachment, for Comey, would give not Trump, but the electorate, a pass it doesn't deserve. It's the electorate that needs to cleanse itself of Trump.

Comey did not deny the possibility that his own clumsy, badly timed announcements about Hillary's emails might have skewed the election, though he hopes they didn't. To my mind they did, but still his point stays with me: the American electorate, whatever turbulence it experienced on the way to the polls showed its own moral caliber, or lack thereof, by making Trump president.

Oh, Trump will make a serious, potentially violent  stink however he is evicted, but as to the electorate coming to its senses, I think Comey is right to say the only real good riddance is to vote him out.



Monday, April 2, 2018

Gaza

Gaza I

I hate to see what's happening in and to Gaza.

Are Gaza protestors in some cases being intentionally provocative? From what I can tell, yes. I'd be surprised if that weren’t the case. What other style of leadership has Hamas ever had to offer?

Are the Israelis employing overkill? Once again, yes. Given his rightwing government, Netanyahu has fewer constraints than ever, and more encouragement to suppression.

And the residents of Gaza fewer allies.

Gaza is being squeezed not just by Israel but by Egypt, which enforces a blockade from its side. And by the fact that there is no peace between Mahmoud Abbas, the octogenarian who putatively represents West Bank Palestinians, and Hamas; there is only enmity.

One difference I see between the current conflict and the 2014 Israel–Gaza war is that militants in Gaza are not attacking Israel or Israeli settlements directly. There are no rockets being launched. The tunnels Hamas had used to infiltrate Israel have reportedly been destroyed.

Israel has a right to defend itself against attack but in this case is it being attacked?

I see provocative but relatively trivial border incidents to which Israeli troops are violently overreacting, as if each amounted to a real insult to its existence and a challenge to its sovereignty.

Is Hamas playing to "world opinion", whatever that means?

Perhaps. But no one is coming to the rescue of Gaza. The Sunni powers, led by Saudi Arabia, are far more interested in cementing their ties with Israel in preparation for the war against Iran they both crave. (They hope too that Israel Israeli-Washington ties will bring the United States into it.)

My geopolitical ruminations to the side, so far as I can see, between the follies of their own leadership and the enmity of their foes the residents of Gaza are being subjected to unsparing cruelty.

**
Gaza II

One response to previous post about Gaza:

Gaza protestors being "intentionally provocative".,.? This is no longer in the category of speculative query but verified agenda. Those in doubt should read the manifesto of the terrorist arm of Palestinian cause, Hamas. It's all there available on the internet. The Hamas Charter, 1988, revised in 2017. Resistance to Israel is mandated by any ways and means. The fight against Zionism, aka the continued nationhood of Israel, must continue unrelentingly at whatever cost of human life however long that may take. It's a holy mission, a mandate from Allah never to be relinquished. Palestinian leadership has managed to accumulate capital to their cause in the court of world opinion by victimizing their own people, encouraging them to commit violent acts, to sacrifice their own lives. An immorality sold and bought into by those duped into identifying this duplicity as humanitarian cause.

My response:

I think much of what you say is true about Palestinian dedication to suicidal opposition, but even if every bit of it is true it is still legitimate to ask why the IDF chose lethal responses. It didn't have to. The protestors posed no lethal — certainly no existential — threat to Israel.

No Israelis nor Israeli settlements were harmed. And I've yet to read accounts of the IDF being harmed.

I think the killings were predetermined warnings to Gaza protestors and beyond — to Hamas, and beyond Hamas to Hezbollah and Iran.

And beyond that, to whoever crosses Likud defined tripwires in opposition to Israeli policies — critics of the occupation of the West Bank, and critics of the shrinkage of Israel democracy.

Not that they will be shot but their views will be utterly disregarded.

No, it's not an excuse that residents of Gaza are in a truly dire and pathetic situation, but they are.

And it seems Israel, instead of alleviating it to some degree,  doesn't mind making it more dire.


Let me also express some surprise that those who see Trump as involved in the negation of democracy fail to see anything similar about the reign of Netanyahu.

Monday, March 26, 2018

I come to destroy religions!

Almost done watching the six part Netflix documentary “Wild, Wild Country”, about Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the commune/city, Rajneeshpuram, he and his followers founded in Oregon in the 1980s, right next to, surrounding, and enveloping, Antelope, Oregon, population 46 (2010).

My conclusion: in a sense, every cult is the same; only the accents and longevity matter, and, crucially, the attitude toward apocalypse — as in show-down or patience about ultimate confrontation between astounding cult truth and  dominant culture.

Cults that survive a long time get upgraded into religions, as maybe they deserve to, if, in religious history, survival approximates or expresses some higher, more patient and therefore more durable truth value.
. . .

The best line Bhagwan speaks comes when he denounces the religion that has been made of him by a follower. He demands that all the many books of his sayings be burned, along with the red robes that had been declared the only official garments.

Bhagwan says: I come to destroy religions! This is the first time in history a religion destroys itself!

Wow. My kind of guru.

On the other hand, Bhagwan, when he spoke those words, owned a world record 93 Rolls Royces.



Saturday, March 24, 2018

Pinker

Steven Pinker
author linguist evolutionist
polemicist

extraordinaire

a curly haired
jewish philosophical 

would-be King Kong


but even after his

"Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"

wonders and is perturbed
by why music evolved

WTF What the hell? Huh?

Everything seemed settled.

But music:

What good does it do?

Darwinially

Darwinistically  

Whereas I, having felt the force of
his arguments must needs nevertheless ask:

Why has such a thing as Pinker

evolved

Darwinially
Darwinistically  

with what purpose?

if he can't imagine it

can't dance to it

How much, that is,

can he tell us?

Friday, March 23, 2018

streamlining

john bolton
off the charts right-winger
new national security advisor

mike pompeo
same same
new secretary of state

not meaningless
corporate shuffles
who's in who's out
etc

no
getting down to it
streamlining for what trump's always been about
beneath real and seeming madness

because he can't be about anything else
has nothing else to be about

save wealth
which comes included

simplifying

for repression and war
war and repression

forget the iran deal
forget iran
forget mueller
if he can

who says militarism is cancer?
some guys sure it's the only answer


Thursday, March 15, 2018

Pinkerism

Like Andrew Sullivan, Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" was a game changer for me. It took genetics out of the dog house SJ Gould had sentenced it to, and brought it back into its share of the spotlight. It wasn't only Pinker who was doing this, but also Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and the great E.O. Wilson. It's true that Gould, in his anti-geneticism was equating genetics with the Nazis ill use of it, but he fought genetics to the point of denying and surprising scientific truth. We are indebted to Pinker for pointing this out.

I loved and have been forever influenced by Pinker's take down of the Tabula Rosa, the idea that nothing comes with us, nothing biological, and that we are a blackboard that can be infinity rewritten.

So much for utopias, then, whether right to left. No, we couldn't be rewritten to serve either a Mao or a Hitler. There are certain constraints, and a rebound to them, no matter how much torture might have been applied to overcoming them.

I interviewed Steven Pinker, at least once, and tussled with him. The points he made in The Blank Slate were necessary and undeniable. And yet, there was something else, a reductionism, as in his notion that the only difference between a preference for Shakespeare over Buffy The Vampire Killer was the need for status.

Forgive me, but LOL. Pinker had overstepped, which he tends to do in proclaiming he has the new philosopher's stone.

I'm not going to go for a detailed critique of,  "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress."

Not now.

I will say that Pinker's often trumpeted confusion about the purpose of music — What it for? For what purpose did it evolve? — is arrogant and, may I go full blast? — stupefying.

The problem isn't about music but refers back to and is about Pinkerism
.