Although the prisoner swap is absurdly unequal, celebrations are going on among both Palestinians and Israelis. However, the mathematics is disturbing, not just to Israeli utilitarians.
On one side, Hamas appears to have achieved a great victory. Hence its popular support will increase. In addition, from the Palestinian prisoners who are released as well as from others inspired by this uneven prisoner exchange, Hamas will add a huge number of cadre to its militant ranks almost overnight.
On the other side, Israel must now take extra security precautions against an enemy force that will be greatly increased. In addition, Israel must arrest or capture another huge number of Palestinians to be ready for brokering the next release of an Israeli captive.
Is this a good deal for the Palestinians? Will it increase the chances of an early peace in the region? I doubt it.
To my thinking, the biggest problem I see with the uneven trade is what it reveals about the collective Jewish psyche. To the Jewish mind, one Israeli Jew is worth more than 1,000 Palestinians. This extreme superiority complex fosters huge injustices and even occasional massacres.
For example, in 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein opened fire on unarmed Muslims in prayer, killing 29 and wounding another 125. At the funeral of Baruch Goldstein, who was overcome and beaten to death by the outraged congregation, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in his eulogy: "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
Unfortunately, many Jews do think like Rabbi Perrin. And, because of the vastly unequal value commonly ascribed to the life of Palestinians, many if not most Israelis are blind to the apartheid practiced by the Jewish State.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Scientism and Carl Sagan
Carl Sagan often repeated the catechism: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." On the surface, the assertion sounds reasonable. But think a bit deeper, and it becomes evident that this is not just irrational but a justification for fascism (or, perhaps more accurately, scientism).
First, is there any objective measure of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary? Is this a black and white dichotomy, or do we have ranges of events and ranges of experience? For example, in the case of homeopathy, on what basis would it be decided that a 200-year old medical science, well respected in many countries of the world, is extraordinary? I submit that in this world, everything is natural - nothing is supernatural. So even the extraordinary events (including experiences) - events that fall outside of what is common or expected in a particular locale, at a particular time, or for a particular community - are natural.
Second, what qualifies as extraordinary evidence, and how much extraordinary evidence will suffice? Demanding extraordinary evidence is a recognition that the already existing evidence would be sufficient to substantiate conventional wisdom. At what point does the demand for extraordinary evidence become just an excuse to suppress knowledge and propagate dogma?
Third, even if a reported event is extraordinary, why should it require more evidence than anything else? An extraordinary event is bound to be a rare event, at least, for the person(s) reporting the event or for the person(s) receiving that report. So already it is likely to be difficult to acquire even ordinary evidence for an extraordinary event. In my estimation, acceptance of probable validity should ordinarily require evidence that is very substantial. Why set a higher standard than that for an event that is extraordinary, in other words, uncommon because it is outside the range of someone's day-to-day experience? Does this not set an unreasonably high hurdle for progressive innovation?
Fourth and finally, who decides what is ordinary and what is extraordinary (or what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is decent and what is indecent)? Would it benefit society to have an ardent advocate of national socialism in such a role? Clearly, it would not. So then who would be the appropriate authority to classify anything as extraordinary (assuming that such a classification serves an important purpose - something beyond the awarding of a gold medal to an exceptional athlete or the sentencing of a serial killer to prison - which I do not)? In my estimation, an authority with that much power would have to possess extraordinary qualifications. Only an extraordinary person would be capable of determining what is extraordinary and what is ordinary. Such an extraordinary person would have to be not just intelligent but also worldly wise and courageous. Most important of all, s/he would have to be a moralist with a universal social outlook. Giving so much power to anyone else could do immeasurable damage to society.
First, is there any objective measure of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary? Is this a black and white dichotomy, or do we have ranges of events and ranges of experience? For example, in the case of homeopathy, on what basis would it be decided that a 200-year old medical science, well respected in many countries of the world, is extraordinary? I submit that in this world, everything is natural - nothing is supernatural. So even the extraordinary events (including experiences) - events that fall outside of what is common or expected in a particular locale, at a particular time, or for a particular community - are natural.
Second, what qualifies as extraordinary evidence, and how much extraordinary evidence will suffice? Demanding extraordinary evidence is a recognition that the already existing evidence would be sufficient to substantiate conventional wisdom. At what point does the demand for extraordinary evidence become just an excuse to suppress knowledge and propagate dogma?
Third, even if a reported event is extraordinary, why should it require more evidence than anything else? An extraordinary event is bound to be a rare event, at least, for the person(s) reporting the event or for the person(s) receiving that report. So already it is likely to be difficult to acquire even ordinary evidence for an extraordinary event. In my estimation, acceptance of probable validity should ordinarily require evidence that is very substantial. Why set a higher standard than that for an event that is extraordinary, in other words, uncommon because it is outside the range of someone's day-to-day experience? Does this not set an unreasonably high hurdle for progressive innovation?
Fourth and finally, who decides what is ordinary and what is extraordinary (or what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is decent and what is indecent)? Would it benefit society to have an ardent advocate of national socialism in such a role? Clearly, it would not. So then who would be the appropriate authority to classify anything as extraordinary (assuming that such a classification serves an important purpose - something beyond the awarding of a gold medal to an exceptional athlete or the sentencing of a serial killer to prison - which I do not)? In my estimation, an authority with that much power would have to possess extraordinary qualifications. Only an extraordinary person would be capable of determining what is extraordinary and what is ordinary. Such an extraordinary person would have to be not just intelligent but also worldly wise and courageous. Most important of all, s/he would have to be a moralist with a universal social outlook. Giving so much power to anyone else could do immeasurable damage to society.
EU Legislation on Herbal Remedies
The fact is that this legislation recognizes the efficacy of herbal remedies. That is a good thing. But once you recognize the efficacy of the remedies, you have to worry about the way in which those remedies may be abused and also the way in which those remedies may conflict with other drugs that a patient may require or be taking. Hence, regulation is required, and the EU recognition of that need is ultimately a recognition of herbal remedies.
The main problem is with the regulatory process, which is very costly and largely devolves upon the consumer (via the small to medium scale producer or distributor). Medical care is a fundamental requirement of life and hence the cost of medical care should be borne by society as a whole and not by the individual citizens. Unfortunately, due to capitalism and considerable variation in the laws of the EU member states, the way in which the EU legislation is enforced will largely depend on the system of medical care in the EU member states.
Protesting the EU legislation is not a solution. And taking up that protest across Europe is a pointless and possibly counterproductive measure. What is needed is the establishment of PROUT to ensure a patient-oriented rather than profit-oriented medical system.
The main problem is with the regulatory process, which is very costly and largely devolves upon the consumer (via the small to medium scale producer or distributor). Medical care is a fundamental requirement of life and hence the cost of medical care should be borne by society as a whole and not by the individual citizens. Unfortunately, due to capitalism and considerable variation in the laws of the EU member states, the way in which the EU legislation is enforced will largely depend on the system of medical care in the EU member states.
Protesting the EU legislation is not a solution. And taking up that protest across Europe is a pointless and possibly counterproductive measure. What is needed is the establishment of PROUT to ensure a patient-oriented rather than profit-oriented medical system.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
JTBS
The 7000-year tradition of tantra prohibits the sale of any instruction connected with yoga, and I uphold that tradition. So, to make ends meet - and maybe to become rich along the way - I have long contemplated the establishment of a new Church.
The Church is called Just To Be Sure (JTBS). It is similar to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in that it distinguishes itself by its interpretation of the Sabbath. Let me explain.
In all of the three Semitic religions, the Ten Commandments is a common thread. All three Semitic religions accept the principle: "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." [Deut. 5:12, KJV] But all three Semitic religions celebrate the Sabbath on a different day. The Muslims celebrate it on Friday. The Jews celebrate it on Saturday. And most Christians celebrate it on Sunday.
Our new religion says that, given the different interpretations, we cannot be sure which day is correct. We may believe that Friday or Saturday or Sunday is the real Sabbath day, but we cannot know it. Perhaps, originally the Sabbath was celebrated on Saturday, but later God changed it to Sunday, and later still to Friday. Or perhaps, God changed the Sabbath day to Sunday, and the change to Friday was not valid. Or perhaps neither of the changes was valid, and it always remained Saturday.
So "just to be sure" - just to be sure that we actually are "keeping the Sabbath day and sanctifying it" - JTBS observes a compulsory 3-day Sabbath (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).
All members of our new Church are free to determine the degree of strictness with which they will observe the Sabbath, but they would be prohibited from salaried work on those three days. All members of our new Church are free to practice whatever Semitic religious preferences they may have (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) or even any pagan preferences. All members of our new Church may be orthodox, conservative, or reformed in their outlook. In the JTBS priesthood, we will accept women and men, blacks and browns and yellows and whites, straights and gays. If any dogs or cats or other animals can pay for the course and pass our very easy exam, they may also become priests.
The only universal requirement of our Church is a three-day weekend, consistent with our three-day Sabbath. In other words, on religious grounds, our members will only be allowed to have a four-day workweek.
Depending on the JTBS denomination to which one belongs, members may be restricted in other ways. For example, one or more denominations of JTBS might prohibit military service. Other denominations of JTBS might insist on a special diet from kosher to low sodium to Asian vegetarian. JTBS embraces the full range of possibilities in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. And JTBS will also do a fair amount of scriptural reinterpretation on its own account.
For example, one of the first revisions you may expect to see implemented is a revelation regarding tithing. Heretofore, tithing was taken to mean the donation of 10% of one's income to the Church. But in JTBS, tithing will be only 3% of one's income. In this way, we hope to corner the market of blind believers at this time of great economic insecurity. And, speaking of the economy, one immediate benefit of JTBS will be to increase employment figures by reducing the number of hours that people may work.
That is JTBS in a nutshell. Converts are welcome.
The Church is called Just To Be Sure (JTBS). It is similar to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in that it distinguishes itself by its interpretation of the Sabbath. Let me explain.
In all of the three Semitic religions, the Ten Commandments is a common thread. All three Semitic religions accept the principle: "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." [Deut. 5:12, KJV] But all three Semitic religions celebrate the Sabbath on a different day. The Muslims celebrate it on Friday. The Jews celebrate it on Saturday. And most Christians celebrate it on Sunday.
Our new religion says that, given the different interpretations, we cannot be sure which day is correct. We may believe that Friday or Saturday or Sunday is the real Sabbath day, but we cannot know it. Perhaps, originally the Sabbath was celebrated on Saturday, but later God changed it to Sunday, and later still to Friday. Or perhaps, God changed the Sabbath day to Sunday, and the change to Friday was not valid. Or perhaps neither of the changes was valid, and it always remained Saturday.
So "just to be sure" - just to be sure that we actually are "keeping the Sabbath day and sanctifying it" - JTBS observes a compulsory 3-day Sabbath (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).
All members of our new Church are free to determine the degree of strictness with which they will observe the Sabbath, but they would be prohibited from salaried work on those three days. All members of our new Church are free to practice whatever Semitic religious preferences they may have (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) or even any pagan preferences. All members of our new Church may be orthodox, conservative, or reformed in their outlook. In the JTBS priesthood, we will accept women and men, blacks and browns and yellows and whites, straights and gays. If any dogs or cats or other animals can pay for the course and pass our very easy exam, they may also become priests.
The only universal requirement of our Church is a three-day weekend, consistent with our three-day Sabbath. In other words, on religious grounds, our members will only be allowed to have a four-day workweek.
Depending on the JTBS denomination to which one belongs, members may be restricted in other ways. For example, one or more denominations of JTBS might prohibit military service. Other denominations of JTBS might insist on a special diet from kosher to low sodium to Asian vegetarian. JTBS embraces the full range of possibilities in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. And JTBS will also do a fair amount of scriptural reinterpretation on its own account.
For example, one of the first revisions you may expect to see implemented is a revelation regarding tithing. Heretofore, tithing was taken to mean the donation of 10% of one's income to the Church. But in JTBS, tithing will be only 3% of one's income. In this way, we hope to corner the market of blind believers at this time of great economic insecurity. And, speaking of the economy, one immediate benefit of JTBS will be to increase employment figures by reducing the number of hours that people may work.
That is JTBS in a nutshell. Converts are welcome.
A Personal Letter To Julian Assange
Pardon me for yawning; but come on, Julian, where is the good stuff? I mean, the junk you are putting out with your WikiLeaks - it's so ordinary. Who doesn't expect governments to engage in backroom dealing, backstabbing, and - heck - even some spying. But where is the nitty gritty about how the US Government was behind the Twin Towers - how they blew up one of the buildings with planted explosives - and what about the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Get with it, dude. Thus far your gospel is just god-awful. Snore.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Spiritual Fraud
So now the Pope has gone to Barcelona to consecrate an unfinished church as a basilica.
One of the privileges granted to a basilica is that supplicants may go there to purchase a plenary indulgence - the alleged full remission of sins for deceased persons allegedly languishing in purgatory. This is fraud built on fraud. There is no supernatural place called purgatory, and the Roman Catholic Church has no power to remit sins. What a nasty business! It is like selling dehydrated water to people suffering from thirst.
One of the privileges granted to a basilica is that supplicants may go there to purchase a plenary indulgence - the alleged full remission of sins for deceased persons allegedly languishing in purgatory. This is fraud built on fraud. There is no supernatural place called purgatory, and the Roman Catholic Church has no power to remit sins. What a nasty business! It is like selling dehydrated water to people suffering from thirst.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Indecision 2010
Yesterday, Wednesday October 27, President Obama appeared on John Stewart's The Daily Show.
Over the nearly 30-minute show, Obama seemed uncomfortable with even the mild criticism that Stewart offered. More significant still, throughout the entire show, Obama was on the defensive. Rarely, did he say anything that sounded path-breaking or new. "Yes we can, but..." was Obama's new and not very impressive slogan.
Obama's arguments - mostly excuses - were pretty weak. For example, he stated that the rising unemployment figures over the last two years took place mainly in the first few months after he came into office. "Most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies that we put into place had any effect." Looking at the unemployment graph provided by the United States Labor Department, that statement is not very convincing. Rather, it seems that Obama's economic policies have had little or no success in stemming rising unemployment.
Despite being on the defensive - or maybe because of it - Obama came off sounding very arrogant. "We have made a lot of progress over the last 18 months that, from a historical perspective, ranks up there with any legislative session we've seen in history." But, as with his excuses, the boasts fell short of convincing.
The word I heard most often from Obama was "fair"... "in fairness", "to be fair", "here's what I think is fair", and so on. In my experience, one of the most insightful lines from Shakespeare is: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." On last night's The Daily Show, I think the President did protest too much. I think that whenever he used the word "fair", it meant two things: (1) that most of what he had just been saying was unfair (2) that what he was about to say would be very unfair.
Over the nearly 30-minute show, Obama seemed uncomfortable with even the mild criticism that Stewart offered. More significant still, throughout the entire show, Obama was on the defensive. Rarely, did he say anything that sounded path-breaking or new. "Yes we can, but..." was Obama's new and not very impressive slogan.
Obama's arguments - mostly excuses - were pretty weak. For example, he stated that the rising unemployment figures over the last two years took place mainly in the first few months after he came into office. "Most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies that we put into place had any effect." Looking at the unemployment graph provided by the United States Labor Department, that statement is not very convincing. Rather, it seems that Obama's economic policies have had little or no success in stemming rising unemployment.
Despite being on the defensive - or maybe because of it - Obama came off sounding very arrogant. "We have made a lot of progress over the last 18 months that, from a historical perspective, ranks up there with any legislative session we've seen in history." But, as with his excuses, the boasts fell short of convincing.
The word I heard most often from Obama was "fair"... "in fairness", "to be fair", "here's what I think is fair", and so on. In my experience, one of the most insightful lines from Shakespeare is: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." On last night's The Daily Show, I think the President did protest too much. I think that whenever he used the word "fair", it meant two things: (1) that most of what he had just been saying was unfair (2) that what he was about to say would be very unfair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)