November 01, 2004
Women of Hollywood vs. women of Afghanistan
I’m not much of a linker, but I really wanted to save this link.
UPDATE: It goes well with this:
Americans have a deserved reputation for historical amnesia. Three years -- an eon -- have made us imagine that the Afghan war was easy and foreordained.Easy? In 2001, we had nothing there. What had the Clinton administration left in place? No plausible military plan. Virtually no intelligence. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys.
Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban.
President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.
This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora.
Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/52481
Comment:Well, isn't Kerry planning on outsourcing our National Security to the UN?
Posted by: jinnderella at November 1, 2004 03:35 PM Permalink
Good points. America does suffer from short-term memory lapses, I fear.
I have deep concerns over our national security if Kerry gets in. Plus I have no faith in his ability to deal with Israel. And domestically, the numbers he espouses just don't make any sense unless he raises everyone's taxes, which he claims he won't do.
I am at the edge of my seat waiting for this election to be over.
Posted by: Stacey at November 1, 2004 04:34 PM Permalink
Thanks for reminding us how much was accomplished in such a short time. You could have gone further and pointed out how Bush's doctrine of "with us or against us" coupled with the invasion of Iraq has caused Libya, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, etc. to begin to capture and control the fanatical Islamists in their countries. Can you imagine how much will change if Iraq actually can manage to display some form of democracy in the next year? It could all still go to hell in a hand basket but it could also work and start the changes that will have long term benefits to all.
Posted by: olde fogey at November 2, 2004 05:28 AM Permalink
November 02, 2004
Meme Plague
It is clear that culture, like physiological characteristics, is inherited by children from their parents. Your physiological characteristics are determined by your unique combination of genes, your culture by your unique combination of memes.
Now, it is well known (or should be) that the evolutionary success of a gene is dependent on two factors: its contribution to the survival of the organism, and its contribution to the fertility of the organism. Though you can combine these characteristics into one measure: reproductive fitness, to describe the gene’s contribution to survival and fertility together, I would like to keep them separate, because in relation to the world these factors are independent. It is easy to imagine a gene that contributes to survival but decreases fertility, or vice versa. Imagine, for example, a gene that does what steroids do: increasing strength while inhibiting fertility – such a gene would have no success in being passed on the next generation no matter how successful the organism that carried it in surviving, or even dominating, its peers.
But a characteristic of memes not shared by genes is their ability to propagate not only through reproduction, but also through contact. Why are some memes adopted though contact, resulting in the discarding of others? Clearly, fashion is a factor – you can see this in music and styles of clothing. While fashion is a chaotic feature (chaotic in the mathematical sense, which I think for the purposes here is the same as random) I think that there is a clear non-random factor as well – survival. It seems clear to me that human beings are programmed to adopt memes that they perceive as beneficial to survival. (Memes can also be transmitted in self-reinforcing groups, known as meme complexes. In the following discussion, read “meme or meme complex” where for brevity I just say “meme”.)
All things being equal, this is a very advantageous human characteristic – when you adopt a meme that increases your chance of survival you would normally increase your overall reproductive fitness as well. But all things are not necessarily equal. For one thing, it seems to me that human beings are not programmed to be attracted to memes that benefit fertility. It is possible to imagine a meme that strongly inhibits fertility, but is so attractive (either because it benefits survival or for some other reason) that is sweeps the human race: a meme plague. The meme would sweep through humanity (perhaps increasing overall prosperity, if its attractiveness is based on enhancing survival), only later resulting in a vast inter-generational die-off, as it fails to be transmitted to the next generation.
What defenses might we have to such a meme plague? I can think only one: Another meme even more attractive than the meme causing the plague. But this begs the question: Wouldn’t, then, this other meme sweep through the population instead? Not necessarily. Remember, there are two memetic transmission models: the viral model, i.e. though contact, and the genetic model, i.e. from your parents. You could argue that both are in fact through contact, and therefore the same. I, however, believe that the nature of your contact with your parents is fundamentally different from any other contact in your life, so they are not necessarily the same. I can imagine a meme complex (if not a single meme) that is extremely attractive to one who has acquired it, but also hard enough to transmit that it requires the kind a prolonged, extremely intimate contact, very early in life, that we only see in the parent-child relationship. If such were the case, the meme plague would likely leave such groups intact.
My question to you: do you think this is happening today?
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/52700
Oh, David, we have other defenses. Our receptors will reject memes that are too far off in orientation. Probably our receptors are calibrated when we're young, in part.
Posted by: jinnderella at November 2, 2004 10:25 PM Permalink
Lurker and I talked about this at Winds-- I'll try to find the comments.
Usually we go from the input model, and try to find some magic meme that appeals to everyone, or look at the differences between memes in retention and transmission. Lurker suggested going the other way, to look at the differences in aperature and orientation of the receptors. :)
Jinnderella: I was thinking specifically about the western culture meme complex vs. religions of all sorts.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 2, 2004 10:32 PM Permalink
Oh! Western culture is antithetic to fertitlity? And all religions promote fertility? Well, Spengler reviews this book--
Posted by: jinnderella at November 2, 2004 11:01 PM Permalink
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html
Perhaps religion is an inoculation against deleterious memes. :)
I wouldn't put things in such black and white terms. But religion is generally a "genetic" meme, rather than a "viral" meme, and I think the distinction is important. It seems to explain the patterns that we see today. Imagine that before the advent of the western culture meme complex, parents were transmitting their religion memes with variable levels of quality. Those who were poorest (sorry about the loaded-sounding language, I don't mean it to be) at transmitting their memes were susceptible to incursion. This would have the result of increasing the transmission-quality of the memes of the remaining religious meme-carrying population. At a certain point we would reach equilibrium. After that, if the traditional memes were more fertility-encouraging (as is likely if they survived for centuries) we would see their increase.
Is that not what we see today?
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 3, 2004 05:52 AM Permalink
Yes, David. :)
Posted by: jinnderella at November 3, 2004 10:54 AM Permalink
It is all about reproduction. Are you saying religions evolved to increase the reproductive fitness of the religious?
No, I'm saying that memes have to provide a reproductive advantage in order to survive in a large majority of the population long term. In other words, memes can survive in viral mode indefinitely only as long as they are carried by a minority. Religions that have survived for many generations are meme-complexes that have survived long term in genetic mode (i.e. passed from parent to child).
Is it surprising that religious people are the most resistant to the western-culture meme complex?
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 3, 2004 11:06 AM Permalink
David,
You're right to note the special power of memes passed down family generations. However, I don't think this requires a genetic explanation.
We transmit inexplicit knowledge to each other all the time through facial expression, mood swings, tone of voice. The knowledge can be quite subtle, like when and when not to start a conversation. Prolongued contact and intimate dependency are enough to explain the power of the parental meme channel.
(An observation: Israel flourishes. Jewishness is passed down the female line. Coincidence?)
There is no genetic defence against memes: memes rule! Genes handed in the hat millions of years ago. (Jinderella will know more accurately when human beings got started).
Whether you are susceptible to infection by a new idea depends entirely on the set of other ideas of which you are currently composed.
There is no falling back on the biological "values" of survival and reproduction. For then how does one explain the existence of celibate religious orders or people who strap bombs to themselves to kill innocents?
Posted by: Tom Robinson at November 3, 2004 12:25 PM Permalink
Tom: I'm not sure I understand you. But I want to make clear that when I speak of memes being passed in "genetic" mode, I mean this purely as a metaphor - that the memes are passed from parent to child. I certainly don't mean to imply memes in our genes!
I agree with you that memetics is more important than genetics!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 3, 2004 12:38 PM Permalink
Time to vote!
I wish my US readers well today as they exercise their democratic rights! I want you to remember that most people in the world still don’t have them, but the current president of the United States has done more to further their cause than anyone since Ronald Regan (whose actions led to freedom in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union). He’s pursuing the great liberal agenda of the US: To let freedom ring!
The word for vote in Hebrew is: hisbia` (הצביע) – root: s-b-`, it also means: point. Other words with the same root: esba` (אצבע) – finger, seva` (צבע) – color, sava` (צבע) – paint. You point with you finger. You paint with color. I don’t know what the relationship is between painting and pointing, but in English the words are similar too!
There is a very ancient word in Hebrew for voting-box: qalpi (קלפי) – root: q-l-p. Other words from this root: qlaf (קלף) – parchment, card (the kind with 52 in a deck, not all the other kinds of cards we have in English, for which Hebrew has various other words), qlipa () – shell (of nuts), peel (of fruit). You vote with a card, a card is made of parchment, parchment is made from the skin of an animal, the skin of nut or fruit is its shell or peel.
UPDATE: Amritas teaches us to vote in Korean.
UPDATE: Election Day media watch here. Some thoughts on voting in the US here.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/52760
November 03, 2004
Congratulations George Bush!
It’s good news to wake up to. I’m glad the best man won.
Winners:
The American People
The Iraqi People
The Iranian People
The Israeli People
Democracies everywhere
Freedom everywhere
The World
Losers:
Terrorists everywhere
Dictators everywhere
Corrupt politicians everywhere (e.g. France, the UN)
Osama Bin Laden
Al Qaida
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/52924
Win for Tradesports
Another winner of this election is Tradesports.com. Way back on October 21st they predicted today’s results exactly (or nearly exactly – it’s still too early to tell).
Take a look at OpinionJournal.com’s summary of the results for that day! (Scroll down, they don’t have permalinks for individual entries.)
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/52941
November 04, 2004
What won it
Jeff Jarvis has a very interesting post on what won it. I have a somewhat different take on the results. Here’s his comments, and mine:
The top issue (21%) was "moral values"; 78% of those who cared about that went for Bush, 19% for Kerry. That's a huge difference. Read this one as you will (MSNBC commentators see it as code for Vietnam and the Swifties).
“Moral values” is a codeword for either family-values conservatives, or people who were repulsed by Kerry’s Vietnam record. This is Bush’s core constituency. Kerry had no chance of winning these people’s votes. The challenge was Bush’s to get them to vote at all.
Next: economy/jobs at 20%; 81% preferring Kerry, 17% Bush. So Kerry got much better marks on the economy.
This is the “none of the above” answer. Under normal circumstances, the economy is always top priority; people who put this first are the ones that can’t say moral values or terror, because then they would have to vote for Bush. In other words, people who wanted business as usual (i.e. agreed that “terror is a nuisance”) put this first.
Terror comes in third at 18%; 85% preferring Bush, 15% Kerry. That's the one that amazes me -- not in the Kerry/Bush split but in the importance voters gave it. Bush ran on terrorism; it wasn't No. 1 in the minds of voters; yet he still won.
This came in third because a lot of the “moral values” people are in this camp too. Note, it’s a pretty close third.
Iraq comes in next at 15%; 75% preferring Kerry, 24% Bush. No surprise.
This is competing against “terror” – Bush people who thought Iraq was important did so because terror was important.
Health next at 8%; 79% preferring Kerry, 21% Bush.
These are people looking for handouts: naturally they went for Kerry.
Taxes next at only 5%; evenly split at 52% preferring Bush, 47% preferring Kerry.
I admit: I don’t get this one.
Finally, education at 4%; 76% preferring Kerry, 23% preferring Bush. So much for the education president as a defining issue.
The people who are most concerned about education are the religious right, but they put “moral values” as their lead issue. This is the teacher’s union vote: they are afraid of educational choice and competition. Naturally they voted for Kerry.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53179
David, have you read Spengler's "It's the culture stupid"?
Posted by: jinnderella at November 4, 2004 02:54 PM Permalink
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK05Aa02.html
He says the same thing that you did on resistant strains of religions. I thought it was very good! :)
Arafat is clinically dead?
Rumors are swirling that Yasser Arafat is clinically dead. I just saw on the news an official of Arafat’s hospital in France announce that his medical situation has “changed” and he will be removed to another section of the hospital more appropriate to his new “situation”.
My interpretation is that he’s dead or clinically dead, but the Palestinians don’t want to announce it for fear of what will happen next. What you would expect from a dictatorship.
(I must say the hospital officials in France look really weird: they wear what looks to me like army uniforms. Is France a police state?)
UPDATE: Israeli news is reporting now that he is clinically dead. What happens next? Remember, Arafat has been leading the Palestinian war against Israel since 1963 (four years before Israel captured Gaza and the West Bank in the Six Day War).
UPDATE: The root of Arafat is: `-r-f. I don’t know what it means in Arabic, but in Hebrew `oref (עורף), from the same root, means: back of the neck. I think that’s appropriate somehow.
UPDATE: The news seems to be confirmed. We can start donating Arafat’s organs now. Anyone want his heart?
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53246
In my opinion they attack as often as they can already. Nothing that happens will cause the attacks to increase, except our bad luck or lack of vigilance.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 4, 2004 08:31 PM Permalink
Is it true that I can't be happy if he dies? Because I'm going to have a hard time not being happy; he is a monster in my mind, having killed so many people, and caused so much pain and suffering in the world.
(My dh and I were just talking about the pasuk in Proverbs.)
Posted by: Rachel Ann at November 4, 2004 11:34 PM Permalink
Just a footnote: The Percy hospital is a military hospital, hence the uniforms of the doctors. My guess is that Arafat was taken there either because it would provide better security, or because of the nature of his illness, announced initially as a "blood disorder" or possibly leukemia. With no credible information coming out, we are stuck with mere rumors.
I can't help but wonder if his episodes of vomiting, etc. that led to his removal to France were perhaps induced by a few doses of syrup of ipecac: my pet theory being that his mental health had deteriorated to the point where it was worth risking a kind of coup d'etat by his subordinates.
Truly, his end is worthy of one of the steamier soap operas...
Posted by: Rev. Huatou at November 8, 2004 12:36 PM Permalink
November 05, 2004
Another reason why I’m not a leftist
From the Backseat Philosopher (via Instapundit):
We Democrats are supposedly the party of the therapists, the teachers, and the 'relationship experts.' If anybody would be proud of the title, 'active listener', it would be a Democrat. We're the soft ones who understand where the other side is coming from and negotiate.Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."
Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.
Very vigorous debate doesn’t bother me, but I really dislike being psychoanalyzed instead of listened to.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53340
Trackback from Willow Tree, The Democrats Mistake:
Via Rishon Rishon/ Andrew of the The BACKSEAT PHILOSOPHER has written an excellent piece on why the Democrats lost this election. quoting for his article: ctually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think...
I agree. Sometimes things happen for simple reasons that you cannot attribute to someone not growing up poor or in a broken home.
Sometimes the bad people grow up with all the advantages and that is just how it goes. If people stopped rationalizing and providing excuses for behavior every time someone misbehaves it would be a better world.
Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2004 07:40 AM Permalink
Family Values
My Meme Plague post seems to have been widely misunderstood. Beyond my description of the mechanism of memetic transmission, which could have been better written, I want to emphasize that I wasn’t making a moral statement about fertility (or anything else, for that matter). I was merely trying to describe an idea I had about memetic evolution, which I still think is evolutionarily valid. I emphatically don’t think that fertility is virtuous for the individual, or lack of fertility unvirtuous.
Having said that, I do think that some memes are virtuous, and I would like to see them propagated. I realize that the only way to do that long-term is to embed them in a meme complex that will encourage fertility at least to replacement level.
I also realize that I made a mistake in that post. (Jinnderella beat me to the punch by pointing me to this article.) I do think people are attracted to memes that promote fertility. These memes come in two flavors: memes that promote sex, and memes that promote family values. Clearly, in today’s post-contraceptive world, the relationship between sex and fertility has been broken. But that still leaves family values.
It is clear to me that one of the main reasons why some people are attracted to traditional Judaism, as well as fundamentalist Christianity, and I presume many other religions, is family values. A lot of people (including me) believe that raising their children with clear values, in an environment where most of the people around them have clear values, is healthy for them, and most likely to promote their happiness, well-being, and success in life. The choice becomes even starker when you start thinking about your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. While it is quite conceivable to imagine transmitting your favorite memes to your children in the absence of a supporting meme-complex, it is much harder to imagine them transmitted to your grandchildren when the general society is promoting a conflicting set of memes. In such an environment, what are the chances of your children marrying a like-minded person? (Or for that matter in today’s world, getting married at all?)
I don’t have time for it now – I’m anticipating a busy day – but at some point I want to discuss the impact this will have on the future. Hint: Since time immemorial there has been an evolutionary war between the male-based strategy of maximizing the number of offspring, and the female-based strategy of maximizing the quality of offspring. The end of sex-based strategies for meme propagation favors the female strategy.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53348
November 07, 2004
Some perspective on the election
I’ve been reading a lot about the US election in the last few days, precious little of it showing much perspective. So, I’d like to say a few words.
First of all, Bush’s 3% margin of victory is a good solid win in a functioning democracy. Not a landslide, but a good, healthy margin. Landslides should be rare for the simple reason that a democracy has to provide the voters with a choice in order to work properly. Frequent landslides are a sign that the system isn’t working properly, and is not giving voters a choice. But a 3% margin is easily enough to make abundantly clear which side won. The fact that Bush got an absolute majority of an exceptionally large turnout should only emphasize that fact.
On the other hand, a 3% margin is small enough that it could easily have turned out otherwise. It is ridiculous to assign the victory to a single factor – any one of a large number of things could have turned the election.
One of the great things about the US electoral system is that even small majorities produce strong governments. (In Israel this isn’t true.) I hope Bush uses his well. Bush has clearly laid out his approach to governance, and clearly communicated to the electorate who he is. Details, of course, will change according to changing circumstances.
Let me take advantage of this opportunity to say what I think is highest priority: Take out Iran’s nuclear program. It shouldn’t be too hard. No need to risk American lives in a ground war, the objective isn’t to occupy territory, or even to overthrow a government. If the government falls, well, that’s an added bonus. If, instead, it’s strengthened by Iranians rallying around their flag, well, it’s worth it. (Actually, I think that Bush is canny enough to attack Iran in a way that will strengthen the opposition. But we’ll see, I hope.)
Let’s roll!
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53612
'Take out Iran’s nuclear program. It shouldn’t be too hard. No need to risk American lives in a ground war'
Sure. Bomb them till they glow. That's the way to win hearts and minds.
Posted by: ExpatEgghead at November 8, 2004 01:49 PM Permalink
November 09, 2004
Conservation in Israel
Yesterday John Ray pointed to an article about anti-Semitism in the Australian Labor party. It sounds on par with left-wing parties worldwide.
The hypocrisy of the left in supporting terrorists of all stripes, and especially those that target Jews, is generally well commented upon, and I don’t think I’m capable of doing a better job. But just to recap: The terrorists are products of, and aim to promote, a set of values which is misogynist, homophobic, and puritanical in the extreme, not to mention anti-democratic. Aren’t these supposedly leftist values?
Israel is the least misogynist, least homophobic, most libertine, country in the Middle East, not to mention the region’s only democracy. You’d think that would win it some support, wouldn’t you? My contribution: It’s also the region’s most environmentally aware country, with the best environmental record. You’d think this would buy some support among the world’s Greens, wouldn’t you?
Of course not! Universal human rights, and the environment of the small world we all have to share, are culturally relevant only to the West, not for people who follow their indigenous traditions. Well, at least that lets traditionally observant Jews off the hook! Oh, wait, Jewish traditions don’t count because, because… sorry, I’m stumped, I don’t know why not.
Anyway, getting back to the Greens, their number one priority is saving the environment (hence the name)? Well, evidently there’s one thing that trumps the environment: killing Jews. Green movements around the world ignore Israel’s environmental achievements, in comparison with its neighbors, and champion Israel’s eco-unfriendly enemies. In fact, Israel is the only country in the region that even has a Green party! Though perhaps they’ve corrupted themselves with this practical campaign message in the Tel Aviv municipal elections:
הירוקים בראשות פאר ויסנר מתחייבים להקטין את מספר כלי הרכב הנכנסים לעיר ולאפשר לכל תושב חניה חינם כל היום בכל מקום המסומן בכחול לבןHay’ruqim b’reshut P’er Visner mithayvim l’haqtin et mispar kley harekhev hanikhnasim l`ir ul’efshar l’khol toshav hanaya hinam kol hayom b’khol maqom hamsuman b’kahol lavan
The Greens, headed by P’er Visner, guarantee to reduce the number of motor vehicles that come into the city and to make it possible for every resident to have free parking all day, in all locations that are marked with blue and white [legal parking spaces]
The truth is that Israel has a very old environmental movement, one that precedes the founding of the state. A very important part of Zionist ideology was getting back to the land. The early Zionists practiced what the preached, leaving their city lives and desk jobs, and becoming farmers. Not only did they feel that they were rehabilitating themselves by getting back to the land, but they took on the project of rehabilitating the land itself. By the time the Zionists arrived, the land had been over-grazed, and eroded for thousands of years. The land, once covered by open forests, was now treeless, the trees all burned for firewood. (In fact, evolution was at work, the native oaks becoming scrub as the tall members of every generation were cut down.)
The early Zionists are justifiably famous for planting forests. It is less well known that they worked in other ways to preserve the environment. I can vouch for the fact that it has become taboo in Israel to pick wildflowers, once a common pastime. This is a result of a campaign by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (Hahevra l’haganat hateva`) – a rough equivalent to the Sierra Club in the US. Example:
A highlight in the history of nature conservation in Israel is the campaign to rescue the country's wildflowers. Picking wildflowers used to be such a popular pastime in Israel that by the beginning of the 1960s, many of the more attractive flowering plants were on the brink of extinction. Anemones and cyclamens, which bloomed in profusion and symbolized the beauty of Israel's landscape, had nearly vanished. To reverse this trend, the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) and the newly-born Nature Reserves Authority launched a campaign which focused on both legislation and public education. In retrospect, this turned out to be the most successful public environmental re-education campaign ever launched in Israel. Today, thirty years later, Israelis scrupulously avoid picking wildflowers and the country abounds with the rich splendor of wildflowers.
Wild anemones and cyclamens are now very common. No Israeli would even think of picking them. (Amusingly, the text of this page is copied here, with Palestine replacing Israel. An endorsement of sorts.)
I myself am very much a conservationist, which is somewhat different from an environmentalist. I am most concerned with preserving species and habitats, controlling pollution is merely a means to this end (and to improve my quality of life). I think some people go way overboard on the pollution issue. So I take an interest in Israel’s efforts to preserve its wildlife. It does a lot, though it has the usual problems that come with increasing population (Israel is one of the most densely populated countries on Earth), and affluence (e.g. cars). I found this travelogue, with lots of nice wildlife pictures. Don’t miss Hay Bar, on this page (scroll down), whose purpose is to reintroduce to Israel native animals that had become locally extinct. One of the big problems with reintroducing native animals is Israel’s small size, which makes it easy for them to wander across the border, where they are inevitably shot.
ADDENDUMS: This page claims that Israel has the highest percentage of protected area in the Middle East, at 10%. But this page claims it's 14.9%, more than the US, Australia, and every Arab and Middle Eastern country except Oman.
Something about wolves: “The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of the most persecuted mammal species. In this century, gray wolves have been eradicated from much of North America and large areas of western Europe. In other parts of Europe (e.g., Italy, Spain, and Norway), small or remnant populations have persisted. In general, wolves are abundant only in regions where human density is low.
In the Middle East, a small, desert-adapted subspecies, the Arabian wolf (C. l. arabs) occurs. These wolves occupy arid flats and mountains throughout deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, Jordan and Israel. The Arabian wolf is rare throughout most of the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. In the Arabian Peninsula and Jordan, vast areas are used by the nomadic Bedouin for grazing of livestock, and they consider the wolf to be the major predator of their goats and sheep. Systematic shooting and trapping of Arabian wolves has nearly eliminated this carnivore from most areas in the Middle East. Harassing or killing wolves is prohibited in Israel. As a result, the population of wolves in the Negev Desert is relatively dense; 91-159 individuals in ca. 9,600 km2.”
In contrast, there’s this.
I hear these howling every night (and see them from time to time).
UPDATE: For those of you who know Spanish, Liberalismo.org said something about this post. (I don't know what.)
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/53869
Trackback from Synthstuff - music, photography and more..., The Greenest Nation in the Middle East:
Dr. John Ray posts at A Western Heart about environmentalism in the Middle East and which state is the “Greenest” ISRAEL: THE GREENEST STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST Or, more precisely, the ONLY Greenie country in the Middle East Israelis...
>I myself am very much a conservationist, which is somewhat different from an environmentalist
Me too. Conservationists rule. Lest we forget, 99% of all animal species were killed off by nature.
I heard Israelis have done a good job learning to irrigate land with very little water.
Posted by: Tom Robinson at November 10, 2004 05:47 PM Permalink
"Israel is the least misogynist, least homophobic, most libertine, country in the Middle East, not to mention the region’s only democracy. You’d think that would win it some support, wouldn’t you?"
Only issue I have with the above is the use of the word "libertine." Liberal (in the good sense), yes - libertine, no. A libertine is someone with loose morals.
Ironic that Greens would not be stong supporters of Israel, the country that made the desert bloom and that constantly is planting trees. But irony is lost on today's big new crop of anti-Semites.
Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2004 05:09 AM Permalink
I meant libertine in the sense that you object to. Not that Israel is a particularly libertine country by world standards, but it is certainly more so than its neighbors. Specifically, I meant to contrast the words "libertine" and "puritanical".
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 18, 2004 10:28 AM Permalink
November 10, 2004
College Graduates voted overwhelmingly for Bush
According to Gallup, 58% of college graduates voted for Bush (via Little Green Footballs):
| Bush, 2000 | Bush, 2004 | Change | |
| Postgraduate education | 43% | 47% | +4% |
| College graduate (no postgrad) | 55% | 58% | +3% |
| Some college | 53% | 56% | +3% |
| High school or less education | 45% | 46% | +1% |
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/54032
November 11, 2004
Disk Crash
My disk crashed. I’m getting a new computer. Since I do regular backups, I don’t think I lost anything really important, beyond the last few weeks’ emails, but I won’t know for sure until I try to reconstruct my work environment. (I back up emails less often.) Of course, I lost all my applications – my computer is basically set up to be a web server, so it’ll be a lot of work setting it up again.
I’m posting now from another computer, but I don’t expect to post again until my own is up and running. It’s too much of a bother. I probably won’t be checking my emails either, for the same reason.
PS: If there is any connection between this and Arafat’s final death, it’s worth it.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/54218
David, we miss you badly! If you can get on line check out Winds' new format, and please notice that Joe blogrolled you!
Posted by: jinnderella at November 13, 2004 07:22 AM Permalink
November 17, 2004
I have returned (sort of)
Well, I have my new computer, and I'm back on line. I still have to set up my computer for work, which is not at all easy (I have to install a bunch of applications, and get them to work with each other). I don't know what my blogging rate will be, but at least I can do it now. I'm also getting email.
I want to thank all of you who have kept the faith, and continued checking back here.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/55014
As we say out here in the West, Yippee Kay Yea!
Posted by: jinnderella at November 17, 2004 07:46 PM Permalink
November 18, 2004
Anti-Semites commemorate Kristallnacht
There is a trend in Europe, and elsewhere to de-Judaize the Jewish experience. Øyvind Strømmen posts about one such case on Bjørn Stærk's blog. I haven't read all 255 comments (as of this posting – I would like to imagine that I have a life), but I have read enough to be convinced, regardless of the facts in dispute, of the true nature of the event.
Evidently, there was a commemoration of Kristallnacht (often considered to be the beginning of the Holocaust, more here) in Oslo which "both anti-racists and pro-Israelis" used for there own agendas. The end result was that Israeli and Palestinian flags were banned to keep the peace.
Well, this may have been the best we could get, but I would like to say clearly that the supposed anti-racists and pro-Israelis were not in any way comparable with each other, particularly in this context. Kristallnacht was a Jewish tragedy, whatever universal applicability it has (and of course, it does). For racists posing as anti-racists to use the occasion to call Israel racist is disgusting. On the other hand, almost no Jews commemorating Kristallnacht would object to pro-Israelis, and the vast majority would see it as completely appropriate, and would be glad of their presence, especially considering that most of Holocaust refugees – those relatively few that Europeans didn't have time to murder – took refuge there after the war. Normally I have great respect for Bjørn, but I think that while striving to get the facts out, he owes it to his readers to make this clear.
Do you know what this reminds me of? The story about the old Soviet Empire and the UN's definition of racism. In 1965 the UN promulgated the Convention against Racial Discrimination, in which they made a long list of the various forms of racism. Astoundingly, the list didn't include anti-Semitism. How did that happen? Answer: The USSR proposed to put Zionism on the list as a form of racism. As a compromise, the US agreed to remove anti-Semitism from the list if the USSR would remove Zionism. No matter, a decade later, in 1975, the UN made a separate declaration that Zionism is a form of racism. (For those of you who are wondering about the truth: Zionism is a form of Nationalism.)
So let us be clear: the attempt to de-Judaize Kristallnacht is a form of racism. Evidently it is common in Norway.
PS: One of those 255 comments in Øyvind's post is mine. Can you find it? (Okay, it's here.)
PPS: I can't find a good link to the Soviet-UN story, if anyone can give me one I'd be much obliged.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/55124
Excellent points David! I found your blog from Bjørn's trackback.
Posted by: Gunnar, Maryland at November 18, 2004 05:38 AM Permalink
Det Mosaiske Trossamfund, the main Jewish congregation in Norway, has issued a press release about this. It might be worth reading - as it tells more of the story than most blogs do. Here it is:
Unfair criticism against SOS Racism
Det Mosaiske Trossamfund in Oslo (DMT) notes that there is a debate in the media, after a group of people were stopped by the police during SOS Racism's demonstration in memory of the Kristallnacht on November 9. Accusations have been made against SOS Racism which we would like to comment on:
It is not correct that DMT as a congregation, or Jews as individuals, were unwanted at the demonstration. We deeply regret that such accusations have been made. It is unknown to us that Jewish symbols, such as the star of David, were unwanted at the event. What we were made aware of, and which we see as a correct decision, is that one wanted to ban national flags at the demonstration. From what we know, this was done to prevent the event from turning into a demonstration connected with the Middle East conflict or the war in Iraq.
DMT was invited to participate in the event, which we declined. This has to do with our skepticism against the way this event has taken place in Oslo the last years, where the demonstration in our view has turned into a political event, going far beyond the original intention. For us as survivors and descendants of survivors of the horrible crimes of the Nazis, it is sad that forces which in many ways use the same arguments against Jews which fascists and Nazis in their time used, are invited to take part in such an event. Or to say it even clearer: The Kristallnacht was the opening shot for the Nazi persecution of Jews in Europe, and the events that day were largely directed against Jewish businesses and institutions. Today we see that groups on the far left wing of the political landscape, together with some Muslim communities, (which we hope do not represent Muslims in general), use these very same methods. Jewish schools, retirement homes, cemeteries, and community houses are being attacked all over Europe along with Israely embassies and consulates. We see this beginning to happen also here. And it is mainly the same groups which are behind these acts here, as in the rest of the world. For us as Jews it becomes impossible to take part in such an event against racism, when other participants in the same demonstration carry banners which in Arabic contain clearly racist messages. But we are aware that SOS Racism has become aware of this, and that they in connection with this year's event did their utmost to avoid precisely these things. We wish to congratulate the organization for this, and that is why we also regret the criticism which is now directed against the organizers.
Even though we have been critical to parts of the event, we as a Jewish congregation do not in any way wish to stand in the way of these annual events, or to harm them in any way. Nor have we encouraged our members to stay away from the demonstrations.
As Norwegian Jews, we believe in dialogue as a means to greater understanding. We therefore completely reject any form of activism which furthers confrontation and builds up under increased opposition and hatred between ethnic groups. We therefore believe it was very unwise of some of our members to behave in a way which clearly would provoke other participants of the event in Oslo on November 9. This was not made any easier for us when we were made aware that people connected to right-wing extremist movements were part of this. That is why this led to the consequence that two of our members have been excluded from our congregation.
Claims are often made about increased anti-semitism in our society. To a certain degree, this is correct, but in the debate which has now begun, it is important to us to underline that the Jewish community in Norway does not experience this as an imminent danger. We see the trends, we warn against them, and we note to our satisfaction that both the government and the public deal with the problem. It is therefore completely wrong to claim that Jews see themselves as unwanted in Norway, or that anti-semitism has reached levels which create problems. It is just not true, and we should let such accusations rest until there is cause to make them. And so let us with G-d's help hope that this never occurs.
Posted by: Øyvind, Bergen at November 18, 2004 06:00 PM Permalink
Thanks, Øyvind. Is this your translation? (It is clearly either a translation or written by a non-native speaker.)
I think they are agreeing with me, though they are constrained to use somewhat more diplomatic language than I have. As I said, the compromise reached may have been the best possible under the circumstances, and that's a shame.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 18, 2004 06:22 PM Permalink
The translation is made by Bjørn Stærk, I presume. I found it on his blog, anyway. I've also translated it myself, but found it to be even more obviously written by a non-native speaker :).
Posted by: Øyvind, Bergen at November 19, 2004 01:14 AM Permalink
Perhpas more than sad; scary. The fact that Jewish symbols weren't allowed because they don't want to bring in the Middle-east conflict is counterfit as you argued on the other blog. I'm a little confused as to how the memorial was placed in any hands other than the Jewish community.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at November 20, 2004 10:35 PM Permalink
Let me repeat this again:
Jewish symbols were allowed. Only national flags and other banners than the ones agreed upon before the commemoration were not allowed. This decision was taken by the arranger, SOS Rasisme.
The title on this post is highly misleading. One can easily think that the arrangers are anti-Semites. They are absolutely not. While it is not impossible that someone holding anti-Semitic views got into the commemoration (they did not have thought-readers present), most people there were definitely not anti-Semites.
The arrangers can, however, be criticized for using the Kristallnacht to take up other issues. However, SOS Rasisme have been the only ones capable of creating a commemoration at all in most parts of Norway the last few years. I do not think it's fair to call these attempts at "de-Judaizing" the event. The historical Kristallnacht has always been in focus.
The Jewish community in Norway is small. Yet I hope that they will take an initiative next year. Then conflicts like these, that should be unnecessary on such a day, can be avoided.
Øyvind
Posted by: Øyvind, Bergen at November 24, 2004 12:51 AM Permalink
Philistine Invasion
David Frum writes:
Reading the Washington Post this weekend one suddenly realized that one was witnessing the birth of new PC taboo. On the oped page, a Palestinian novelist named Diana Abu-Jaber complained, "The word "philistine" means "boorish and backward"; it comes from the word for "Palestinian." It is a derogatory word that demeans an entire culture, and it is used with relative impunity in this country." Suddenly one had a vision of the same language police who have tried to ban "blackmail" as offensive to African-Americans, "whopping" as offensive to Italian-Americans, and "galling" as offensive to Franco-Americans going to work on the word "philistine." So, before it's too late, a short language lesson.
The word "philistine" does NOT come from the word "Palestinian." It's the other way around: the word "Palestinian" comes from the word "philistine." After the suppression of the Jewish revolts of AD 68-70, the Romans eradicated all signs of Jewish political independence. They determined even to eliminate the name "Judea." So they rummaged around in the ancient books of the Jews, found there the name of a long vanished enemy nation, and imposed it on the area: "Philistia," which they Latinized to "Palestina."
This is all correct. The Romans pursued an unapologetic policy of ethnic cleansing of Judea. In addition to killing its inhabitants by the millions, they actively suppressed the local (Jewish) culture. Among other things, they renamed Judea to Palestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.
Philistine, however, is not a Philistine word: It's a Hebrew word. Most Hebrew words come to English indirectly through either Greek or Latin (or both). Since neither of these languages have the "sh" sound, you will notice that almost all Hebrew words that have that sound have a "s" in English, for example Solomon in Hebrew is Sh'lomo. (We also got a Greek case ending, and notice that the ' > o under the influence of the following o.)
Philistine in Hebrew is P'lishti (פלשתי). Evidently this word comes to English through the Greek, in which the "