Alkahest - The Blog of Sarvik Dot Com

A short but disturbing item on this historic moment in our democracy... I was informed that SMS text messages are being sent from 310-463-4638 which say the following:

"Due to long lines, all Obama voters are asked to vote on Wednesday."

As far as I know, these are only being sent in California, but they could easily be part of a larger nationwide effort. Everyone should be aware that the time to vote for President is TODAY only.

Sure, they have their First Amendment rights and I would never forcibly curtail those. But I'm so very tired of worshipful mainstream media attempts, which apparently are quite successful, to attract regular folks to politics by dressing the issues with vapid, fawning celebrity coverage. I saw this image recently on Yahoo!...

It's just sad. Why on earth should we care if OMG movie stars and reality TV "ppl" support any particular candidate for President? They are nothing like me or any of us, yet here they are being trotted out as if we should 1) emulate them and 2) give two shits about what they think about life in the real world. I don't include Schwarzenegger because he has distinguished himself as a serious executive.

General Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was dramatic and historic. Couldn't Yahoo, which once prided itself on human editorial to distinguish from dumb lists of stuff on the Internet, do a better job? Or is this what society really wants? If the latter than it must have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dumb the people down, then give them what we would have them want.

Anyway, with all these high profile Republican endorsements coming out, the race looks pretty much over. But wait, who cares about that? Opie and the Fonz are for OBAMA!!!1!11!!Eleven!!

Unless a Bin Laden video is about to be revealed, I guess it's high time for McCain surrogates or sympathizers to put out a scathing review of Michelle Obama's thesis back at Princeton (full thesis available here, and some blogger analyses here)...

With debate in the punditocracy swirling around Barack Obama's recent comments about "spreading the wealth around," I'm surprised the conservatives are pushing the message so hard. In light of the great unwinding of these horrid Credit Default Swaps, and the prospect of general malaise for at least several quarters, if not for several years and beyond, what makes them think that the Great Unwashed are going to respond favorably to dire warnings against the folly of favoring the richest and most powerful in society?

Given that the masses are going to suffer no matter what, it follows that ordinary people have finally woken up and want the wealthy to suffer some serious humiliation (at the very least). And, perhaps the election of a black man to the nation's top job will be seriously humiliating. In a game of perceptions, even if the elite don't actually lose that much in a physical sense, the mere appearance of such can still have a strong -- and possibly desirable -- effect. Perhaps they are strategic enough to accept this, given that money and power seem to all that matters to them anyway; hence my first posting in the 'Conspiracy' category.

But is a new world order finally upon us? Remember back to the revelation that both Bush and Kerry were both Bonesmen during their time at Yale. Even though the mainstream media tells us that conspiracies surrounding this were well overblown, and rather than thinking about the secret society itself, I prefer to consider the class implications. From that I concluded that it doesn't matter if we elect a Democrat or a Republican; they are two sides of the same coin. If we choose a Republican, the resulting national policy forces America to spend beyond her means internationally. If we choose a Democrat, America will spend beyond her means domestically.

But either way, America already is, and will continue to be, forced to spend beyond her means. Once enough of this has been done, her independence will be crushed by the weight of her debt obligations, forcing her back into the hands of international money and the ICC. When I discuss this idea with people, I'm usually branded as some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Obviously, it is not easy to grasp the concept of historical momentum and the raw inertia of compounding power and economic will.

International financiers have been funding kings, governments, and hedging both sides in war for many centuries. Perhaps now, at last, America has outlived her usefulness as a force for unilateralism, and will no longer be permitted to continue in this mode. Or, maybe it will take another stretch of "enlightened" Democratic leadership in the Executive in order to drive the final nail into Lady Liberty's gilded coffin. Given the unhealthy lifestyles we lead, which is something for which we all share the blame, true socialized medicine could turn out to be much more expensive than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

On one hand I blame the selfish, indulgent Baby Boomers who took the hard work and sacrifice of their depression-era parents and leveraged it into a catastrophe that will take generations to repay, and with that done, our great-great-grandchildren will end up living in a world so radically different our times will be recalled with disgust and disdain.

Not being an economist or financial engineer, one thing I can't understand is why can't the world market simply cancel all Credit Default Swaps, thereby declaring them all Null and Void? Who else invested in them besides hedge funds and the super-rich? We keep hearing how the whole world could never come up with the $550+ trillion needed to cover these obligations. So why not simply nullify them all?

It makes sense to me that the global rich, who created the derivatives market and excluded the middle class from the upside, should take the primary haircut. All this talk about the need for "capital formation" seems irrelevant considering that's precisely what's been happening since President Bush took office. They have the capital to take the haircut, and taking it should be lesson to them. We all have to learn from our mistakes and we, from a class point of view, rarely get to pawn them off on others. The current trickle down system is more than bothersome; it's insulting. The fluid trickling down is warm, yellow, and contains a goodly portion of ammonia.

My opinion is that once the problem becomes complex enough that the actual solution defies common sense, we as a society have reached the point where the rich simply MUST share an equal sense of burden along with everyone else. All this talk about the need to protect the wealthy falls on deaf ears when WE are struggling, and THEY are not. THEY, quite simply, are not struggling, not in any real terms.
It is, in polite terms, a slap in the face and boot to the teeth for the Evil Rich to claim that issues affecting the corporate board memberships, long-term vision, grasp on true power, or historical legacy somehow compare to the inability of a hard-working family to put food on the table.

Alex Jones notwithstanding: while we may indeed be slaves to the global elite, my message to them is this: if you let things get bad enough by insisting on having it both ways because you are so ENTITLED, you won't even be able to trust your own security guards and wait staff. They will suddenly start looking you squarely in the eye, approach from the left when you are right-handed, and prepare to butter their bread on the other side...

Not that it matters, anyway.

Current language of the bill is here. The Senate is set to vote tonight.

Fortunately I'm not the only one out there who suspects the financial establishment is bluffing the American people with what might happen if no bailout occurs. Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog entry today summarizes things nicely by identifying the two main theories about the elites behind this bailout plan: 1) that they are wise and just, but incommunicative and rudely undermined, and 2) that they are manipulative and evil, and afraid of proletarian revolt.

Krugman, however, puts more effort into supporting the former, by making the specific claim that Paulson and Bernanke are just bungling, nutty professors, and we shouldn't feel alarmed by their blatant grab for power and resources. On the other hand, he fails to address directly the latter notion, instead using some snappy clichés that suggest the reader would be silly to disagree (and would in fact be one of the rude underminers).

The details are all very complicated and well beyond the comprehension of my small, undereducated mind, so here's a common sense analysis.

I. The exposition.

In typical breathless MSM fashion, it was reported that our government leaders were briefed by Paulson and Bernanke on something grim that would befall our economy if the bailout was not provided. Our leaders declined to share that information with us, but they assured us via the mainstream media that it was quite serious. The facts were so dire, we were told, that they sucked the air out of the room and left the audience speechless. When Paulson started making the rounds on the various political and economic talk shows, we were regaled with evidence of his iron-clad message discipline:

• He doesn't like having to ask for this bailout
• Yes, taxpayers are insulted, but "the" alternative is far worse
• Banks who would prefer not to loan = permadeath
• We are inches away from the edge of the abyss, i.e. mere days

"King Henry", as Newsweek described him, wants absolute power to do anything he likes with the money, without any threat of challenge or review from the courts, and to have the same private fund managers who brought us into this crisis be the ones given authority to bring us out of it (except this time they cannot be sued). So far it appears that Congressional oversight amounts to quarterly hearings where our representatives are given the opporunity to grandstand on C-SPAN and issue press releases where they can state their displeasure on the record and protect future re-election bids.

II. The failure of the first version of the bailout bill.

In a dramatic ideological mutiny, the Republicans led the opposition to the bill that arose from Paulson's first proposal. The idea of increasing the power of Treasury fiat, placing it above the law and shielding Paulson's Wall Street buddies from constitutional process, was quite distatesful, as was the idea of balooning the agency in power and staff. They didn't like the idea that Big Government has come roaring back, and on their watch.

Though, apparently, once some more tax cuts were added it is now expected to become palatable. Thank goodness, another $600 check to help offset the $9000 in federal debt obligation I'm going to be saddled with as an individual citizen.

Paulson, meanwhile, continued his mild warning that people will find it harder to get loans for homes and cars, and made it clear that if we don't purchase the mortgage assets for significantly higher than face value, banks may simply choose to not participate. It has to be a good deal for them.

Meanwhile, traders (traitors?) on Wall Street act like spoiled children after the first bill failed, forcing stocks to plunge down 777 points, the greatest single day point loss in decades. "How could this have happened?" asked Gordon Charlop, managing director with Rosenblatt Securities. "Is there such a disconnect on Capitol Hill?"

I found Mr. Charlop's comment especially pathetic. First of all, your fortunes are based on the idea that the math and "financial innovation" behind you is too complex for we plebians to grasp. Secondly, since the solution is based on confidence building we have no idea if Wall Street will be satisfied with all this money, or if they'll simply declare that more is needed. No doubt there are more bad assets somewhere they'd like to get rid of, once the problem can be built up large enough to cross the threshold of Too Big To Fail.

Over at Calculated Risk, someone named "Hank Paulson's Mom" noted that the financial news outlets appear particularly desperate for stories of small business under dire threat from the credit crunch. In better times I'd stop to devote some space to the little chestnut called out by the original CR post, which points out an amusing line item added by one of the Senate staffers to confer "EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN" (Section 503, in amendment to Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b).)

III. Truth, the rarest human element, and the first casualty.

So what's really going on? I'd call it another battle in the class war.

Occam's Razor suggests that global economic collapse will not happen, because that would radically alter the status quo. The financial elite is simply negotiating to protect its interests as best they can. Hence Paulson's necessarily complex plan, which deliberately was not in line with George Soros' tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the taxpayer invest directly in the banks because this would dilute their equity and give the taxpayer a permanent share in future profits. And we can't have that, can we? No, we can't, at least not if it can be somehow prevented. Banks are corporations, and corporations are bound by law to do whatever they can maximize profits for shareholders, on the undertaking that in a free market system there is a competing corporation doing the same as a check on those interests.

But what we have here is different. This group of financial corporations has a common interest, with incentives aligned by the Federal Reserve.

Objectively, it seems pretty clear the financial elite is playing chicken with the U.S. taxpayer. We are being force-fed vague threats, but "they" don't seem particularly worried or concerned. Similarly, it is a foolish parasite that kills its host. Their riches are based entirely on buying and selling the hard work of others, and taking an ever-increasing cut of the action. Are we to believe that they would actually kill the goose that lays golden eggs? If global economic collapse were to occur, their riches would evaporate because the developed nations use fractional reserve banking. They would lose the ability to buy nice things and they would be surrounded by a vast, hostile, and violent majority. Even their security guards would always be suspect on some level.

Taxpayers are outraged because the notion of this bailout does not pass the smell test. Speaking for us all, I think we would be much more amenable if the elites simply came clean, made a sincere apology, and admitted their responsibility. It is quite obvious that they would never submit themselves to We The People because they are elite, evolved, and pure. Moreover, they have bailed out our government in the past, which bought them resuable chips in a game bigger than any of us can imagine.

Meanwhile Paulson seems no more perturbed, and neither do the other observable elites or their bought and paid-for proxies in the mainstream media. Instead it looks more like a song and dance routine quite similar to the runup to the Iraq war. Trust us, they said. We know this is too important to screw up, they said.

Once again it seems our entire system is based on disinformation, which is coin of the realm in times of war, be it traditional, assymetric, economic, or a combination thereof.

IV. Conclusion.

If global collapse were truly at risk, banks would not have a choice because they'd have already lost their leverage. They would not be able to force or trick the taxpayer into providing it with a good deal. Instead they'd have to accept a bad deal, just as they routinely force the non-favored party to accept in any business transaction.

The elites, however, are not behaving as if they must accept a bad deal. Therefore, I conclude that global collapse is not imminent, because such a calamity would wipe out their riches and destroy their precious social immobility.

Too big to fail, indeed.

Privatized Profits, Socialized Losses.

A growing catchphrase that was heretofore expressed in the present progressive will soon be past. It would a monumental embarrassment for the current administration and its precious ideology, except to the extent that the result is likely to be precisely what they want: ever less independence for the United States of America, where we must submit ourselves more than ever to the international community. And by the way, 'they' in this context means corrupt politicians of either party. Republicans and Democrats are ultimately two sides of the same global coin.

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" we saw a seminal interview with United States Treasury secretary Hank Paulson. "Good to be here," he said, but the look on his face was wan. His voice was as hoarse as it was measured, his hands shook as he gestured, and his tongue flopped around as he licked his lips.

To say we have a serious problem is more than a bit of an understatement. And by 'we' I don't mean just America; the economic problem is global because of today's interconnectedness. In my view this new economic crisis will give the lock to the Democrats for the upcoming Presidential election. The solution is estimated to cost more than twice the entire cost to date of the Iraq war, and let us not forget that the ratio of actual to estimated cost of the S&L crisis in the 1980s was approximately 3:1. Meanwhile John McCain and his staff, including primary economics adviser Phil Gramm Ph.D., are lords of deregulation. The winds are blowing hard against John McCain in a long-term sense, and no amount of pretending to be someone he's not can save his campaign at this point; consider the Palin Bounce thoroughly de-elasticized.

As Stephanopolous put it, the era of big government is back, and according to his anchor guest George Will, the Paulson administration was inaugurated today. Or is it Emperor Paulson? The numbers behind this bailout are beyond striking:

$700 Billion - Purchase "opaque mortgage assets"
$85 Billion - Bridge loan to AIG
$200 Billion - Takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
$300 Billion - FHA loan insurance (The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008)
$29 Billion - Subsidies to JP Morgan for the takeover of Bear Stearns
------------------
$1.3 Trillion - Total estimated top-line cost to the taxpayer, and more than twice the roughly $500B spent so far in Iraq.

Note that this number does not include what the government will eventually recoup from sales of these assets after they are no longer quite as distressed. But as it looks today, these bailouts do not require the financial industry and its executives to return any of its ill-gotten, predatory gains or provide the taxpayers with any direct assistance. Just more scare tactics. Either do what we say, even though it's our fault we got here, or else you die. It's regrettable, Paulson says, but for whom?

It's about protecting the American people, the secretary says. And he promises that he has spent a lot of time before this crisis on a regulatory blueprint to guide the path to reforms, which he expects to be boiled down and implemented by future administrations, because this is a problem so big it's going to be on our plate for decades to come. It shows that the housing bubble truly was far more enormous than the tech bubble. Although I sense some inherent reasonableness in Paulson's position and approach, it is insulting to hear his cold rejection of the little guy who lacks the financial resources and skills to game the system such that they get to keep their winnings (their homes) once the music stops.

After Paulson's performance, George was joined by Chris Dodd, who wept barely-convincing crocodile tears about the seriousness of the threat to the American people and how we need reciprocity from the financial industry. From the same guy who chairs the Banking Committee and was instrumental in preventing bankruptcy judges from adjusting mortgage terms on primary residences and making it much harder to get out from underneath crushing personal debts! He is right that the problem is incredibly serious; he described that there as a terrified silence of "10 or 15 seconds when the air went out of the room" when Bernanke and Paulson told our leaders on the Hill that we are days away from global economic collapse.

Also appearing with Senator Dodd was John Boehner, whose stiff ideological cock appears to be going flaccid in the face of what, in his words, could be the most serious financial crisis that the world has ever dealt with." He's against big government intervention, he said, "but we face a crisis." Interesting how that works, though he also took pains to interrupt Dodd to declare that we already resolved the issue of reform in the financial industry by passing the housing bill last summer, while at the same time reminding us that he didn't even vote for that bill because of the generous assistance package therein for real estate developers. How precious. And we should conclude that the House minority leader is not just another partisan?

As George Will put it regarding the definition of socialism according to Britain's Labour Party, the U.S. government now controls the "commanding heights" of our economy, i.e. financial services. But to bring it all back to this year's election, this crisis is serious enough to become the primary issue in Barack Obama's campaign. The Iraq war pales in comparison to this, and the Democrats have long been searching for a definitive way to make this election about domestic issues and not foreign policy. And now that way has come, for as Will also observed that no unelected official should have control over 800 billion dollars' worth of our economy, Paulson is a Bush appointee and so once again the responsibility falls on his administration.

It was refreshing to see George Will, arch conservative, scarcely ever to be curbed, distancing himself from John McCain, who voted in support of deregulation, and will find it (as Sam Donaldson observed) quite hard to now paint himself as the best choice to implement re-regulation as the tool of reform.

I also thought Donna Brazile made a very good point, which George Will echoed in terms of the same people telling us in previous weeks that this horrendous problem was being solved. It's not clear how much time our leaders actually have to negotiate before we dive into the abyss. It's not fair for conservatives to again say, as they did with Iraq, that we're in a tough spot and we have to do this in order to avoid a much worse alternative, when it was in fact the conservative plan and authority that put us here in the first place. At some point there must be accountability and that's what society must and will demand. This crisis is too large to be covered up by mass media and MBA marketing programs pushing TMZ/OMG opiates regarding celebrities and Hollywood.

Since the bank rescue package will not include assistance for The People, and because society at large will demand assistance for them as well, bigger government or/and higher taxes to stimulate the system through public works are inevitable in one form or another. Increased taxation is the domain of Democrats, and that's why they will ultimately win the 2008 Presidential election. The Republicans won't want to confuse their reputation by being forced to create another New deal administration, as it will make it extremely difficult in future to campaign on a platform of conservatism and small government. With eight years of neo-conservative economic and fiscal policy causing an outright (and ironic) requirement for a very large government, Republicans will now much prefer that the Democrats implement the solution, allowing eight years into the future for them to criticize the inevitable excesses and inefficiencies as their justification to return to executive power.

It is inconceivable to imagine a period of ongoing Republican majority from 2000 through 2024 where the Republicans direct us into this mess, then stay in control to implement the cleanup, and then once again maintain control to optimize the resulting stabilization. Commentators like Kevin Phillips long before predicted a coming Republican majority, first in the form of Reaganomics, then with Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America, and finally with Karl Rove's divide-and-conquer brand of divisive politics that established the Bush era.

After all this, the Republicans at this point can't be seen raising taxes and doing what must be done to right the catastrophe that occurred on their watch. It can be argued that issues of banking and finance regulation extend back prior to Bush 43, but the tech bubble burst during his first term, and then we also had 9/11. The result of this was a need for powerful growth, which then led to the need for a new, much bigger bubble: Real Estate. And now that bubble has burst as well. All that is a lot of burden to put on one administration, and normally I would feel a lot more compassion for them than I do right now, except for the utter arrogance in legal interpretation and self-righteous ideology (in finance and war) that has driven this administration from auspicious beginning to ignominious end.

The crisis appears to be so large, in fact, that it's enough to overcome the pathetic failure of young people to let go of their celphones, Dolce-Gabbana sunglasses, Louis Vuitton handbags, XBox controllers, and Facebook profiles long enough to get off their tuckuses and VOTE.

Senator John McCain's pick of Alaska governor Sarah Palin is an interesting choice. As has been said elsewhere, her relative inexperience undermines Republican attacks on Senator Barack Obama on this same issue.

At the same time, this move by the McCain campaign is enormously practical. They are trying to peel off as many Hillary supporters from the Democrats as possible, as well as minimize McCain's old-man factor with the fresh and quite attractive face of Gov. Palin. In addition to being so easy on the eyes, she is reputed to have backed up her common sense with political assertions; for example there was the private jet she auctioned on eBay when former Alaskan governor Frank Murkowski forced the state to purchase it for him over the protest of the Alaska state legislature. I've also seen her speak on C-SPAN, most recently at a board of governors' meeting with oil industry executives. She seems serious and she has a compelling personal presence.

Also interesting is what this reveals about the Republican calculus this year. They have concluded that American voters are not all that interested in qualifications or a traditional resume, and they are threatened. Whereas in past elections the opposite would have been overwhelmingly true, this time many Americans will vote for Obama specifically because he is black (the pre-civil rights "one drop of blood" idea so common within most any homogeneous ethnic group). Similarly, the McCain campaign has determined that enough Hillary supporters were backing her simply because she's a woman, and ultimately not for enough of anything beyond gender pride.

Thus, McCain's move makes sense. Barack Obama is likely to win, but it is also likely to be an extremely close contest. If the McCain campaign can attract even a small fraction of the 18 million Hillary supporters, it could be enough to close the gap and hand the win to the Republicans.

In terms of the general election, it will be amusing to see the Democrats' attempts to get voters riled up about urgent concerns over Ms. Palin's background and legislative record regarding issues specific to Alasksa, a far-off state that is truly out of signt and out of mind for the ordinary person who is not likely to care about the urgent crisis facing Alaska's eco-tourism market.

In today's Ha'aretz the shocking deal by Israel to accept the dead bodies of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev was announced, whereby the Israelis exchange the bodies of Goldwasser and Regev for five living prisoners, including the notorious Samir Kuntar, as well as one hundred and ninety-nine bodies of Lebanese soldiers presumably recovered from the battlespace.

According to media coverage, the Knesset voted in support of the deal in the face of overwhelming pressure from the families of the two fallen Israelis. This in the same week that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was quoted saying that a peace deal with the Palestinians was closer than ever.

Speaking generally, governments facing existential crisis do not sacrifice the greater good for the emotional, or even spiritual, benefit of a handful of citizens. Therefore it seems something is missing from the coverage that would explain this surprising deal.

Meanwhile, the talkback comments on the Ha'aretz article were censored much more than usual, reflecting the sensitivity of the issue, which is proving to be most painful to Israelis while it would seem to be encouraging to the Arab street -- or at least, to those sympathizing with militants, jihadists, and Anti-Zionists.

As I did with my previous posting, I'll select a few of the talkback comments for analysis. I will begin with A.S. from Virginia Beach:

Title: Please explain why the trade is so highly supported to an American
Name: A.S.
City: Virginia Beach
State: VA

I have similar emotions to the whole situation, I`m not sure if it is our American attitude that makes it so difficult to grasps this trade. I still can`t wrap my head around what seems to be an unfair trade.
I`m a huge supporter of Israel, and feel passionately about the nations dealings, however, I don`t understand how so many Israelis and Cabinet members would be in support of this trade.
I could grasps and understand the exchange of dead soldiers back and forth; but to provide four LIVING and KNOWN terrorist, back to their home seems ridiculous to me! I would really appreciate some feedback and input on why there is such support for this trade. I understand that Israel desires to rest its fallen soldiers within Israeli soil...but at what cost? Releasing evil scum who are only more motivated to strike and plot after years in an Israeli prison seems like a terrible idea. Again; is this because I`m an American who can`t grasp the desire to acquire dead soldiers?

First, in the United States armed forces there is the notion of the Soldier's Creed, which dictates that we do not leave fallen brothers or sisters behind. Israel has demonstrated once again the high value it places on the lives and bodies of its soldiers and citizens. Rather than interpreting this as negotiating with terrorists or giving in to their demands, I prefer to see it as a national commitment to a similar warrior ethic. However there are various cases in the past where large numbers of prisoners in Israel are exchanged for one or two Israelis, reflecting simultaneously the high value Israel places on Israeli lives, and the low value associated with Muslims.

Second, Israel shows grace in accepting such a raw deal, and moral superiority in treating prisoners well. Hizb'Allah, on the other hand, exploits the fact that it is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and is thus under no real restriction how its detainees will be treated. At the same time, Israel's position could be considered similar to that of the United States with regard to Guantanamo Bay and other detention facilities, in that its detainees in the war on global extremism themselves do not represent any Geneva signatory. Therefore, while we still treat them well relative to Hizb'Allah, access to detainees by the Red Cross is not a given and we do not allow them to communicate with their families.

Third, there is a significant propaganda value in how this story plays out in the regional and western media. Among Israel's allies, sympathy is garnered (and rightly so). Israel's enemies, or at least the low-level and unrefined men in the street, rejoice in what they choose to call final victory in the 2006 Lebanon War. But most importantly, moderates in Israel are angered, both at their government and the Islamic enemy. This will strongly encourage them to elect a right-wing Likud member such as Netanyahu as the next Prime Minister of Israel, which will lead to either another war or a new chapter in aggressive negotiations and covert action.

All this leads to a more sinister question of international economic forces, including weapons and related defense industry, as well as the more depersonalized, systemic threats such as inflation, debt, and growth, all of which are linked together and remain the usual suspects representing a collective "third entity" that encourages war and political conflict worldwide.

Title: # 184, JEFF
Name: indrajaya
City: jakarta

...the blood is on the hands of all those in the Knesset...

Israel`s administration was nothing more than a bunch of political opportunists who encouraged to each other to kill more people for politics: Olmert, Peretz, Halutz. Mofaz. Livni, Barak.

Each and everyone of those 1200 Lebanese killed at 2006 war should still be alive today.

The notorious Indrajaya is one of the most prolific posters on Ha'Aretz, and is someone I would normally label a troll but the posts themselves are so closely tied to the political issues this would be incorrect on my part. The problem here is that the actions of elite leaders around the world seem equally inscrutable. Why enter into these wars? Is it merely for short term economic gain? Probably not. In addition to long-term economic gain (for example, take the United States in World War II, escaping the throes of the Great Depression), there is a long-term strategy that is perhaps the most important asset of any nation. Continuity between parties, which are politically opposed to each other on the immediate issues that can be understood by the common people, must occur on the existential issues that threaten vanguard, post-colonial nations like Israel and the United States. Otherwise, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down and it's all over.

So my message to thoughtful readers is to remind us that we simply do not have the information to understand long-term strategy. Yes, that forces us into a situation where we have to trust, because this particular calculus will never be shared with us. Similarly, our emotional reactions are actually useful to the strategy. If you feel deceived or manipulated, and wish to minimize that, control your emotions because politicians themselves don't really understand what's going on either. The vital importance of the long-term strategy precludes them from being permitted to leave their partisan container and gain access to the hedging equations.

The future is simply too important. In such a context, Indrajaya's contributions to the talkback are petty, eye-for-an-eye type comments that lead us nowhere useful to ordinary people yearning for peace.

Title: Hush, Jeff # 184
Name: Clickfool
City: Sussex
State: England

"Children are still dying in Lebanon from unexploded cluster bombs"

We are not meant to draw attention to the countless crimes of Israel on a day like today. The whole world should weep when two Jewish soldiers are returned for burial. When non-Jewish INNOCENTS are butchered by the Israeli war machine it`s a case of "Move along, please. Nothing to see here".

This one from Clickfool, another of the most notorious of Ha'Aretz talkbackers, going out of his way to provoke Israelis, the Jewish Diaspora, Zionists, and anyone who sympathizes with their respective causes. This sort of ugliness, while so clearly offensive, reflects the seriousness of today's global politics.

The fact is, humans are animals, and we subject ourselves and each other to violent competition over the limited resources available. The resources might be money, land, oil, enlightenment, truth, food, salvation, women, or blood. Either way, no matter how we slice it, religious leadership as a cultural heirarchy, as well as the notion of a secular political system, boil down to being functions of our base animal nature. (Don't trust anyone over 500!)

Tribes compete just as herds, predators, and prey compete. The more we think we evolve, and the more comfortable our lives and thought processes become, the more jarring it is when we're faced with our base animal natures. Tribalism, like economics, and war, is pure competition.

In the face of political correctness, however, our desire to be refined, evolved human beings creates enormous complexities from the simple competitive basis, from which comes the notion of dominance, racism and prejudice in all its manipulative and persecutive forms.

No doubt there will be much future discussion, until peace in the Middle East is realized. In the meantime, rest in Peace, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, and take your places alongside the nigh-endless victims of our base animality. I yearn for better days, for your families, your nation, and also for the world.

We've lost another class political act and razor media wit. While I wasn't too familiar with his speechwriting for Bush 41, or of his radio show, I did enjoy Tony Snow's work as a Fox News commentator. He was also a truly great White House press secretary, handling the endless crush of indignant reporters with a deftness and grace as effective (in my opinion) as the rough-and-tumble brashness of Donald Rumsfeld, my other hero in the world of high-stakes PR. Over the brief seventeen months of his tenure at the podium, Tony Snow redefined the role, applying the signature style of a true bon vivant.

But there was a lot more to Tony Snow. He was a teacher, philosopher, and writer, a generalist, and obviously a devoted husband and father. A true renaissance man, at 53 he just too young to die. He was also a musician, which means he couldn't have been all bad, regardless of his politics. Which is not to say I am diametrically opposed to his point of view; rather, I found his nuance and, yes, spin to be quite refreshing.

There's a heartfelt blog about him at Stop the ACLU (a site I'd never heard of, and probably justifiedly so), which also has collected a large number of links to other non-mainstream toasts. It's a good connection to a level of content deeper than the pure mainstream reaction to his passing.

There's also an embarrassing piece at the Los Angeles Times website that shows the ugly side of partisan liberals. I say this not because of the Times' piece but because of the acrid comments posted in reply, the writers of which can't devote even a second of basic human decency in the dreadful wake of cancer; they're so wrapped up in hating Tony for how good he was at his job, and rushing to heap blame on him personally for the war in Iraq. Even though their now-precious Scott McClellan's recent tell-all reveals how little policy input the Press Secretary actually has.

Tony Snow was a quietly devout Catholic, and seemed like a truly decent guy besides, who socialized with his liberal friends and apparently had no problem leaving his politics at the office, in a throwback to a now-older, more civilized era in Washington where people on opposite sides of the aisle could battle during the day but then go out together for a few pints in the evening.

After all, it's not Tony's fault the atmosphere today is so chokingly partisan; his former bosses share some of that but even they are not completely responsible. It is the modern, optimized form of the American model of competing interests, so wisely framed for us centuries ago (given that duels and other physical confrontations were thankfully phased out in the 19th century).

In light of Tony's faith, I would refer you to his obituary article at Catholic Online. Deacon Keith Fournier quotes an excerpt from Snow's address to the 2007 graduating class at Catholic University:

"Now all of us love to delude ourselves, making excuses. But you know, the more we resist being honest and doing an honest evaluation, the sillier we behave. If you don’t believe it, think of any swinger you have ever seen in your life. Socrates was right: Know thyself.

But see, there’s more. Once you’ve gotten past the mirror phase, then things begin to get really interesting. You begin to confront the truly overwhelming question: Why am I here? And that begins to open up the whole universe, because it impels you to think like the child staring out at the starry night: “Who put the lights in the sky? Who put me here? Why?”

And pretty soon you are thinking about God. Don’t shrink from pondering God’s role in the universe or Christ’s. You see, it’s trendy to reject religious reflection as a grave offense against decency. That’s not only cowardly. That’s false. Faith and reason are knitted together in the human soul. So don’t leave home without either one.

... Think not only of what it means to love but what it means to be loved. I have a lot of experience with that. Since the news that I have cancer again, I have heard from thousands and thousands of people and I have been the subject of untold prayers. I’m telling you right now: You’re young [and you feel] bullet-proof and invincible.

[But] never underestimate the power of other people’s love and prayer. They have incredible power. It’s as if I’ve been carried on the shoulders of an entire army. And they had made me weightless. The soldiers in the army just wanted to do a nice thing for somebody. As I mentioned, a lot of people — everybody out here — wants to do that same thing.”

I think religious people everywhere could and should learn something from Tony Snow. He was a man of faith, but did not wear it on his sleeve; in fact I never realized he was particularly religious until he died. Clearly, I neither noticed him preaching, nor did I detect one iota of violence, intellectual or otherwise, nor any faith-based agenda in his work (defense of pro-life positions notwithstanding). And where I find the sort of outward religious statement quoted above, he's merely speaking to the Confirmed.

Thus, first out of simple respect and empathy, and second to try and do my small part to make up for the disappointing failure of fellow men, allow me to quote Luke 22:42 from Tony's choice of holy book, something with which I think he would concur:

"Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

This will be my first serious entry, wherein I attempt to analyze a difficult political problem. In an interesting Ha'aretz posting by the infamous Bradley Burston, talkback readers were asked to suggest solutions for an Israel-Palestine peace agreement. Perhaps the editors will be reading the responses looking for fresh ideas that can be passed up the food chain for use in the high-level negotiations supposedly taking place between Israeli MKs and the U.S. State Department. I would love to see Mr. Burston categorize the resulting responses into buckets and and sumbit them to the Ha'aretz readers in the form of a poll.

I have no readers so there's little point in doing that here, but instead I have selected a representative sampling from the Ha'aretz talkback and would like to offer my thoughts on their ideas.

Before I do that, however, here is my vision for peace in the holy land. To boil it down:

• Gaza Strip goes to Egypt.

I can't think of a single country established with territory already split in two by another country's land (Alaska did not join the United States formally until 1958), and the future Palestine should not be any different. Let the Egyptians impose order in Gaza, which we can request because we give Egypt a subsidy roughly comparable to that which we give Israel.

• Israel retreats substantially to the 1967 borders.

Allowing for minor land swaps to/from either side, generally there would be a withdrawal from the West Bank, and Gaza would remain abandoned by the IDF. This would only be done as a product of negotiation by Israel; the land she won in war was won fairly, and Israel cannot be asked to give that up absent a UN-brokered peace deal (see UN Resolution 242). It was only ever taken as a survival measure and future bargaining chip for the security of the Zionist vision.

• Transitional UN Authority replaces Israeli occupation in the West Bank.

Israel has repeatedly destroyed embryonic national infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinians themselves have been without a functional government and society for too long. The vacuum created by the absence of occupation will be all-too-quickly filled by terrorists/extremists who buy off the local population with basic social services that are beyond the ability of corrupt local officials to provide.

Assuming an agreed-upon timetable between the UN and the Palestinians, this should be acceptable to Arabs because it is well known that Israel considers the UN to be hostile to Jews. Let us also not forget the shelling/bombing of UN positions in Lebanon by Israel (which the IDF/IAF disputes). Regardless of Israel's true intent in those cases, Arabs could not reasonably conclude that a transitional UN occupation would be some sort of proxy for Israel or the United States, as the UN is also generally hostile to American hegemony.

Admittedly, Palestinians would not necessarily welcome a second occupation after resisting the Israelis for so long, but with the UN occupation comes expertise in establishing legal and financial institutions, in addition to multi-national peacekeeping forces and much stronger mainstream media presence.

In keeping with progress of the UN timetable, the UN would gradually train and incorporate Palestinians to slowly begin taking over the management of the UN transitional government. Part of this process would involve post-graduate education of Palestinians in leading universities around the world. Eventually, the transitional UN government becomes more and more Palestinian, and eventually, Palestinian delegates will gain enough votes to take full control of the transitional authority. The money required to operate this system will be a drop in the bucket compared to what the world spends today trying to navigate the morass of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

• Arab areas of East Jerusalem are assigned to, and protected by, the transitional UN Authority (UNA).

The headquarters of the UNA would be located in East Jerusalem, providing ready access to all and establishing the perimeter of the future Palestinian capital. There can be no compromise on the sharing of Jerusalem. Since both Jews and Arabs claim Jerusalem as their absolute endgame, by definition they both must share it. To provide safety to Palestinians to establish their state and future capital, the UNA will extend their occupation in the West Bank into East Jerusalem. It will be unfortunate to have so many troops in the old city, but for the good of all it must be done.

From a theological standpoint, it seems the crucial flaw in religious Zionism (to the extent any particular Zionist chooses to affiliate with the religious component of that movement) is that modern-day Israel was not created by the Judaic Messiah serving the apocalyptic, i.e. revelatory, purpose of G-d. This is borne out because Jewish prophecy dictates that Mosiach will resolve all of the Jews' existential problems within a single lifetime, and that the apocalyptic Israel cannot be formed by ordinary human hands. Of course there are many different religious groups who each have their own interpretation on the relevance of this, but in my analysis, the lack of coherence in itself prevents a strong, common-sense conclusion that Jews have exclusive rights to Jersualem. In my studies I find this conclusion is usually based on a religious argument that attempts to build on the secular shoulders of Zionism.

Perhaps it is fair to say that the natural political and cultural yearning for Zion also leads some to yearn similarly for a particular religious outcome. In any case, because the Zionist version of Israel was not founded by Mosiach, a theological argument for contemporary Zionism retaining all of Jerusalem does not have sufficient underpinning.

Likewise, Islam is a much newer religion than Judaism and therefore it simply cannot push all Jews out. The Islamic argument does not predate. It also seems unnecessary to go into much depth regarding Baal, former god of the region before it became the land of the Israelites, or how he was incorporated into pre-Mosaic monotheism, or the identity and status of the human beings who lived in the land of Judea and Samaria long before there ever was a David or Solomon. Given the facts on the ground today, both Muslims and Jews have some sort of cultural/political/tribal claim, and thus both must share the city of all cities, along with Christians, Copts, Druze, and any others with secondary but still relevant ties to the holy land.

• Palestinian 'Right of Return' is limited to match the number of Israeli settlers in the Eretz and beyond the 1967 borders.

In terms of negotiating value, I consider the Right of Return to be on the level of Israeli borders extending permanently beyond those of 1967. Israel is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of population, and it must remain a Jewish state in order to protect the hard-fought product of Zionist negotation with Arabs in the region. As dictated by the conservative tenets of true Torah Judaism, compartmentalization of non-Jews and their influence is essential because actual assimilation is a tribal threat. It is proper for Gentiles to not try and assimilate orthodox Jews, or other Jews who themselves do not wish to assimilate, or impose much social interaction beyond essential business relationships (unless it is requested). Jewish traditions must be respected, historical distortions should be investigated [1] [2] [3], and the yearning for Israel is something the free world must continue to invest in and protect. The Jews have suffered too much and for too long.

Therefore, if Israeli settlers wish to live in the land described by their holy books as Greater Israel, they should be allowed to do so, because cultivating the Eretz is an important mitzvot, and in exchange, and equal number of Palestinians should be allowed to return and live inside Israel proper. There are several positive elements to this idea:

1) It will not threaten the Jewish demographic majority, either in the countryside or in the Knesset.
2) Respect is given to the Arabs by tying Jewish settlement outside Israel to Palestinian settlement within Israel.
3) It will allow strict religious Jews to more completely observe Jewish religious law.
4) Crucially, it will also not threaten the democratic principles to which Israel aspires.

This will allow the Arabs to determine who among the Palestinians most deserves to return, and allow the rest to be added to a registry for potential monetary compensation.

While it's hard to believe this mechanism couldn't have been mentioned before, I spend a fair amount of time researching the political and religious issues surrounding the holy land and I have personally not seen this concept suggested. If it has, I hope the decision makers are weighing it seriously. If it hasn't, I hope I've provided enough keywords for interested parties to find this page.

• Continuity of existing management at the holy places.

Conflict over the Temple Mount, Wailing Wall, and similar holy places is unavoidable, and I believe cannot be resolved prior to initial definition of the Palestinian state. Therefore, status quo with regard to existing management of holy places must be maintained. If the religious custodians ultimately need to change, any such resolution should be pegged to implementation of the transitional UNA in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, what I would call strategic ambiguity, in a policy somewhat similar to the "wise obscurity" of Elizabeth I and her effective approach to the politics of Protestantism.

• American military technology to protect Israeli towns from Qassams and similar attacks.

The United States has laser technology, called the THEL, which it co-developed with Israel [1] [2] [3] that can shoot down incoming tank shells. Obviously, tank shells are much smaller and faster than the primitive rockets coming out of Gaza, but the prohibitive size, cost, and toxicity of the THEL makes it impractical, and the mobile version (the MTHEL) is apparently too complex at this point in time. However, naval weapons adapted from the maritime arsenal (such as the Phalanx) are available and something should be implemented because the political cost of Qassams are too high -- that is, unless the attacks actually benefit politicians in some way. In any case, American military technology should be implemented to nullify unguided rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. (See the rather long comments thread at Defense Tech on this matter: interestingly, it is mainly a religious discussion!)

Now that I've offered my own thoughts, on to the commentary and noble talkbackers of Ha'aretz. It would not be too great of an exaggeration to say the dialog on that site is important to world peace; Ha'aretz is an introspective, self-critical institution of Israeli journalism and as good a venue as any for people on all sides to share and vent. Often the dialogue is offensive, but it is a function of the brutal politics of the region, and to make all the hatred worthwhile there are some truly thoughtful comments. I'll paste in some of them below and offer my opinion on each.

In the hundreds of posts under Burston's article, this was the first one I found truly interesting:

Title: Peace plan for Bradley
Name: Rafael Castro
City: Jerusalem

The historical precedent for my plan is the Ottoman institution for the judicial autonomy of minorities.

My proposal argues that

1) There should be 2 nation-states, one Jewish and the other Palestinian
2) Jews (including residents of Judea and Samaria) should vote only for the Knesset
3) Palestinians (including Arab Israelis) should vote only for the Palestinian parliament.

To ensure that Palestinians and Israelis live under the laws of their polities, Palestinians in Israel would have the right to choose to live under Palestinian laws and Palestinian courts. (Just like in the Ottoman Empire, the state police (in this case Israeli police) would enforce these laws)

To ensure that Palestinians allow Jews to live in Judea and Samaria, Israel would allow Palestinians refugees the right to return. The Palestinians would individually have the right to choose whether they want to live under Israeli jurisprudence or Palestinian jurisprudence. Since no Palestinian would vote in the Knesset, but rather in the Palestinian parliament, this solution would annul the demographic threat posed by Arabs to the Jewishness of the Israeli state.

In mixed judicial cases (Jew vs. Arab) the trial will be held under the laws of the plaintiff both in Israel and in Palestine.

This solution grants the Palestinians the right of return, while strengthening the Jewishness of the state of Israel.
It grants Palestinians the right to live under the laws of their country, regardless of whether they live in Israel or Palestine.
In addition, it renders the boundaries between Israel and Palestine a secondary issue, since these boundaries would exist for security purposes rather than for defining residential rights.

Last but not least, giving Israeli Arabs the right to live under Palestinian or Israeli laws would be a stimulus for Palestinian laws to be enlightened. Otherwise Palestinians living on Israeli soil would choose to be judged under Israeli laws. This would be a big embarrassment to the Palestinian government.

Palestinian refugees who break the law in Israel could be punished and then banished to Palestine, so that granting the right of return does not mean allowing Palestinians to misbehave in Israel.

Aliya, the right of return, and all other laws applying to Jews would remain intact.

There are minor issues to be solved such as the status of Druze and Bedouins, taxation, distinctions between administrative, civil and penal law, and municipal voting rights. However, I think this proposal is ingenious enough to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in this conflict.

Obviously, I support the 2-state solution. I also find innovative the notion of giving citizens of either state the choice to be governed by the laws of either polity, should they decide to live in the "other" state.

However, the demographic threat to Israel cannot be constrained by denying voting rights to Palestinians living in Israel because to do so weakens the form of democracy practiced by Israel. Israel is forced to do many things that others may consider underhanded or devious because of the unique struggle for survival they face as living on 1/10th of 1% of the land in the Middle East. Therefore it is vital that Israel be able to consider herself at least some form of democracy. Actively and publicly denying basic rights of suffrage to Palestinian citizens will undermine Israel's position vis-a-vis international law and diplomacy.

Therefore the solution must allow Palestinian citizens the right to vote, and for this reason I suggest that the Right of Return be limited to match the number of Israeli settlers permitted to live beyond the renegotiated 1967 borders.

Title: Palestinian in UK
Name: Salam/Shalom/Peace
City: Exeter

POLITICAL:
- Withdrawel of IDF troops to June 1967 borders.
- All sides recognizing each others right to exist.
- UN peacekeeping force comprising of Scandinavian, Greek, Australian, Venezuelan, Cuban, Jamaican, Italian, and Spanish women to be stationed along the Israel/Palestine border.
- Israelis living in settlements offered citizenship, economic incentives to remain.
- A Gaza-West Bank bridge to be constructed as soon as possible. Will be monitored by Israel/UN observers
- Hamas recognized as a legitimate political party
- Press freedom, civil liberties, health, and education are given the highest priority by the Palestinian government.
- phasing out UNRWA and other aid agencies
ECONOMIC:
- introduction of a Palestinian currency - initially pegged to the Shekel, and then the Euro
- Encouraging Israelis to invest in the Palestine stock exchange
SOCIAL:
- establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission.
- Closer links between Israeli-Palestinian universities

I found this solution to be largely compatible with my own, and I admire the simplicity and shortness of this list. It has many of the core elements I believe are critical, such as mutual recognition, general application of the 1967 borders, a package of economic incentives, an explicit focus on educational institutions in Palestine, and some form of re-occupation by a multinational force sponsored by the UN.

However, pegging the Palestinian currency to the Israeli Shekel is a liability to Palestinians and contrary to the idea that Palestine would be its own state separate free from Israeli occupation -- economic or otherwise.

I also find the idea of connecting Gaza with the West Bank to be completely unworkable. A bridge over or under Israeli territory violates Israel's sovereignty. Just as aircraft require flyover clearance each time they wish to cross over a nation, a bridge would really be just another checkpoint, and it would be one that poses enormous risk to Israeli territory. There is no reason why Gaza and the West Bank must be a single nation, except as a negotiating tactic from the Arabs. Suppose they were able to negotiate this; what would they have to give up in order to obtain it? The threat to Israel in providing the enemy with the ability to cross over and through their nation freely, in light of all the tensions, is enormous. Gaza is a loss for Palestine, and direct access to the Mediterranean Sea is not an inalienable human right. For example, would the Palestinians be willing to sacrifice any and all Right of Return, or access to Jerusalem, in exchange for contiguous access to Gaza?

I think not. With the internecine tensions between the Fatah establishment in the West Bank versus Hamas in Gaza, it follows much more logically that the Gaza Strip would be annexed by Egypt. Hamas would have the option to join Fatah in a unity government or continue the fight against Israel with their brothers in Lebanon, Syria, or elsewhere. In leaving Gaza they would be stripped of their weapons. Meanwhile I would expect that Gazans, if given the chance to accept Egyptian citizenship, might well either leave the strip and emigrate to the West Bank, or help the Egyptian authorities create viable infrastructure in Gaza (thanks to the enormous influx of international aid that Egypt would almost certainly enjoy in exchange for such vital help in establishing new facts on the ground and facilitiating the existence of a Palestinian state).

Title: Peace
Name: cfs
City: Tlse
State: FRANCE

Gaza,WestBank and East Jerusalem : Palestine. The rest is Israel.
The Palestinian refugees come to the State of Palestine and Israeli refugees come to the State of Israel.
OR
One state for two people : Israel/Palestine.

This suggestion I found disappointing. Again, I can think of no nation on earth that was not founded with a single, contiguous border. Also, this poster's idea invalidates the Right of Return and I believe there needs to be at least some recognition of that in order to help the Arabs save face.

Title: Palestinian Investment Israel Stock Exchange
Name: J. Segal
City: Greensboro
State: North Carolina

The proposal creates a fund for individual Palestinians which is invested in the Israeli Stock Market. That is, each Palestinian is given an account tying their 'fate' to the performance of the market. The accounts are seeded with a baseline amount; perhaps $1,000. In addition, the program could allow for individuals to invest an extra amount, supplemented by matching funds up to a predefined limit. The amount to be seeded would need to be represent an amount that would be ?painful to lose.? Israel and Palestine would define milestones to hit to achieve the two state solution. Each time a milestone is hit, the accounts would be refreshed with additional funds. In the model, Israeli citizens are likewise given accounts invested within the Palestinian Stock Exchange. As of 2008, that stock market is small and could not absorb the amount of capital proposed. Nonetheless, there might exist the beginning of a bond market for infrastructure building.

I found the stock market concept to be another innovative idea. However, pegging it to the Israeli exchange again forces Palestinians to submit their economy and personal financial well-being to an Israeli institution, which at best replaces the military occupation with an economic one. Also, we must not underestimate the power of prejudice. The notion of Jews "caring only about money" is very old indeed, and the idea of proud Arabs being so easily bought off by Zionist money would likely be as offensive to Arabs as the money stereotype itself is to Jews.

That said, the idea is still interesting to find a way to give individual Palestinians a piece of the economic growth of Palestine. A similar concept should be more widely implemented in the oil-rich Arab nations so as to give their citizens greater prosperity. (As an aside, this is done in the United Arab Emirates, where each citizen is provided with a $5000 monthly stipend and free housing.)

Title: Peace Plan
Name: GABE1

There must be a division of historic Eretz Israel where the arabs and Jews are separated into two entities. We must take into account that the Hashemites were parachuted in and that they have no special voice in that partition. Jordan is 70% arab palestinians and Israel is 80% Jewish. The Jews living in the arab countries were cleansed and most landed up in Israel. I propose that we negotiate with the Hashemites for the return of their citizens back to Jordan and make it into a Palestinian or Hashemite state through the ballot box.

This would in effect correct the one sided people transfer that occurred in 1948.

What I am proposing in reality is Palestine being divided into a Jewish and Arab State with one being Judenrein and the other being Arabrein and the river Jordan being the boundary.

Two people living side by side in their own countries,practicing their religion, self governing, without occupation, discrimination, checkpoints or other evils perceived or imagined.

Again, I support the 2-state solution and at the very least that is what Gabe1 suggests. However I find the Nazi language of "Judenrein" and his supposed corollary "Arabrein" to be disgusting and useless. But perhaps that's in itself a useless observation as it does reflect the true prejudice of extremist Jews against Arabs, and extremist Arabs against Jews. In any case it is ugly and distracting. But on to the substance, the idea of moving Palestinians into Jordan and calling it a day is an old one and I don't believe it will work.

After the dissolution of the British Mandate, Abba Hushi attempted to relocate the Palestinian Druze to join their brothers in Syria. That idea failed because of politics between his contacts in Syria and those in Jordan, as well as belief on the part of Palestinian Druze that by allying themselves with the Jews, whom they perceived to be the stronger, more organized players in the region, they would earn sufficient rights of citizenship to protect themselves from extremist Muslims who constantly pressured them to turn on their Jewish neighbors. Moreover, Palestinians are considered second-class citizens by the Hashemite hierarchy installed by the European partitioners. Jordan is now an established country in the region that is relatively friendly to the United States, and has itself suffered from Palestinian terror attacks, so the Hashemites will not allow their country to be completely overrun by Palestinian refugees.

People are animals and have been conquering each other throughout history. So there is no inherent injustice there that can be fairly resolved, just as it is not possible for modern America to give itself back to its natives, who themselves migrated there from diverse locales in the distant past. With this in mind it is admirable that Israel has not turned Gaza into a parking lot -- certainly they are able to but clearly the calculus indicates this is not a smart move for Israel.

Israel has chosen to negotiate, and more power to them for doing that. It is consistent with UN Resolution 242 to the extent that lands Israel gained in war cannot be kept, as they most certainly can be used as bargaining chips. Either way, we must help the Arabs save face, because unlike Gabe1 suggests, there will never be a shortage of evils "perceived or imagined." There is too much religious and political conflict for that ever to be the case. Instead we must push for a new balance of power and that is what my version of the peace plan offers.

Title: Baruch...
Name: Beitcafe
State: USA

Mao & Stalin & that crowd got shed of religion. Death stank the air and blood stained the landscape.

The problem lies in human nature. We haven`t yet figured out- as a species- how to deal with our frightening passions, crippling jealousies, hunger for power, and warlike tendencies.

What makes me hopeful is that many individuals and some groups of people really have found peace. My own neighborhood is made up of blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, professional and working classes. The kids run around together in the street, skating, biking, playing football and blowing bubbles.

Just wish they would get out of the way quicker when I need to park the car.

Ahh, a breath of fresh air. No actual solution is offered, but the entitlement of all individual sides are effectively disarmed by this broad observation on humanity. I'm no positivist, and I am open to spiritual realities. Truly, it is difficult to move from such awareness to an actual solution. Beitcafe, I wish you put more effort into reconciling wisdom with intelligence on this one. Moving on...

Title: The Canadian Solution
Name: Yisrael
City: Jerusalem
State: Israel

My plan is, of course, the best, BUT the Arabs will NEVER accept it. One state, Israel from the sea to the Jordan. Areas of high Arab population would have the rights of Canadian provinces and Senate seats to match. Constitutional structure to NOT permit any change in the nature of the Jewish state of Israel. More details are available, but really, why bother ? They want us dead, pure and simple ! An independent Palestine is a ploy to buy time. If you think otherwise, look closely at the polls, or ask someone who really knows Arabs.

Title: #98 learn from history.Deal with it the same way the Allies dealt With Japan and Germany
Name: KATHY
City: Karkur
State: ISRAEL

Facts on the ground show we cannot live side by side with an enemy within plus without.

Use [what] Britian did to Dresden. [What] the US did to Japan. Use [what] China and Russia do. Use [what] the US did to get California and Texas. Sure any simpleton can cut his country in 1/2 and give it away to the enemy - but thats not peace, thats piece and surrender. step 1) Arabs must vacate ALL Jewish holy sites and cities 2) arabs must compinsate Israel for 60 yrs of war 3) arabs make PUBLIC UN appology for thier war crimes 4) ship the rest to Jordan.

Yes and that should wrap it up for anyone who may disagree,for they may be delusional and think things will improve with the "status quo".Well it will not,you cannot make deals with an enemy who wants you to disappear.
We are here,and they should be OVER THERE..

I group Kathy and Yisrael together because their positions are so similar. Some highly conservative, religious Jews want and need the Greater Israel their holy books prescribe, and hate Arabs so much that it becomes impossible to negotiate in good faith. Wanting the enemy dead is a mutual feeling, unfortunately. The highly conservative, religious Arab version of Yisrael's idea is to push the Jews into the sea and be done with it. Frankly I'm surprised that more talkback contributors to this article are not taking Yisrael's position or its opposite. I found this heartening. At the end of the day, when two children are fighting over one toy, either one brutalizes the other and winner takes all, or they share. Neither has proven himself able to win conclusively, so therefore, both must share. Hence my disappointment, but again, it is understandable. There is no thornier issue facing world peace today.

Title: Margie in Tel Aviv
Name: GABE1

The reason that we have no peace is that we have given away parts of Historic Eretz Israel by default to economic refugees fronm the adjoing arab entities. We have not said that we are prepared to live in peace with them but it will be peace for peace and not land for peace. Now the arabs are claiming the 1967 borders as a starting point and to hell with the descentants of 1948 refugees. They are claiming that as part of the right of conquest.

The greater tragedy is that we have agreed that anyone that entered Palestine illegally between 1946-1948 be given status.

Palestine was partitioned in 1921 and Jordan is the envisioned arab state and we must make every effort to have peace based on that partition and anything else is just wishful thinking on the part of the Jewish left and the Arabs imagination.

The deluded Israeli do gooders want peace in 1967 Auschwitz lines with the Arabs and the Arabs want peace without Jews anywhere in the Middle East and specifically Israel.

Gabe1 is back again, this time declaring that a compromise to the 1967 borders somehow means a return to Nazism and a rude dismissal of the Shoah. He acknowledges, however, that when facts on the ground are created, they impact the negotiations and become a factor in reacing a final status agreement. Even if Gabe1 is correct in his seemingly-racist notion that all Arabs want all Jews dead (or banished from the holy land), clearly the facts on the ground are that Israel exists and is not going anywhere. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that the reality of disposessed Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are also facts on the ground that cannot be dismissed out of hand. Even to the extent Jordan was envisioned as "the" Arab state, it is but one Arab state and cannot in itself be forced to annex the West Bank. Similarly, the Arab world will likely not be satisifed by that solution because there still would be no state called Palestine, which there must be at a minimum. So we again return to the 2-state solution, independent of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Israel, or any other countries in the region created from European colonialism.

I could go on, and no doubt I will in future posts. And of course, I welcome comments should anyone actually read this. Like so many others I want peace and fairness, precisely because it is against our animal nature.

Today is Friday the 13th.

Like many civic-minded persons in this country who care more about politics than celebrities, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Tim Russert. In a time of so much noise and disinformation, and like any good professor, Tim was always there with honest interviewing that rarely betrayed his personal feelings. This was especially refreshing because most commentators rely on their partisan bias and loyalty in lieu of thoughtfulness.

Hence I loved Tim's work, not only on Meet The Press but also during his regular appearances on other NBC news programs. One could always tell how much Tim revered politics, rubbing his hands together with glee at the thought of walking a candidate or spokesperson through his or her presentation, politely but firmly cutting through the partisan armor and revealing the flaws inside. I say that only as a viewer; even if it isn't entirely true (though it may be) I still felt like Tim Russert was a helpful guide to my own critical thinking about the issues of the day. "Message Discipline" often became an impossible mission for partisan operatives facing off against the mighty Big Russ II, J.D.

Another thing I enjoyed about his work was when he asked guests making some other use of a Meet The Press appearance if they intend to run for a particular office. Such a person might have to say no numerous times in a row before Tim was satisfied. He'd ask the same question over and over again, in a slightly different way each time, wearing down his guest and forcing them to come clean emotionally regarding their true position. One of the more memorable examples of this was when he asked Condoleeza Rice if she might consider running for President / Vice President. She became exasperated at least five times over. As always, I loved watching carefully polished veneers fade under such withering forensic attacks. His utter reasonableness was devastating to party lines everywhere.

I also came to appreciate the large number of politicians with some form of a southern accent who, among all the rest, invariably had to pass the famous "Russert Test." You'd always see them gulp at having to face his invariably tough questions in order to execute their media strategy; Meet The Press has a strong research team and Tim was always well prepared. It was so amazing how he time and again came up with the most obscure video, audio, or print clips that caused his guest to contradict himself, and thus nullify the core message and the attendant filibuster! As a would-be press secretary or PR official I admired this greatly.

Anyway, when such southern gentlemen were inevitably pushed into the corner, to the exact place obscured by their talking points du jour, they would always crumble the same way. "Now Tim," they'd say tiredly, or to add the proper onomatopoeia, "Teeim." That's when you know the conversation was really getting somewhere. Russert's name became the politician's mea culpa and avuncular plea for mercy. 'Now Teeim! Please stop it already with your incisive analysis. It makes us look bad because our tactics cannot cope.' (I don't mean to pick on southerners exclusively, it's just a trend I noticed. Pronunciation aside, the same thing of course happened with pols from all points of the compass.)

At our house the TiVo records most of the political talk shows daily. But the culmination of the week, the crown jewel of media consumption, has always been twofold: McLaughlin Group on Saturday, and if it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press. I will feel a similar sadness when John faces his Great Initiation, but at least he's lived a full life. Tim made it only to age 58, which is simply too short. We should all take note -- working long hours for decades on end, to the detriment of social life and everything else, is bad for you. Balance is the key, not just in philosophy but in life. All things should be in moderation, including hard work.

Tim, your contributions to political debate in this country simply cannot be overstated. You will be missed by so many, both in the United States and around the world, anywhere a sharp mind seeks to follow the path of American politics. "My views do not matter," you said, but I beg to differ. They do matter, because you set the bar high for how to represent the opposite point of view.

In light of his truly fair and balanced approach, it was all too easy to forget that Tim Russert was a Democratic operative prior to becoming a journalist. But that was a preamble to his true calling, and thus Tim's shadow will long loom large over the world of political commentary. Especially in times like these.

Meanwhile, nobody reads this blog, so I can hardly suggest this is a meaningful contribution to all the folks lionizing this institutional figure in American politics. Nonetheless, I am here to wave my tiny fan in the hurricane of appreciation that is blooming all over the Internet. Like so many others, I truly respected this man and his devotion to superior rhetorical work. It is the end of an era; classic political shows are literally dying out, and being replaced by smaller, lighter fare that is more compatible with today's vapid culture.

When Ted Kennedy recently went to the hospital, resulting in his brain tumor diagnosis, the guests that week opened up with sympathetic comments for the Senator and his family. Despite such a grim opening, Tim was right there with a segue smooth as silk when he gestured to the camera with genuine warmth and said, "We're here today to discuss something Senator Kennedy truly loves: politics." That was pure class, Tim. In the graceful spirit of that we shall continue.

Godspeed Tim Russert, and rest in peace! Your work was so heartfelt, and so important to me, that I feel almost like you were a personal friend. If only you could have lived long enough to complete your coverage of this year's truly historic campaign, and to see our first Black President of the United States.

Update (6-14-08): I'd also like to give a personal note of thanks to Sean Hannity for his heartfelt tribute to Tim Russert on Hannity and Colmes. Hannity is sometimes a bit too zealous with his over-the-top schtick, but here I saw a completely different side of the man. Alan was absent from the show that night, which did not surprise me (I imagine he was too stricken with grief to appear), and so Hannity led the way with a sensitive review of Russert's career and books, as well as devoting lots of time to talking about the close relationship between Tim and his family, and how that relates to positive family values in general. I found that inspiring, especially since this is also Father's Day weekend.

During MSNBC's all-weekend coverage of the 2008 DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting to resolve the question of delegate assignments for Florida and Michigan, the commentators continued lining up to emphasize Hillary Clinton's argument that she has the popular vote (by unofficial count). Her point of view is a bit ironic, considering that Barack Obama had already bested her using essentially the same logic after his eleven-state winning streak. But here was evil Hillary with her cigar-chomping backroom deals, where her superior relationships with Democratic superdelegates override the "will of the people." What, if you'll pardon the expression, BALLS she has!

Obama's use of the argument invoked old-time politics on the part of Senator Clinton in order to flesh out his vague platform of change, an idea that has been used to win elections ever since there was democracy. It was just another well crafted brick in a wall so inspirational I have to wonder if Barack Hussein Obama is the Antichrist (and, sure enough, it has already been speculated).

Anyway, under Hillary's use of the argument, it is she who has the popular vote, but only if you include states whose delegates were revoked when their leaders insisted on breaching the DNC rules. It is a brilliant move by the Clinton campaign, even though employing Obama's tactic is clearly defensive on her part. However I find it quite odd that the pundits have not discussed this yet on their many nightly TV programs. And by "this" I mean the apparent chutzpah of now making its own sincere public embrace of the popular vote, which itself is a canard.

Just to get my opinion on this debate out of the way: I believe that Florida and Michigan should have all their delegates counted by splitting them evenly between all Democrats still in the race. The DNC declared Florida's and Michigan's delegates invalid, which could easily explain why Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot. Were it simply a question of popular vote, then Obama would have stayed on the ballot once he was actually there, since he would need every vote to add to his popular total. But that's not how the DNC rules work. Now that the Clintons are contesting the DNC rules, and demanding the lion's share of delegates from those two states, it poses a threat to Obama should they succeed, increasing their potential claim on the vice-presidency.

However, I find it disgusting how the party leaders of Florida (thanks, 2004!) and Michigan are somehow avoiding real embarassment and punishment, and I think that is happening because they are in effect becoming highly useful tools for the Clinton campaign, which is certainly winning those leaders some powerful chips in the partisan game. At today's meeting, it was claimed by the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada (and chief of Clinton's Michigan campaign) that they had suffered enough. I disagree. They should be reviled and replaced for their embarassing incompetence.

Still, as a citizen it is astonishing that this sort of debate still continues, and I give MSNBC full credit for dedicating such coverage to the proceedings instead of the usual "MSNBC Investigates" reruns with John Siegenthaler, reminding us that we never want to see the inside of a federal prison. What is the nature of American democracy? Nothing more than the tip of a continental iceberg.

In my view, the American model works like this: to build a shining city on a hill, we must have a landed class of privilege, who are the only ones able to establish and grow formal, scientific education. That class is also the only one able to finance and develop strong social and government institutions. Then, let compound interest work its magic for a century or two. Consider this logarithmic curve:


Innovation and other truly crucial developments move society forward, and enable ever more progress by becoming essential. Much cross-pollination occurs, where property, discoveries, and people are exploited for various purposes, such as using a steam engine to build locomotives that are owned by a bank participating in a central reserve system. And yet, getting this far would never have happened without Archimedes' screw applied to irrigation, which itself would be impossible without the long prior discovery of the wheel, lever, and other basic machines of physics. Of course, we must not forget the proud achievements in mathmatics and chemistry by Arabs and the Chinese, and overall I summarize more greatly than I could ever comprehend.

Moreover, the American model is built on the shoulders of giants. It took the best of intellectual progress from the European empire, which in itself is based on systematic conquering across the world in its mighty collation, and divorced itself from royalty in order to start anew. But that dream did not last long in terms of utter purity: Washington had to do deals with the crowns of Europe and especially England, in order to prevent the colonies from being crushed after the watershed moment of No Taxation Without Representation and the subsequent revolution.

But, timing is key when it comes to grand historical trends, just as it is in stand-up comedy. Tremendous innovations were under way leading to the Enlightenment, and I include founding of the colonies among them. America was simply fortunate to be free and independent at the time when technology began to advance more quickly. I hate to repeat myself, so I'll quote John D. Rockefeller: compound interest is the 8th wonder of the world.

The implications are staggering: the Industrial revolution, electricity, railroads, telecommunications, mass production, the auto industry, computers, rocketry, funk, and the Internet! All that but only as a result of the sound planning of a landed elite who in turn created a political system that is stable and slow to change.

To then point this toward nation-building in Iraq, perhaps this is precisely what our foreign policy intends by allowing all this wealth transfer and unabashed corruption. A new elite is being created in Iraq (itself a British creation), which will in turn own the new institutions and because of all the technology and integration present in our world today, move quickly to disrupt hostile, archaic regimes across the Gulf.

Gasp! To any rational person all this must be impossible. We hear constantly about how our economy is capable from meager to strong growth, so in living on such thin margins, how could we possibly afford to pour so much money down a giant hole in the shifting desert sands?

According to the open secret of the Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR), our nation is far wealthier than most of us realize. Some say we are tricked by our leaders and media to worry that things are much worse than they are, in effect forcing us to live in a public economy that we think of as the sum total of the American economy. Meanwhile the American government has been exploiting this incredibly rapid and highly integrated growth to its near-maximum potential. Such people, with their wild hair and crazy eyes, believe our government 'owns all through investment' through a sophistication and strength exponentially beyond that of the robber barons and other towering business and financial kingpins that set the common bar for dominance as our society knows it today. Which creates an inertia in our policy that drives the "public economy" on which the masses focus their social and cultural attention, and could even topple other governments whose infrastructure is too dependent on America.

This was done by owning parts of all successful companies, setting the agenda for technical innovation, keeping things compartmentalized, and staying several steps ahead of public citizens. In light of all this intense growth, development, and compounding, they have reaped the best and have no intention of losing this lead. You can have it via a left-looking or right-looking view, but the vector points inevitably forward.

Key to the continuance of this is mass ignorance so that we always think only about a small part of the whole, such that they will always be wrong in their attempts to analyze, thus letting the elites work things out in peace and quiet for themselves. Occasionally an ugly seam or jitter in the Matrix appears: the bailout of Bear Stearns in the 2000s, Asian markets in the 90s, the S&L crisis of the 80s, oil in the 70s, civil rights in the 60s, communism in the 50s, war in the 40s, the Great Depression of the 30s, fascism in the 20s, and so on.

This is an ongoing analysis, so I will simply stop here for now. We have friends coming over. In the meantime, good on the Media for airing the hearings publicly. It is good to scare the process straight and ensure Obama gets a fair shot...

Update: It was classy of the Obama campaign to let Hillary win the numerical advantage from Florida and Michigan. She wins that battle on principle, thus saving some crucial face, letting Obama go ahead and take the nomination in the coming weeks.

1.
I'm going to pick up Vlad. So I do what I do every morning, which is simply to steal a car right in front of my apartment. I almost pull it off but damn it, the victim caught up with me before I could peel away. He pulls me out of the car and we get ready to fight. Not only that, but a passerby on the sidewalk comes running to his aid. Both guys are now going to give me a well-deserved lesson in Beatdown 101.

Suddenly, over my left shoulder I hear a police car tapping its siren. At the same time I hit the wrong button on the controller and fail to throw my first punch, while also realizing the cops failed to notice I jacked the car -- and thus did not know why we were fighting. So I just let my opponents land a few punches, and suddenly two of Liberty City's Finest were out of their vehicle, pistols drawn, and arresting both of my assailants.

'Excellent' is not meaningful enough of a word. Savory. There was a pregnant pause, leading to the smooth, painless birth of my overwhelming smugness. I then stepped merrily into the now-empty car, and proceed to burn out in front of everyone, running the red light and viciously clipping several pedestrians.

2.
I'm pulling over those three vans, looking for stolen flatscreen TVs in order to save Vlad from the Russian mobsters. Play through the mission once, got to the last van, and failed to kill the occupants. Play it again, and this time, my stolen police car pulls over the first van in the middle of a 4-way intersection, while another cruiser looks on blankly from behind the oppposing red. I force the driver to show me the contents, and we see there's nothing there.

Then the van's driver just sits there with his back to me, not closing the rear doors of his van. The game didn't freeze; pedestrians kept walking by, or standing still with vacant expression, each according to his wont. I decided not to deal with it and turned my attention to something else, but since I didn't actually pause the game, this dude sat there for a solid ten minutes. But since the 3D engine was still running the game hadn't locked. So I let it go a bit longer. Clearly, this was a bug.

Then, magically, the driver decided he was satisfied. He closed the door, and without a word as to his strange behavior, got back in the van, started her up and drove on, no doubt to reflect on possibly changing his line of work. Then I noticed the opposing police officers (and their car) de-rezzed from across the intersection; could there be a connection here?

3.
The difficulty of catching cabs in Liberty City. Nine times out of ten, when I simply try to hail the cab I carjack. The passenger side rear door is the worst. I'm much more likely to run over to the next car and jack that one than to just get in to my infernal cab. And they don't wait for you either. I've since learned to first hijack something else, then pin the cab against a wall or block it in traffic so he has no choice while I sidle up and begin my furious pixel hunt. I walk quite clearly, right in front of either rear door. Hit Y, point toward the rear door, and watch Nico convulse 250 times, clearly trying to decide between customerdom and martyrdom. Mind you, Nico loves to steal cars. It's in his blood, from back in the old country.

4.
Stupid. Fucking. Cops. They don't care what traffic laws I break, or how many people I crush under my bloody tires, no matter how egregiously, but God forbid that I knock out one of the tail lights on a police cruiser, or accidentally trip an officer and step on his face. What, are they Muslim? Have they such a deep tradition of honor and fragile sensitivities? Why do they not care that I endanger dozens of lives merely by crossing the street? I read post after post where people talk about how overpowering the police are in this game... I could not disagree more. In Liberty City I am a towering giant among men, just like in real life.

Before things have a chance to get serious or bizarre around here, let me address something light and fun. I often hear folks brag about how great their burping abilities are, while for years I've been privately enjoying my talent for extreme tone and texture. This despite the fear I occasionally feel when, after belching so loudly and so often at home, I mistakenly let one fly in public, such as in a restaurant or at the office, mollified in my forgetfulness of how with great power comes great responsibility.

Regarding technique I don't really aim for endurance, as it were. I'm bored by the schoolyard competitions where we try to recite the entire alphabet in a single declaration. Rather my raisons d'être are tone and texture, and as such I take more of a Muad'Dib approach in search of The Voice. Oh, what I could do with a Weirding Module...

However, Arrakis was destroyed well over 25,000 years ago so I have little choice but to move on. Last weekend I set up a Shure SM58 mic with my trusty ART Tube PAC preamp / compressor and the excellent Audacity free sound editing software in order to capture some good ole fashioned lo-fi recordings. Sadly, mega power belches occur to me in a much more spontaneous way than truly good ideas. Hence I've often wondered if I could somehow make money from this ability, but rather than devolve into capitalist thought processes I instead decided (in my greatness) to use this talent to make the world just a little bit better.

Somehow I have the feeling this may be the single greatest contribution to society I'll ever make.

To date, the best recorded burp I know of is from a classic Ren & Stimpy episode where they go around the neighborhood as mouse-catchers. Ren pulls a beaver out of his pocket to chew a hole in the wall; the cute lil' varmit does so most obligingly, and then knocks out the gnarliest ripper I had ever heard. Quite simply, it was inspirational. More importantly, it moved me to develop a strong technique that did not require looping or other sound design trickery in order to realize a deep and powerful result.

With no further ado, here are links to the various MP3 files in all their uncouth finery. They're actually not that great, but honestly they aren't bad either. I also included some of the more abortive ones that show my imperfections. Feel free to use them for whatever you like, though it would be cool if you'd at least leave a comment with your intentions. If you're busy, my personal fave is here, and a single zipfile with everything bundled together is here.

Belch 1
Belch 2
Belch 3
Belch 4
Belch 5
Belch 6
Belch 7
Belch 8
Belch 9
Belch 10
Belch 11
Belch 12
Belch 13

Bonus: here is a file that mixes all thirteen together into one glorious cacophony. Play it back on a huge stereo system to horrify your neighbors, gate in some Type IV demons, or simply test the frequency response and general acoustics of your boutique surround-sound rig. Another fine idea: ringtones!

Depending on popular demand I might be moved to refresh this post with some additional recordings, where I take things even further by not just burping, but speaking at the same time. Leave your audience wanting more, that's what my Mom told me, so I'll leave that magic on the table for now.

I might also be well moved to update because the holy grail I was searching for did not come to me while the mic was on. This magical specimen, which I refer to as the "Call of Cthulhu", was something I literally strained for during this session but could not achieve. It is as wonderful (as in full of wonder) as it is rare; imagine thick, syrupy bubbles inflating and popping from deep within, creating a most eldritch result through sinister modulation of the larynx. To be completely frank I feel like I've dishonored myself in failing to bring back this treasure, and will thus have little choice but to return to the mountains of madness and try, try again.

By the way, if you can do better, by all means let me know and I'll add your recordings here. I won't be selective in sharing your creations with the world; after all it will be obvious if you have used editing or sound design techniques to falsely augment the results. Let this page be an ongoing test, and a time capsule.

In the meantime I am available for strategic consulting or media work.

Thanks for visiting my first blog entry! Perhaps I should start with a little bit about myself. I'm a white male of British, German, and French roots, and work in the software engineering group of an American company. I have a variety of interests, with reading, writing, and the search for new ideas occupying much of my free time.

I'm also a musician with almost several decades of experience, mainly on string instruments. I started young with classical violin, switched to guitar in my teens, and since then have broadened my reach into various aspects of studio engineering, MIDI programming, and recording. I have a small studio to this end, the results of which will eventually be featured in a separate area of sarvik.com. I do occasional session gigs, though I also used to do corporate projects.

I'm starting this blog so I can start adding thoughts driven mainly by current events. I expect most of my posts will be about politics and religion, as I have a degree in History and these are subjects near and dear to me. My friends tend to be quite clever folks, with whom I can discuss these sorts of things, but someday I'd like to start getting published in newspaper opinion columns and so I need to get some ideas down in at least a semi-permanent form.

Anyway, I watch a lot of political shows on TV, such as Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, McLaughlin Group, and Meet the Press, along with lots of C-SPAN, so along the way I've come to fancy myself as quite the would-be pundit. Especially in terms of the debate aspect of such partisan encounters, which is really just another reason why I need to get off my duff and prove that I actually can put a few brain cells together.

Which wends me me back to the title of this blog. Alkahest is the Universal Solvent, a miraculous alchemical liquid that is able to dissolve any material substance. The Wikipedia page linked prior has precious little nutritional value, but if you're interested I'd suggest the writings of Paracelsus, Robert Fludd, and John Dee. I of course don't pretend to expertise, but I do enjoy appreciating impossibly difficult questions, and so such a title for this blog seems apt.

For the record, the Wikipedia article makes the common observation that true alkahest cannot be placed into a container because any such flask would be dissolved. Perhaps I'll return to this issue in further entries, but for now, I'd like to point out that Alchemy is a metaphor for development of the self, wrapped safely in a distracting cipher, i.e. the physical transmutation of lead into gold. Once the discussion abstracts into metaphor, the substance being dissolved, container or otherwise, attains new meaning that transcends the conventional paradox.

Back when Alchemy was a popular trend, the apex of which I consider to be the 14th and 15th centuries (see timeline), the idea of making actual gold from 'base metals' earned a reputation amongst wise practicioners as a double-edged sword. It was useful for gaining research funds from greedy aristocrats, who were themselves already inflicted with the classic rich person's disease, but at the same time it also tricked many an earnest researcher into auric ambitions (literal or otherwise) that resulted in the bankrupting of his family and a pauper's death.

This mystical subject, e.g. the Great Work, also led to many discoveries that became the cornerstone of modern chemistry as we know it today. Incidentally, the word alchemy comes from Arabic roots, i.e. al-khimi; for more information on this, please see the article at MuslimHeritage.com. As a quick aside, we in the West would do well to remind ourselves of the proud history of Islamic scholarship, but I digress. Rest assured, in these pages I will certainly revisit many times the subject of the Muslim world.

To put a finer point on my purpose, I might take a step further regarding this blog's namesake. Quite simply, the substance I wish to dissolve is disinformation, which is one of the most common yet resistive compounds known to human experience. I am a firm believer that little to nothing is as it seems, or certainly as it is presented to we[e] members of the Great Unwashed. In that sense the world is my oyster, with manipulation as the irritant that results in pearls before swine, for I can essentially toss a stone over my left shoulder and hit a topic carefully packaged for public consumption.

Actual understanding of alchemical subjects remains beyond my grasp, but to burn that candle from the other end, allow me to illustrate one such example. Sir Lawrence Gardner is known for his research works covering the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, and ideas along the lines of the 'Da Vinci Code.' One of his books, which also has a companion DVD, is called 'Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark: Amazing Revelations of the Incredible Power of Gold.' In it he describes the so-called modern science surrounding an amazing powder with transmutational and spiritual powers, and that's not even the half of it.

Gardner's presentation is a modern cryptogram, presented in the form of pseudo-science that cannot be cracked by non-scientists, and meanwhile real scientists scoff and sneer at such obvious buffoonery. After all, their rigid / rational / superior / positivist minds are typically not open to the ancient wisdom, and if they are, such exceptions to this rule are likely to be stout defenders of the faith -- so the mystical secrets remain safe once again. Yet, for some reason, this gentleman was knighted by the British Crown. Prithee tell, could it be for his groundbreaking scientific work into magic powders and time travel? Or does the royal kingdom value his services as an occult consigliere, who is able to architect complex metaphorical structures that ingest, re-encapsulate, and echo ancient wisdom securely across time toward custodians of the future?

With all this in mind, take a look at the Amazon comments for the book, which paint an overwhelming picture of willing readers who are taking his message in literal terms. The reviewers are either accepting or rejecting his work purely on this literal meaning, leading to all manner of conspiratorial indulgence. It's enough to make one want to cook off a red lion in vinegar!

Thus, the purpose of this blog is hopefully now a bit more distilled. There is so much happening in the realm of human experience, and I am striving to improve my philosophical approach. As Stephen Hawking uses his intuitive understanding of physics to reach toward a unified theory of everything, one could argue I am attempting something similar in the Humanist realm. Personally I find Dr. Hawking's writings to be quite arrogant, at least those he creates for the masses (i.e. the ones I can understand), and so I'll certainly try to avoid striking such a pedantic tone. After all, I lack even a Master's degree, much less tenure, or even an associate professorship...

In any case I hope to prepare a series of articles that will tackle difficult problems facing Humanity, in the context of modern reference and a fresh, few-holds-barred approach to analysis. This experience should help me, but even better would be the opportunity to help others refine their own thoughts on a given topic, regardless of any agreement on my rationale. In the meantime, of course, I will certainly welcome any comments.

Onward and upward!