Could Russia be Syria's Savior?

With the news of the latest massacre to take place in Syria since UN observers began "observing" the failed implementation of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's six-point peace plan, there's talk again about "what to do" - and, predictably, much speculation about how Russia and China might act if the Western allies unite to try and prevent a wide-scale Syrian civil war.

Russia and China are opposed to Western military intervention in Syria, but at the same time, they aren't being very helpful when it comes to efforts at ending the violence. Russia has much more to lose from a potential American/European military involvement in Syria, what with a Russian naval base on the country's Mediterranean coast and all. It is Russia, then, that should be determined to do something.

So, here's an idea: If Moscow truly desires the bloodshed in Syria to end, why doesn't Russia itself intervene, and impose its own form of regime change? I can't imagine Assad would be so stupid as to order his forces to take on Russian troops if the latter were to arrive and then surround his presidential palace with orders not to leave until the "Butcher of Damascus" steps down and goes into exile.

Russia could, then - with the blessings of the United Nations - oversee an orderly transition and the installment of new leadership that, we can assume, would still be on very good terms with Moscow. It would likely not be a democracy, but then, there was never any guarantee anyway that the Arab Spring would result in a bunch of Western-friendly democracies dotting North Africa and the Middle East.

Syria could, then, still receive shipments of arms from Russia. Russia's naval presence in Tartus wouldn't be threatened. Reform of a certain nature - say, a scaling down of the Alawite domination of the Syrian government - would probably be necessary, but with Russia keeping the peace - and/or dictating the terms - it isn't difficult to imagine the bloodshed ending and some sort of peace prevailing.

Such an intervention could be seen as a "humanitarian" action, as well as a signal to the West - and, we mustn't forget, China, too - that, whatever its faults and weaknesses, Russia still means business. Since the end of the Cold War, America has intervened in its "neighborhood" when "friendly" nations have gone too far off the reservation. Syria is in Russia's neighborhood, and all is definitely not well, there.

Moscow should take a cue from us.

Yes, an operation like this would be fraught with peril - it's not just "rebels" and "the government" in play. There are more shades of gray than I care to go into. And it is doubtful that with Russia's Chechen record, Syrian Islamists would welcome Moscow with open arms. But once civil war - the kind which could be sparked by Assad's intransigence - is averted, Russia could pull the troops back.

With further bloodshed averted and some respect gained, Russia could have increased leverage in all sorts of areas on the global stage. Russia might even, eventually, prod a post-Assad-but-still-in-Russia's-orbit Syria into making an agreement with Israel which sees the Jewish state comfortable with returning the Golan Heights to Damascus. That's a long shot, of course, but a man can dream, right?

Again, this scenario isn't the most ideal one overall for the U.S. and our allies at the moment, but there are fewer better options. We can't assume that a Western-led military intervention in Syria would lead to a repeat of the Libya scenario...especially with Hizbollah, Israel, et al, all likely playing a role in Assad's "doomsday scenario" calculations. But neither is sitting on our hands a worthy pursuit.

If they aren't, at least, even imagining or entertaining the possibility of this kind of military intervention by Russia within the walls of the Kremlin, then I'd be very surprised. If I could think of it, then they could think of it, too...and then not only think of it, but also do something with it. Tens of thousands have already been killed, and the UN has been as inactive about Syria as it is active about Israel. 

The UN won't do anything. 

Russia can.

Responsibility: Taking and Avoiding It

*

I am deeply disturbed that liberal bloggers were so quick to appropriate and exploit for political purposes this past weekend's shooting in Tucson of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a judge, and several other innocents (including a 9 year old girl), but here's the thing you'll find they're reluctant to talk about, and for good reason: I suspect they know, in their heart of hearts, that the toxic political atmosphere hasn't been helped in recent years by rhetoric from many on the Left, and Democrats...more specifically, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Leadership Committee.

For example, I submit to you Exhibit A - courtesy of the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC).

Well, actually, perhaps I should call it Exhibit B, given the image at the top of this post, originally seen on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn way back in '00, when Dubya won the GOP presidential nomination.

For more info, go here: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647 (post dates from late March 2010), but I'll quote you from the link:

"Granted these are bulls-eyes instead of gun-sights, and the targets are states not individual congressmen. But we’re really splitting hairs at this point. This map and the language it uses (Behind enemy lines!) are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting."

Really, look at some of the images on there. Sure, there's the one Dem map from earlier in the decade...but there's also map with bulls-eyes on them - targeting Republicans - that dates from within the past two years...prior to the Palin map in question. Below are links that take you directly to images that, suffice it to say, show that liberals' claim to a moral high is tenuous at best, outrageous (and then some) at worst.

What are those? Bulls-eyes?!

Mein Gott! A "targeted Republican"?!

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg

AND

Ah, OK...this makes everything better. No, wait...it doesn't.

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-map-legend.jpg

*

Still not convinced that liberals have stuff to answer for? Still sure that only or primarily the Right is to blame for the highly-charged atmosphere in American political discourse today? Well, I'm sure Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos - hardly a staple of the Right - didn't actually mean he wanted certain politicians literally taken out when he said they should be targeted in 2008, but even so...there's this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

"Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis."

Note, there's a reference to a "target list" (I bolded it for ya) and you'll see Rep. Giffords' name is in bold on the page itself. For emphasis, according to the Kos-man himself). And mind you, that's from mid-2008. By a liberal blogger. Years before PalinPAC, etc.

*

From an anti-war rally, March 2008

*

Then, for good measure, I urge you to read these excellent observations from the UK's Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100071004/the-unseemly-rush-to-blame-sarah-palin-the-tea-party-and-republicans-for-murder-in-arizona/#dsq-content

*

And finally, with the following link you're able to see how some liberals made calling for Bush's death into an art form; I didn't see too much self-restraint (or remorse, in the years since) regarding this stuff. If you have the time, scroll down a fair bit, look at all the photos, and then with a straight face come to me and tell me that responsibility for nurturing the climate of hatred belongs to the Tea Party, the Right, and so on and so forth:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

You can avoid looking at the above links and the images they lead to (I've included a few throughout this post), but that would be the equivalent of burying your head in the sand (and making the problem worse). Yes, all sides have a share of the blame...but you don't see liberals really taking any responsibility for their share, and when they do, it's often with qualifications.

We can play the blame game indefinitely - letting the problem fester - or we can just tackle the issue head-on, honestly.

Don't just put some of it out there...we need to put all of it out there (or as much of it as we can), however uncomfortable it makes people...whether they're on the Right or the Left, whether they identify as conservative, liberal, independent, moderate, libertarian, Republican, Democrat, etc. We need to clean the air, not just temporarily fan the smell away...know what I mean?

If this means conservatives entrenching themselves and liberals doing the same, so be it. That might actually be the best course of action: Two clearly-defined teams duking it out - civilly - rather than a mess of people making a muddle of discourse and, in the end, leaving things more or less where they started.

Mind you, what happened to Gabby Giffords probably wasn't directly caused by all the unfortunate rhetoric and imagery being spread around - after all, a loner, lunatic gunman probably doesn't have many direct influences aside from the voices in his head. But still...this tragedy - and the reminder of human frailty it stands for - presents an opportunity for us, as a Nation, to look at ourselves in the mirror...and clean up. We probably won't - but we should at least try.

*

Now Is Not the TIME to Cry "Wolf!"

Those who know me well know that when it comes to anti-Semitism, I don't generally keep my mouth shut. If I see or sense anti-Semitism, I respond to it, and openly. The "nice" thing about anti-Semites is that they are quite often direct and open, unless they are using criticism of Israel to mask their anti-Semitism, in which case their anti-Semitic views are subtle but still, generally, easily discerned.

So, today, when I read today in the Jerusalem Post intense criticism of an article published in a recent issue of TIME magazine, reportedly titled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace" and authored by one Karl Vick, based in Jerusalem. I was deeply disturbed and ready to join "the bandwagon of justice".

Or at least I was ready to saddle-up and join the justice posse until I found the article online, and reading the few short paragraphs available there, I saw in italics the following message at the end:

This is an abridged version of an article that appears in the Sept. 13, 2010, print and iPad editions of TIME magazine.

At that moment, when I saw that "disclaimer", I knew there was more to the story than just what people were gathering from the title on the cover and the relatively few paragraphs shown in the abridged version on Time.com. I knew, instinctively, that my intense desire to post the article on Facebook would have to wait until I had the full story...literally.

Being in South Korea, I do not have easy access to print versions of TIME, but I do have an iPad. So on my lunch break, I went to a nearby cafe in Mokpo that offers free WiFi, downloaded the TIME app and made an in-app purchase ($4.99) of the issue in which the supposedly anti-Semitic article titled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace" appears.

And was immediately flummoxed.

Looking through the contents of the Sept. 13 issue, I couldn't find the article. I know that a story's title on the cover isn't always the same within the pages of a magazine itself, but...I was kind of annoyed. Of course, this was because I was looking at the images for a Star of David or something like that, and not the subject listed underneath ("Israel")...but setting aside a discussion of my more vacant moments for another day, what I ended up doing was going back to the cover, tapping in the middle of the Star-of-David-of-Daisies, right on"Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace"...

Et voilà...

A funny thing happened, though, at that moment: The article it took me to was titled as "The Good Life and Its Dangers". Nothing particularly anti-Semitic about it. Nor could it be surmised that familiar anti-Semitic tropes would be found in an article whose blurb appears (under the title) as follows: "Israelis feel prosperous, secure - and disengaged from the peace process. Is that wise?" On first glance, not particularly...anti-Semitic on the part of TIME. Or wise, on the part of my fellow Israelis.

What followed, in the article itself, were - by my count - twenty-four paragraphs to judge it by. And the more I read of it, the easier it was to discern that people - the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) included - were apparently judging the article not by the 24 paragraphs seen in the print or iPad editions, but the mere five (yes, "5") that can be seen on Time.com. I'm no mathematician, but 5 is a lot less than 24, any which way you look at it.

Undoubtedly, the article's title as it appears on the cover was unfortunately named, ill-conceived, insensitive, and quite possibly deliberately designed to portray Israel in a negative light. Based on that alone, as I began reading I steeled myself for an anti-Semitic blow...that never came. Ultimately, the most anti-Semitic thing about the article was, in my estimation, the title as it appears on the cover...but not in the magazine itself.

At the end of this post, you will find several images posted - eachtaken from my iPad this afternoon, images of the full article. I want you to look at both the abridged version, as it appears on Time.com, and the unabridged version, available both in print and on...well, my iPad. When you have time, if you have time, I want you to read both versions of the article and decide for yourself: Is it anti-Semitic? Was it meant to be? Or is this all much ado about nothing - or, at least, nothing like what so many think it's about?

I will leave it to you to decide for yourselves if the article merits the following criticism from ADL head Abraham Foxman, who said of it, "The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinian...At the same time, Time ignores the very real sacrifices made by Israel and its people in the pursuit of peace and the efforts by successive Israeli governments of reconciliation.”

I, for one, disagree that this is the subtext of the article. Then again, I read the whole thing.

I will leave it to you to decide for yourselves if the article merits this observation from American Jewish Committee acting Director Ed Rettig: “Leaving aside the libelous nature of the article (what awful people don’t care about peace?), its internalization by decision-makers would be catastrophic...The false belief that Israelis are indifferent to peace will prevent them perceiving the conflict as it really is, and cause a misreading of developments.”

I disagree that the article is libelous, and I disagree that Israelis are indifferent to peace. Again, the impression that this is what the article is asserting is left in part by the title on the cover, but isn't borne out in the text of the article itself (in my honest opinion).

And I will leave it to you to decide for yourselves if the article merits the following hits from Aish.com: "Yet, unbelievably, Time Magazine paints a picture of crass, wealthy Jews so busy with buying and selling that they have no real desire to make peace with the Palestinians,"and "In the case of the Time Magazine article, the straw man so painstakingly described are a couple of shallow-sounding Israelis who care only about money, say they don’t care about anything else, and even imply that they might be dishonest in their business dealings."

Considering that more than just "a couple of shallow-sounding Israelis" were interviewed for the article, I think this criticism is way off. Again, it seems blatantly obvious that the only basis for such criticism is a reliance on the abridged article (five paragraphs long) rather than the unabridged article (twenty-four paragraphs long).

Anyway...I know I'm asking of you a significant investment of your time and thought processes, but please...oblige me. Israel is undoubtedly and undeniably the subject of a perpetual anti-Semitic smear campaign by various media outlets, politicians, and countries throughout the world. This article, however, is not representative of that, and making it out to be will only distract people when truly abhorrent examples once again show themselves.

Furthermore, as the imbroglio over former White House correspondent Helen Thomas's comments regarding Jews a few months back showed, being charged with anti-Semitism can cost people their jobs. This is, I think, overall a good thing...but only when people who are actually anti-Semitic are the ones finding their positions threatened. Knowing our "power," in this respect, we should use it wisely ... sparingly ... responsibly.

On some websites I've seen people posting the address of TIME magazine, so offended Jews can write and complain.

I'd urge them to read the full article (posted below) first, not the abridged version.

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0100.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0090.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0091.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0092.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0093.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0094.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0095.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0096.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0097.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0098.jpg

http://therealslimslavin.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_0099.jpg

Crazy Thoughts of an Expat

If I knowingly break another country's immigration laws, would ideologically dogmatic American liberals consider me "innocent" the way they consider "innocent" those who break our nation's immigration laws? Or, as is likelier the case, would I be patronizingly admonished to respect the laws and culture of foreign lands, were I to share with such liberals a temptation to do the opposite? If I were caught by another country's immigration authorities, would American liberals go to bat for me - or recruit help abroad - the way they go to bat for illegal immigrants in the USA?

What I'm also asking is, "What makes America different?"

The standard argument that, "Well, we are a nation of immigrants," doesn't quite cut it, as the days when a man or his family could alight on American soil and begin a new life relatively free from the constraints of immigration laws (that, once upon a time, didn't even exist) ended a long, long time ago. What immigration laws and border control practices are in place in America exist for various socio-economic, political, security and health reasons...and a great many of these are reasonable, sensible, and quite good. Similar arguments can be made about other countries.

So, again...what is it that makes the United States of America so different...so (and now I'm going to use a word modern liberals - Obama included - loathe to use to describe the USA) "exceptional", with regards to our immigration practices? How is the logical leap made that allows someone to argue against the enforcement of our immigration laws at the same time they defend the right of other countries to enforce their immigration laws? Is that right? Is that fair to Americans? Does "You don't have to follow our laws, but we have to follow yours," make sense?

Without intergovernmental reciprocity on that score internationally, it doesn't to me...and even then, with such reciprocity, it really wouldn't make sense, would it?

And, wouldn't it be kind of, well...racist...to sympathize with illegal immigrants of a certain ethnicity within America, but then deny the same sort of sympathy to an American - regardless of his or her skin color - living and/or working illegally in a foreign land? Or is it not "politically correct" these days to point out hypocrisy...unless a conservative is at fault? I'm just wondering all this, you see, from the perspective of a seasoned, itinerant expatriate. I'm not now breaking any immigration laws, nor do I plan on doing so in the future. I'm just curious.

If Only History Would Repeat Itself...

On March 5, 1770, a clash between British soldiers and local citizens in Boston, Massachusetts ended with the deaths of five men. Tensions had been high for some time prior to the incident - the presence of Redcoats enforcing unpopular laws imposed on the Colonies by Parliament was deeply resented - and New England was a powder-keg awaiting only a match...and what would shortly thereafter become known as the "Boston Massacre" stood a good chance of being just that. It was in the interests of many at the time to avoid open rebellion - war - and so a middle ground was tread: A trial would be held for the British soldiers and their commander. Justice would be served.

Defending the British soldiers being accused of murder was the man who would, several years down the line, become the first Vice President of the United States, and our young Union's second President: John Adams. Passions were high, and as is often the case today with regards to Israel, people had already made up their minds about the guilt of the accused. If ever there was a more thankless job, it was being the defense lawyer for British troops in the wake of the Boston Massacre. By the time the trial opened, the event had been immortalized by Paul Revere in an engraving likely familiar to anyone who has taken an American History class.

But Mr. Adams handled himself quite well, though he knew the odds were stacked against him. An avowed Patriot, he nevertheless gave the men an honest defense. He argued that the Redcoats were faced with what was effectively a lynch mob. If, as they claimed, they were being threatened and felt endangered by "a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and molattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs," then they had the legal right to fight back. At most, they could be found guilty of manslaughter - not murder - if they hadn't been in any danger but were instead merely provoked. In the end, the jury agreed with Adams.

They acquitted six of the eight soldiers, perhaps ultimately swayed by an argument made by Adams, as true and applicable to our world today as it was back in Colonial times: "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." As for the two other soldiers, they were convicted of nothing more than manslaughter: Further evidence that the jury agreed with John Adams's argument that the soldiers had some justification for opening fire. As for the soldiers' commander, one Captain Preston, he too was acquitted of any crime.

Stop and think about that for a minute: British soldiers accused of murdering five people in cold blood - accused of carrying out a massacre - in 1770s Boston, Massachusetts (a hotbed of Patriot sentiment) were able to get a fair trial, and were defended by no less than John Adams, one of the more prominent Patriots of his day. The Redcoats were ultimately judged not by the dictates of passion of the common people or the wishes of the Sons of Liberty or New England's inclination to rebellion, but by the stubborn facts of the situation they faced (for instance, there were those in the mob yelling at the soldiers, taunting them to "Fire!").

Fast forward from 1770s America to the modern Mediterranean: On May 31, 2010, a flotilla put together by a Turkish organization suspected (with good reason) to have ties to Islamist terrorist groups throughout the Muslim world challenged an Israeli naval blockade of a strip of land ruled by Hamas, an Islamist Palestinian terrorist group committed to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state. As predicted, Israel's navy intercepted the flotilla and - after giving fair warning - proceeded to board a ship, the Mavi Marmara. Nine people died in what was described immediately thereafter by international media as an "Israeli attack".

Not twenty-four hours would pass before the incident earned the democratic State of Israel yet another trip to the United Nations Security Council (Jerusalem really ought to have its own key to the place, it's there so often), though it's worth noting that an unprovoked North Korean attack on a South Korean naval vessel (the Cheonan) this past March, in which 46 sailors were killed, has yet to earn Pyongyang any sort of censure by the august UNSC (incidentally, China has yet to admit its DPRK ally might be even possibly responsible for the attack...while Obama's USA once again threw Israel to the wolves. Who has the better friend?).

Turkey in short order recalled its ambassador to Israel and declared its former close alliance with Jerusalem to be at an end (honestly, though, we who pay attention saw this coming). The EU has condemned Israel, yet again. Al-Jazeera has predictably devoted ample time and resources to vilifying Israel. And China - reluctant to accept the findings of an international investigation into the Cheonan sinking that found its unstable, unpredictable, nuclear-armed and despotic North Korean ally responsible - wasted little time in saying the People's Republic was "appalled" by Israel's actions (no investigation needed, apparently!).

In contrast to the trial of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, which took place nearly 240 years ago in a hostile political environment and yet proved unimpeachably fair, it is all but impossible today for Israel or any of its soldiers to get a fair trial anywhere...except in Israel itself. Whereas once it was possible for Redcoats in Colonial America to be acquitted of a crime by arguing on behalf of the unalterable "state of facts and evidence", today Israeli soldiers are judged guilty by an outside world that makes judgements based not on stubborn facts, but "whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion."

Despite the uphill PR battles it regularly faces (and often, loses), Israel doesn't give up in trying to use stubborn facts in defense of its actions. It's a good - if idealistic - and straightforward strategy, though our civilization has progressed to a point where we don't have the patience to sit and view or listen to the facts of an issue, whether its Israel's latest military action or a law on illegal immigration in America. We're urged to "feel", discouraged from "thinking". We're content to let 24-hour news network anchors or op-ed columnists do our thinking for us.

It's so much easier, isn't it? Letting others do your thinking for you.

Yes. Yes, it is. ;)

But interestingly enough, the State of Israel this time around has an unwitting ally in its usually clumsy efforts to defend itself with stubborn facts: YouTube. According to the Jerusalem Post, the most popular video on YouTube for the past day or so (with over one million views) has been a posting by the Israel Defense Forces of its raid on the flotilla approaching Gaza, consisting of footage of Israeli troops dropping down onto the aforementioned Mavi Marmara and those Israeli soldiers being assaulted with weapons of various kinds and levels of lethality.

The footage even shows one soldier being thrown off the side of a ship:

Another video shows the same scene, but from a different perspective - the deck of the ship itself:

Activists are seen here attacking Israeli soldiers with a stun grenade, a box of plates, and water hoses as they attempt to board the Mavi Marmara. Note, this is before the soldiers boarded!

Here you can witness Israeli soldiers discovering that some of the activists on a ship flying a white flag are using real weapons against the Israeli boarding party:

And it wasn't as if Israel didn't try to avoid a confrontation, before the raid commenced:

Despite the best efforts of CNN, BBC News, Al-Jazeera and other news organizations (but not FOX News, according to what I've seen) to censor such footage from Israel's raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla, footage that could prove Israel isn't the bloodthirsty, barbaric monster that the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the EU and Turkey portray it as, people are finding it and watching it and, likelier than not, making up their minds for themselves (Al-Jazeera's raid footage hasn't proven nearly as popular).

In contrast to its treatment by the news media, Israel might just be able to find itself judged in the court of public opinion according to...facts.

If only the Redcoats had YouTube...but then, they had John Adams. We don't. So...YouTube it is...

Flotillas and Fools

By now you all - in one way or another - have probably heard about what went down in the Med today.

A flotilla of ships, attempting to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, was boarded by Israel's navy and...things didn't go so well. At last count, 9 flotilla participants died. According to what I've read, several of these purportedly "peaceful" activists attempted to grab the weapons of Israeli soldiers. I've also heard that the activists (who apparently have a big problem with Israel, but not so much with Hamas) might have had crude weapons of their own, using them to assault - maybe even stab - Israeli soldiers, whose perseverance and bravery I salute.

I've been looking at the prominent role being played by Turkey in all this - you can do your own news searches regarding this, as I wouldn't want to deny you the "fun" and I'd rather not be your sole source of news..hint, "IHH" - and after some considerable consideration, I wouldn't be surprised if Turkish PM Erdogan intended for things to go this way, in order to have political cover to further downgrade the state of Turkish-Israeli ties. I'd say the Turks were counting on Israel reacting strongly, though they might not have expected such consequences as this. Or maybe...they did?

All they needed were a few willing agents provocateurs, a little money slipped under the table by Ankara...et voilà, Israel looks bad before the world (like that is new), and Turkey has a "good" reason to call in an Israeli ambassador or other consular official, dress him down, all as cover as Turkey gets cozier with Syria and Iran. Heck, Turkey's already recalled its ambassador to Israel (so quickly!). And who can blame Turkish protestors for trying to storm an Israeli consulate in Istanbul, even if - perish the thought - whatever protests "spontaneously" erupted were, in fact, pre-planned and well-coordinated?

They need only say, "Look what Israel did!" and understanding is born. Especially, in America, amongst devotees of the Huffington Post, acolytes of His Awesomeness Barack H. Obama II, and supporters of J Street. Meanwhile, though the Muslim world as a whole doesn't exactly need another reason to bash Israel, a brief perusal of Al Jazeera's English website this afternoon showed me they'll still gladly run with whatever they get.

Sure, Turkey could openly repudiate Israel (and by extension, the West), but that wouldn't look so good, now would it? Especially not if there's still the slightest chance the EU might one day consider possibly letting the Turks join their club, even nowadays when it might not seem to be the best club to join. But if you get Israel to be your unwitting fall guy, many more people than might otherwise see your perspective now will. You can go your own way and hardly be accused of further abandoning your country's secular roots and longstanding partnership with Israel, after an event like this.

One also can't discount a major role by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which of course stands to benefit from the international media's focus switching from one regional pariah to another. After all, the more the int'l media focus on Israel and its actions (policies, etc), the less they'll be talking about Iran, it's despotic regime, and that regime's nuclear program. You know something ain't kosher when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has the gall to call Israel's actions "inhumane". What a spectacle! Pot calling kettle black, much?

This is also, in a way, exactly what North Korea needs at the moment. I'd be willing to bet money that this flotilla incident today is enough to get Jerusalem hauled before the UN Security Council before North Korea's torpedoing of a South Korean naval vessel (with 46 fatalities) in March gets Pyongyang censured by that body. Never mind, of course, that Israel gave fair warning before boarding the ships, and that North Korea's attack was surreptitious and unprovoked. It's the way of the world: Blaming Jews (and/or Israel) works.

Call me a cynic, but don't tell me I don't have justification to be cynical!

This just seems to have gone too badly - for Israel's image, and the flotilla participants' lives - to have come about by mere happenstance.

Turned On the Faucet. This Came Out.

It's funny. What's funny? I don't know. That's just the first thing that popped into my head. I was wondering what to write, somewhat concerned that nothing was coming to mind, and then...it's funny. That's what popped into my head. Come to think of it, I just repeated myself. I said popped into my head twice. Why did that happen? How did it happen? Oh, shit. Does it really matter one way or the other, why or how? Is it going to affect my future, wondering about that? I don't know. Which is why determining the worthiness of spending time wondering about it is either much or little, depending on the moment. Depending on the moment. Shouldn't it be depending on the moments? No, probably not. Moment to moment, that's what it depends on. There's no need to pluralize that which needn't be so.

Needn't be so. That sounds somewhat archaic. I read too many older things, maybe. Too much or too little, because the writing today often pales in comparison to what was written in the past. Take Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work about the Great Boer War. I spent about 20 minutes today perusing that on my Kindle for Mac, and the only thing that caused me to cease my reading was...well, my memory is fuzzy on just what it was that inspired me to stop. It could have been hunger, or thirst, or a need to pee. Hell, it could have even been a hard-on. I'm not really sure. And the funny thing is...heh, it's funny...that at the time of this writing, the moment - oh, there's a connection - I speak of took place just a short time ago. Just a few hours, ago. Why did I put that comma there? Fuck if I know. I don't know myself half as well as I think.

Anyway, what was I saying? I digress. No, I wasn't saying that. I digressed, that's it. So anyway, I was reading the author of Sherlock Holmes' work about South Africa. I bought it months and months ago, while I was still in Coree du Sud. Wait, why the fuck did I just write South Korea in French? What purpose does that serve? What does it add to the narrative. Wait, is this a narrative? Wait, why the hell am I saying wait so much? Okay, back to the story. Doyle's words regarding the failings of British policy in southern Africa don't read like a modern history narrative. They might as well be a novel, for the way that they collectively enrapture me, instill in me a desire to keep on reading until something or other - again, I can't remember what - distracts me enough that I decide to pull myself away from the book and abandon it for a while.

Distractions. They're interesting, aren't they? Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't distract us to begin with. They wouldn't command our attention. Mind you, when I started writing this bit about distractions, I was meaning in the more general sense that they are interesting. The very act of being distracted isn't so strange, but that we get upset about it. We're told we need to focus, focus, focus, keep our eyes on the prize, maintain our trek toward whatever the goal may be. But like I said, distractions are interesting. And perhaps even more interesting is what it is that distracts us, as I said before. I, for one, am particularly distracted by a woman's pretty face, or - as is just as often the case - the bust situated just beneath it. I can't be honest? You want me to say a woman's face is all I look at?

But see, just there I was distracted. I wasn't thinking about me, but about you. What do I care what you think, about what distracts me? The saying might be, judge not lest ye be judged, but we all do it anyway, and file an appeal...at least, in our minds we do. We know, or think we know, when we're being judged, and we rush to defend ourselves. Why? How well do those who are judging us know us? Not that well. So when I write about how cleavage manages to distract me even in a bookstore - where not much besides is able to easily disrupt my attention - there's a part of me that knows that whoever is reading this has suddenly come to certain conclusions about me that may or may not be accurate. They certainly aren't the whole story, those conclusions. So why do we care so much that they're being made?

Alright, enough of that. I'm not a philosopher, I don't need to try to answer questions others who believe they are philosophers spend plenty of time worrying about on their own. I think for myself, of course, but ultimately the bigger questions about why we worry about what we worry about don't affect me all that much. The questions don't get in my way when I'm reading a book. They don't normally bother me when I'm watching TV. They stay out of my line-of-sight when I'm wandering around a tourist attraction. Obviously, they pop into my head - there it is again - when I'm writing, but that's what happens when you lift off the bridle of the mind and just run with it. Thoughts you'd rather not have but aren't ashamed to have force their way into your consciousness, and if you're in the process of writing, they're added to the evidence.

The evidence of what? The evidence of the writing, of course. The tangible, readable shapes you now see before you. They are evidence that, one way or another, I have been thinking. Maybe I haven't been thinking all that profoundly, but then, who needs to think profoundly except those who believe they have to think profoundly? My reputation - such as it is - doesn't depend on any such notion. I could think about banal, vulgar things, and then write about them, for days on end. Well, not literally for days on end. I'd need to sleep, eat, shower, brush my teeth, masturbate, drink water, drink juice, drink beer, etc. And when you get right down to it, I probably wouldn't be able to keep up the banal thread for long. Sooner or later, I'd involuntarily try my hand at profundity again, realize I don't need to, and then write about it all.

What in that last paragraph, that preceding collection of words combined into sentences, sticks out at you right now? Don't think too much about it. Just think, and say. Well, think it, at least, 'cause I can't hear you and if you're talking out loud to yourself there's a good chance you'll have some explaining to do later. As for me, what sticks out is...well, fuck. I don't know. I'm not sure what there is to remember in that last paragraph, whether there's anything in there that I should be remembering more than any other thing accompanying any other thing. I just kind of repeated myself, but I don't care and didn't mean to do it. I, well...fuck it. I actually want to talk about something else, but damned if I can think of what. I'm not in command of this process. It's just happening, flowing freely, like the Nile, the Jordan, the Han. Rivers.

Rivers! That's what I can talk about. I can talk about the rivers I've seen. Such as the Mississippi, and the Nile, and the Jordan, and the Han, and the Yarkon, and the...well, there was a really dirty river in Daegu, Korea, but I can't remember the name of it at the moment. It was really dirty, as I recall from research the dirtiest in Korea, but...what does it matter? I'm talking about a river. Or rivers. Say, is it redundant to speak of multiple rivers? Does it matter, in the greater scheme of things? It sounds weird, to say there are multiple rivers on our planet. Shouldn't it be enough to just say, there are rivers on our planet? Doesn't that speak for itself, the plural of river? Obviously, if there is more than one river, there are rivers. It stands to reason that if there are rivers, they aren't just found in one spot, but many. Hence the plural. Rivers.

Okay, time to write about something else. How about this: Writing. Am I writing right now? There are many books about writing and being a writer. But am I writing? No. I'm typing. I'm the author of this, yes, and it could be said that I authored it and whoever said it wouldn't be wrong. But, as I said, did I write all of this, pen in hand, paper in front of me? No. If I'm being literal, practical, then I can't say that what this is is writing. It's typing. On a MacBook Air in a cafe at a Barnes & Noble in Tucson, Arizona, USA on March 31, 2010 at 8:26:26 p.m., or 20:26:39 if you're in the military or in a country other than the United States of America. Shit, digressed again. Writing. Erm, typing. These words have not been written, not in the traditional sense. Not in the literal sense. So why do we call people who type books, writers?

To Obama, and the Future Glory of His Changed America!

I think it's obvious, isn't it? Barack Obama is the New Savior not only of America, but all Mankind. Even for those who don't believe in God, he is the Messiah, resurrected. His record stands on its own: Not quite four years into his freshman Senate term, he already has a personality cult whose growth, tenacity and spirit rivals the cults which once surrounded Stalin and Hitler. Obama has, as we know, overcome great odds to defeat a favored Democrat rival and become his Party's official nominee for the job of President of the United States of America. And his rise to power, coming as the George W. Bush era comes to a close, is as providential a sign as there can be that Obama's meant to be President, or to even prepare the ground for a "President for Life"...a position to be occupied only by Democrats for the duration of the American Republic.

Change!

And who are Democrats, to deny that such is their goal - permanent power? Permanent power, devoid of dissent, or at least as devoid of dissent as is possible in the United States at this time? Such permanent power is - can it be disputed? - the best, most assured way of putting one's political plans into action. The Nazis and Soviets, the late Saddam Hussein regime and the current Islamic Republic of Iran, the House of Sa'ud in Arabia and Putin in Russia all demonstrate this truth clearly. For his part, Senator Obama has already shrewdly given his tacit blessing to his supporters to silence the opinions of those who oppose his/their views, and since he changes those views so often, he makes it very difficult for people to oppose him in the first place. This is hardly worrying; be encouraged! One-Party Rule depends on such leaders!

Change!

Obama has already showed us what the New Seal of the President of the United States will look like. He has already rallied millions upon millions of naive, young college students, mostly freshmen just like him (but of a different sort), and a few older students, who know only what their parents have taught them, what their professors have taught them, or what the mainstream media has taught them. Get 'em while they're young, as the saying goes, while they still have yet to really learn how to think independently. This is something to celebrate, the easy indoctrination of the leftist, liberal mantra (Republicans are bad, conservatives bad, Americans are bad, Democrats good, liberals good, power good, the Party is more important than the individual, the Government is more important than the individual, etc.) of willing acolytes.

Change!

Just imagine everything which will be possible once Democrats have retaken the White House and further entrenched their majority in Congress, securing their indefinitely extended power: We'll have a socialist-style universal medical system, just like in Cuba. And just like in Cuba, dissent against the Government will slowly but surely be quashed in the New Revolution (bye, conservative talk radio!), and only the elite in the Party or foreigners with money - who'll become, as they are now in Cuba, a different kind of elite - will be able to take advantage of all the medical advances (shorter wait times, for example) in our Great Republic. Can't you just see it? It will be a glorious time in America, a New Golden Age. I wonder who "our" Che Guevara will be. I really do. Will he murder as many people as the real one did? For the New Revolution?

Change!

The planet Earth, of course, will also be saved alongside America after Obama wins the Presidency and Democrats begin what will hopefully be a permanent period of residency in the White House. Because only Democrats, or rather, liberals, are capable of and willing to fight Global Warming to the bitter end. Yes, only left-wing liberals are willing to take on both humanity and Mother Nature herself. They'll not be content with simply ending humanity's contribution to Climate Change...they'll also take measures to ensure that the natural processes of the Earth - which led to past Climate Change and ended the last Ice Age (and which enabled humanity, civilization, to grow to such numbers and advancement as it has) - adhere to left-wing, Democratic liberalism's theoretical physical laws, not today's proven laws of Physics.

Change!

Barack Obama's inauguration will be a cause for further celebration abroad, beyond that which will follow Climate Change's inevitable, permanent defeat once the Earth stops rotating on its axis. Europeans, especially, will have reason to feel comfortable in the event the Democrats win the presidential election of 2008 and every such election thereafter, since Europeans, we cannot forget, know a thing or two about the potential power of a Government which intends to rule over the People rather than serve them. We have so much to learn from Europeans, for they are receptive to such systems of Government, and Europeans are obviously so much wiser and more worldly than Americans are. How could they not be, when they've learned so much from their fratricidal conflicts, and they've taught us how to industrialize mass genocide?

Change!

Yes, the world will Change for the better when the Democrats have power once more. Especially in the Middle East. Israel will be forced to partition Jerusalem, a la Berlin, with the Arabs despite there having been a Jewish majority in the modern city for over 140 years, and despite repeated Palestinian demonstrations of hatred, disrespect and irresponsibility toward Jews and their beliefs (demonstrated especially well during the period of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, when Jews, Christians and Muslims from Israel were prevented from worshiping at their Holy Sites). Governments the world over will flock to Jerusalem to establish and open their embassies to Palestine, while most embassies to Israel will likely remain in Tel Aviv, despite the mantra of those who say that Jerusalem will be a capital of two states, not one. Ah, a just peace!

Change!

Back in the U.S. Homeland, there will no longer be such a thing as illegal immigration. Not because our sovereign borders will have been secured by the Federal Government, but because said sovereign borders will have been opened in accordance with the demands of sovereign Mexico. We musn't forget, it is far easier for the Mexican Government to sanction illegal immigration, to print official fliers explaining how to sneak into America, than it is for them to work to grow their indigenous economy. But once full amnesty has been granted to all previous "illegal" immigrants, and the borders are forcibly opened - to the everlasting chagrin of the formerly semi-autonomous States - the Mexican Government will be able to spend its money on other things, like a campaign to make Spanish the official language of the U.S. Viva la reconquista!

Change!

As for African-Americans, an Obama victory would mean that finally, all their hopes and dreams have been (or can be) realized. It will signal the end of all the trials and tribulations afflicting "Blacks". An Obama victory in November '08 would be the ultimate vindication of the Civil Rights struggle, and all who fought for an America that lives up to its founding creed would have cause for immense pride. For how else might African-Americans have helped to realize Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, of an America whose citizens are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, than by voting en masse for a candidate based primarily on his...skin color? It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Change!

As Election Day nears, this much is certain:

Change, either domestically or internationally, is only possible with an Obama victory in the presidential race and a further Democratic victory in Congress and throughout the States of the American Union. Even though a change in the administration of Executive power is mandated by the Constitution and its amendments (meaning that no matter who wins in 2008, we'll have a new president in 2009), True Change, the kind that will restore dignity and honor to America, can only be implemented once ultra-liberal Democrats control our Government. Change, after all, never even existed before the advent of Barack Hussein Obama. Before Obama, there was just change. Regular, old, lawful "change". That will change, though, once Obama wins and Change comes to America. Can we so Change America...not just change it? Yes we can!





To facetious fascism!