Friday, March 26, 2004
I've made the move, too:
Find me at Heretics' Almanac, here
or paste this into your browser:
http://vyer.typepad.com/hereticsalmanac/
Find me at Heretics' Almanac, here
or paste this into your browser:
http://vyer.typepad.com/hereticsalmanac/
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
European perversions and the identity crisis
Bjørn Stærk is bewildered. The March 11th bombing in Madrid, followed by the long overdue demise of Sheik Yassin, should have created clarity in Europe that terrorism is the enemy of civilization, not just one or two political systems. Instead, the animus toward the US and Israel has increased and newspaper editorials have perversely sided with Hamas against Israel while indirectly blaming Bush for creating the hate that spawned M-11. And these tendencies aren't limited to flaky left-wing intellectuals. They're running rampant and unopposed in the mainstream press.
Why is this? Is there something in the logic of this massive public opinion that eludes us, or have a bunch of statesmen, politicians, and journalists taken leave of their senses?
The psychology of European (or any regional) politics is complicated stuff, so it's hard to say anything definitive. But I'd like to offer a hypothesis.
The European identity is something still in formation. European nation-states have in the past shaped their self-image by being distinct from each other - by "virtue" of language, religion, history, model of state, or any combination of such factors. Not too long ago colonies were conquered and wars were fought in order to assert these differences and prove the superiority of one language (e.g., French), one history (e.g., not Catholicism), one historical legacy (e.g., the English), or one model of state over another. European states sustained themselves on the basis of legacies, not for the sake of their citizens. Alliances were formed and dissolved among European states only for transient political necessity.
Bloody war after bloody war has caused Europeans to ask some obvious questions, such as: why can't we work together toward a common future? And shouldn't that future be as great as anyone else's? Aren't European ideals of liberal democracy worth cultivating?
But there are few answers to be found in Europe's past. All of Europe's great contributions to civilization either occurred before the Middle Ages (i.e., Greek philosophers) or were largely conceived in defiance of nationalism. Beethoven, Piaget, Ibsen, Shakespeare, Mozart, etc., were not Europeans, but neither were they particularly German, French, Norwegian, British, or Austrian either. They were cosmopolitan and made their mark precisely because they untied themselves from the pressures of nationalistic conformity. They were more similar to each other - and to geniuses anywhere else in the world - than they were to anything particularly European
And the distinctly European historical legacy is scarcely anything to be proud of. Silly, bloody wars; genocide; fruitless, plundering Empire-building; the Eurovision Song Contest.
The awful truth is that everything Europeans consider uniquely European is being done better elsewhere. The US - for all its faults - is a more robust liberal democracy than any European state. Europe houses no undisputed capitals for arts or sciences anymore. With the exception of the United Kingdom and Germany, no European power has shown any military capability to speak of.
There are three current issues that remind Europe just how far it is between their ideals and reality:
One is the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. Europeans know that ethnic divisions in the former Yugoslavia are greater (to be sure) but not materially different from ethnic divisions elsewhere in Europe. There are countless regional minorities that want autonomy and feel pretty strongly about it. Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., could conceivably happen elsewhere in Europe.
Then there is the dominance of the US in practically everything. Not only is the US the biggest economic and military power - Americans are doing distinctly European things better than the Europeans. (A possible exception being auto manufacturing). And European consumers are eating it up, figuratively (Baywatch) and literally (McDonald's).
Then there are the Jews. In spite of (at best) discrimination and (at worst) genocidal persecution, European Jews have for centuries, no millenia, defied pressure to assimilate and become European. Not only that, as a collective they have outperformed non-Jewish Europeans in every field they've entered. Israel - for all its faults - can rival most European countries for its cultural scene, its technology development, and even its human rights record. And they've won every war they've ever fought, even against overwhelming odds.
All this is to say that while Europeans desperately want to believe that being European is something unique and good, they are constantly reminded that the good things about Europe aren't unique, and the unique things about Europe aren't that good. If you don't believe me, see if you can maintain for more than two minutes a rational discussion with a European about the differences between Europe and the US.
As grown-ups, we quickly see the fallacy in thinking that way. We learn that it's less important to be unique than to be good, and that we will discover our uniqueness as we pursue what we think is right. Europe consists of liberal democracies that value the rule of law and social justice, that cultivate economic prosperity, and that bring a rich and diverse cultural heritage to the human enterprise. That should be enough, but it obviously isn't. Europe wants to be something more than that and above all something better than the US.
Let's face it: collectives are rarely as mature as individuals. We tend to regress toward the mean, or maybe even the lowest common denominator.
How does this help Bjørn make any sense of the European reactions to M-11 and Yassin's demise?
First of all, let's understand that the Middle Eastern terrorism scares the shit out of most Europeans. It's hard enough maintaining the stability of welfare states through economic cycles, and then on top of that making the EU work in ways that don't invite animosity among the European states. But if Europe attracts a dangerous, murderous enemy, all bets are off. Each country will develop its own policy. France is likely to want to appease the terrorists by offering some of them safe haven; the UK is likely to confront them; Germany won't know what to do; and so it'll go.
But in order to believe that Europe is not a target for Middle Eastern terrorism, Europeans must convince themselves that they don't invite the kind of hatred the US and Israel does. So it becomes important to make clear distinctions between Europe and these two primary terrorist targets. This results in fanciful but persuasive caricatures: Europe favors dialogue where the US favors confrontation; Europe cares about Palestinian human rights where Israel seeks to undermine them. Bush is a cowboy and European politicians are intellectuals. Sharon is a bully and European leaders are compassionate. And it includes some projection that Freudians would relish: Israel is ethnocentric and colonialist; the US is arrogant and belligerent.
The alternative to this model is unbearable for the already frail European ego. It would mean that Europe is just as exposed to terrorist attacks as the US and Israel are, and that there is no choice but to follow American and Israeli policies. It would also mean that Europe must expose itself to danger by siding with the US and Israel.
Of course, the model doesn't hold up well to reality. By all standards, US foreign policy (with all its faults) has vastly outperformed European foreign policy since WWII. The US attracts admiration and envy throughout the world, but European states mostly attract contempt. Even the radicals that hate the US hate Europe only slightly less. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan by soundly defeating them in war, and the era between 1967 and the Oslo accord will likely go down as the golden era in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
This is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.
But since it would be unbearable to concede that they're wrong, the Europeans must look for ways to "prove" that they were right all along. You can't admit that Spain was terrorized into leaving Iraq, so you perversely claim that the swing in popular opinion following M-11 was a victory in the war of terrorism. You can't admit that confronting and pissing off terrorists by killing their leaders is a good thing, so you decide that Hamas isn't really a terrorist organization and Yassin was only an old blind man in a wheelchair.
And above all, you have to make others responsible for your misfortune. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and coerced Spain into participating, M-11 would never have happened. If only Israel could give the Palestinians what they want, there will be peace. If the US didn't meddle in foreign affairs, the World Trade Center would still be standing.
It's the only way to make sense of the world - if you're a European, and fiercely proud of it.
Bjørn Stærk is bewildered. The March 11th bombing in Madrid, followed by the long overdue demise of Sheik Yassin, should have created clarity in Europe that terrorism is the enemy of civilization, not just one or two political systems. Instead, the animus toward the US and Israel has increased and newspaper editorials have perversely sided with Hamas against Israel while indirectly blaming Bush for creating the hate that spawned M-11. And these tendencies aren't limited to flaky left-wing intellectuals. They're running rampant and unopposed in the mainstream press.
Why is this? Is there something in the logic of this massive public opinion that eludes us, or have a bunch of statesmen, politicians, and journalists taken leave of their senses?
The psychology of European (or any regional) politics is complicated stuff, so it's hard to say anything definitive. But I'd like to offer a hypothesis.
The European identity is something still in formation. European nation-states have in the past shaped their self-image by being distinct from each other - by "virtue" of language, religion, history, model of state, or any combination of such factors. Not too long ago colonies were conquered and wars were fought in order to assert these differences and prove the superiority of one language (e.g., French), one history (e.g., not Catholicism), one historical legacy (e.g., the English), or one model of state over another. European states sustained themselves on the basis of legacies, not for the sake of their citizens. Alliances were formed and dissolved among European states only for transient political necessity.
Bloody war after bloody war has caused Europeans to ask some obvious questions, such as: why can't we work together toward a common future? And shouldn't that future be as great as anyone else's? Aren't European ideals of liberal democracy worth cultivating?
But there are few answers to be found in Europe's past. All of Europe's great contributions to civilization either occurred before the Middle Ages (i.e., Greek philosophers) or were largely conceived in defiance of nationalism. Beethoven, Piaget, Ibsen, Shakespeare, Mozart, etc., were not Europeans, but neither were they particularly German, French, Norwegian, British, or Austrian either. They were cosmopolitan and made their mark precisely because they untied themselves from the pressures of nationalistic conformity. They were more similar to each other - and to geniuses anywhere else in the world - than they were to anything particularly European
And the distinctly European historical legacy is scarcely anything to be proud of. Silly, bloody wars; genocide; fruitless, plundering Empire-building; the Eurovision Song Contest.
The awful truth is that everything Europeans consider uniquely European is being done better elsewhere. The US - for all its faults - is a more robust liberal democracy than any European state. Europe houses no undisputed capitals for arts or sciences anymore. With the exception of the United Kingdom and Germany, no European power has shown any military capability to speak of.
There are three current issues that remind Europe just how far it is between their ideals and reality:
One is the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. Europeans know that ethnic divisions in the former Yugoslavia are greater (to be sure) but not materially different from ethnic divisions elsewhere in Europe. There are countless regional minorities that want autonomy and feel pretty strongly about it. Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., could conceivably happen elsewhere in Europe.
Then there is the dominance of the US in practically everything. Not only is the US the biggest economic and military power - Americans are doing distinctly European things better than the Europeans. (A possible exception being auto manufacturing). And European consumers are eating it up, figuratively (Baywatch) and literally (McDonald's).
Then there are the Jews. In spite of (at best) discrimination and (at worst) genocidal persecution, European Jews have for centuries, no millenia, defied pressure to assimilate and become European. Not only that, as a collective they have outperformed non-Jewish Europeans in every field they've entered. Israel - for all its faults - can rival most European countries for its cultural scene, its technology development, and even its human rights record. And they've won every war they've ever fought, even against overwhelming odds.
All this is to say that while Europeans desperately want to believe that being European is something unique and good, they are constantly reminded that the good things about Europe aren't unique, and the unique things about Europe aren't that good. If you don't believe me, see if you can maintain for more than two minutes a rational discussion with a European about the differences between Europe and the US.
As grown-ups, we quickly see the fallacy in thinking that way. We learn that it's less important to be unique than to be good, and that we will discover our uniqueness as we pursue what we think is right. Europe consists of liberal democracies that value the rule of law and social justice, that cultivate economic prosperity, and that bring a rich and diverse cultural heritage to the human enterprise. That should be enough, but it obviously isn't. Europe wants to be something more than that and above all something better than the US.
Let's face it: collectives are rarely as mature as individuals. We tend to regress toward the mean, or maybe even the lowest common denominator.
How does this help Bjørn make any sense of the European reactions to M-11 and Yassin's demise?
First of all, let's understand that the Middle Eastern terrorism scares the shit out of most Europeans. It's hard enough maintaining the stability of welfare states through economic cycles, and then on top of that making the EU work in ways that don't invite animosity among the European states. But if Europe attracts a dangerous, murderous enemy, all bets are off. Each country will develop its own policy. France is likely to want to appease the terrorists by offering some of them safe haven; the UK is likely to confront them; Germany won't know what to do; and so it'll go.
But in order to believe that Europe is not a target for Middle Eastern terrorism, Europeans must convince themselves that they don't invite the kind of hatred the US and Israel does. So it becomes important to make clear distinctions between Europe and these two primary terrorist targets. This results in fanciful but persuasive caricatures: Europe favors dialogue where the US favors confrontation; Europe cares about Palestinian human rights where Israel seeks to undermine them. Bush is a cowboy and European politicians are intellectuals. Sharon is a bully and European leaders are compassionate. And it includes some projection that Freudians would relish: Israel is ethnocentric and colonialist; the US is arrogant and belligerent.
The alternative to this model is unbearable for the already frail European ego. It would mean that Europe is just as exposed to terrorist attacks as the US and Israel are, and that there is no choice but to follow American and Israeli policies. It would also mean that Europe must expose itself to danger by siding with the US and Israel.
Of course, the model doesn't hold up well to reality. By all standards, US foreign policy (with all its faults) has vastly outperformed European foreign policy since WWII. The US attracts admiration and envy throughout the world, but European states mostly attract contempt. Even the radicals that hate the US hate Europe only slightly less. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan by soundly defeating them in war, and the era between 1967 and the Oslo accord will likely go down as the golden era in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
This is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.
But since it would be unbearable to concede that they're wrong, the Europeans must look for ways to "prove" that they were right all along. You can't admit that Spain was terrorized into leaving Iraq, so you perversely claim that the swing in popular opinion following M-11 was a victory in the war of terrorism. You can't admit that confronting and pissing off terrorists by killing their leaders is a good thing, so you decide that Hamas isn't really a terrorist organization and Yassin was only an old blind man in a wheelchair.
And above all, you have to make others responsible for your misfortune. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and coerced Spain into participating, M-11 would never have happened. If only Israel could give the Palestinians what they want, there will be peace. If the US didn't meddle in foreign affairs, the World Trade Center would still be standing.
It's the only way to make sense of the world - if you're a European, and fiercely proud of it.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
What makes a good newspaper?
You have to imagine that newspaper editors have mixed feelings about blogs. While we bloggers constantly link to articles in the more or less mainstream press, these links often appear in a critical context. One of my favorite but now defunct blogs was smartertimes.com, written by a guy from Brooklyn with average intelligence, who read the Times from cover to cover in order to diss it. Of course, this averagely intelligent guy is the editor the New York Sun now.
Most editors respond to media criticism defensively. Sometimes they say "we're doing our best - you should try this sometime if you think it's so easy," to which the response is "we never said it was easy - we just think you should live up to your own standards." Others say "we're professionals - how dare you criticize us?" to which the response is "grow up."
I don't know if newspapers have gotten worse over the years, but they're running out of excuses. Information on any topic is easily available almost immediately from multiple sources. Thanks to the field of media criticism, the standards for adequate journalism have become more explicit. It's even easier to identify good writers, what with e-mail, blogs, and other self-published stuff.
So here are my pet peeves about today's newspapers:
- Cheap, sensationalist headlines. The New York Post has made this into an art form, but everyone knows that's part of their thing. Norwegian newspapers are awful, as are most European rags I'm aware of. If you got all your news reading the headlines, you'd have a pretty warped view of the world.
- Mixing opinion and news. The worst is when journalists masquerade their opinions as news. The best example is newspapers' unwillingness to call those who murder Jews "terrorists" - they're merely "militant" or maybe just "misunderstood, pissed-off young men."
- Superficial analysis. This is when you finish an article thinking that it isn't really coherent. At best you've been mildly entertained, at worst you feel misled. One test is to read an article in a mainstream newspaper about an issue you actually know something about, whether it's local news or something in your profession. You may not agree with the article, but a good journalist will leave you with the sense that he/she took the time to figure out what's going on.
- Unethical violations of privacy. I think the rule should be that you don't mention names unless identities are relevant to the story. Even if the people want their fifteen minutes. And you certainly shouldn't disclose the names of minors, even if the parents insist.
- Confusing balance and accuracy. It was just silly to give "Comical Ali" as much airtime as the DOD spokespeople. The truth is not an average between two extremes, and reliable sources should be rewarded for being that way.
You have to imagine that newspaper editors have mixed feelings about blogs. While we bloggers constantly link to articles in the more or less mainstream press, these links often appear in a critical context. One of my favorite but now defunct blogs was smartertimes.com, written by a guy from Brooklyn with average intelligence, who read the Times from cover to cover in order to diss it. Of course, this averagely intelligent guy is the editor the New York Sun now.
Most editors respond to media criticism defensively. Sometimes they say "we're doing our best - you should try this sometime if you think it's so easy," to which the response is "we never said it was easy - we just think you should live up to your own standards." Others say "we're professionals - how dare you criticize us?" to which the response is "grow up."
I don't know if newspapers have gotten worse over the years, but they're running out of excuses. Information on any topic is easily available almost immediately from multiple sources. Thanks to the field of media criticism, the standards for adequate journalism have become more explicit. It's even easier to identify good writers, what with e-mail, blogs, and other self-published stuff.
So here are my pet peeves about today's newspapers:
- Cheap, sensationalist headlines. The New York Post has made this into an art form, but everyone knows that's part of their thing. Norwegian newspapers are awful, as are most European rags I'm aware of. If you got all your news reading the headlines, you'd have a pretty warped view of the world.
- Mixing opinion and news. The worst is when journalists masquerade their opinions as news. The best example is newspapers' unwillingness to call those who murder Jews "terrorists" - they're merely "militant" or maybe just "misunderstood, pissed-off young men."
- Superficial analysis. This is when you finish an article thinking that it isn't really coherent. At best you've been mildly entertained, at worst you feel misled. One test is to read an article in a mainstream newspaper about an issue you actually know something about, whether it's local news or something in your profession. You may not agree with the article, but a good journalist will leave you with the sense that he/she took the time to figure out what's going on.
- Unethical violations of privacy. I think the rule should be that you don't mention names unless identities are relevant to the story. Even if the people want their fifteen minutes. And you certainly shouldn't disclose the names of minors, even if the parents insist.
- Confusing balance and accuracy. It was just silly to give "Comical Ali" as much airtime as the DOD spokespeople. The truth is not an average between two extremes, and reliable sources should be rewarded for being that way.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Bon voyage to hell, Sheik Yassin
There are days when I wonder: maybe the dovish Europeans have a point. Maybe Israel needs to reach out the olive branch more often, take more risks, show the Palestinian leadership that they have faith. After all, the European politicians aren't fools. They have ideals, they want a better world, and probably the same as me: a durable resolution in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This is not one of those days.
European governments are virtually unanimous in their condemnation of Israel's elimination of Sheik Yassin. Only slightly less shrill than the Arab media, they decry the action as "unlawful," "illegal," "unexpected," and "extrajudicial," etc.
Don't think there's a coincidence in the fact that Hamas has promised to take its terrorist campaign outside of the Middle East, targeting especially Jewish targets in the US (you know, schools, synagogues, etc.) They're threatening that "anything is possible now." The gloves, apparently, have come off.
This is an organization that actively encourages murder of innocent men, women, and children. Yassin himself has said that there will be no peace until every Jew is wiped off the face of the earth. And this wasn't some crazy guy ranting and drooling on a street corner in some large city. He has initiated actions that have killed hundreds of people. They had no gloves to take off. They're psychopathic nutcases who are using Islam as an excuse to act out their murderous tendencies.
Don't kid yourself, the Europeans are basically saying: "Don't look at us - we're as upset as you are! It's the Jews you should be angry at. (Don't say anything, but we'll leave their schools and synagogues unguarded if you leave us alone.)" As they've proven again and again in the last hundred years, the Europeans start all the wars but are unable to prevent or stop them. That's because they have a basic character flaw. And before anyone thinks I'm a right-wing American, I'm not. I'm a Norwegian with liberal leanings.
My best guess is that there'll be a lot of angry outbursts, probably more terrorist attacks in the short run, seething resentment. But in the long run, the Israelis have proven that they have the will and the ability to take out someone who is as protected as Yassin. Anyone who feels the urge to send naive young people out on death cult missions while sitting safely in Gaza or Ramallah will have to think twice or more. You won't see Hamas proteges crowding to take over Yassin's job anytime soon.
There are days when I wonder: maybe the dovish Europeans have a point. Maybe Israel needs to reach out the olive branch more often, take more risks, show the Palestinian leadership that they have faith. After all, the European politicians aren't fools. They have ideals, they want a better world, and probably the same as me: a durable resolution in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This is not one of those days.
European governments are virtually unanimous in their condemnation of Israel's elimination of Sheik Yassin. Only slightly less shrill than the Arab media, they decry the action as "unlawful," "illegal," "unexpected," and "extrajudicial," etc.
Don't think there's a coincidence in the fact that Hamas has promised to take its terrorist campaign outside of the Middle East, targeting especially Jewish targets in the US (you know, schools, synagogues, etc.) They're threatening that "anything is possible now." The gloves, apparently, have come off.
This is an organization that actively encourages murder of innocent men, women, and children. Yassin himself has said that there will be no peace until every Jew is wiped off the face of the earth. And this wasn't some crazy guy ranting and drooling on a street corner in some large city. He has initiated actions that have killed hundreds of people. They had no gloves to take off. They're psychopathic nutcases who are using Islam as an excuse to act out their murderous tendencies.
Don't kid yourself, the Europeans are basically saying: "Don't look at us - we're as upset as you are! It's the Jews you should be angry at. (Don't say anything, but we'll leave their schools and synagogues unguarded if you leave us alone.)" As they've proven again and again in the last hundred years, the Europeans start all the wars but are unable to prevent or stop them. That's because they have a basic character flaw. And before anyone thinks I'm a right-wing American, I'm not. I'm a Norwegian with liberal leanings.
My best guess is that there'll be a lot of angry outbursts, probably more terrorist attacks in the short run, seething resentment. But in the long run, the Israelis have proven that they have the will and the ability to take out someone who is as protected as Yassin. Anyone who feels the urge to send naive young people out on death cult missions while sitting safely in Gaza or Ramallah will have to think twice or more. You won't see Hamas proteges crowding to take over Yassin's job anytime soon.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Naomi, Laura, and guys hitting on girls
Run-on sentence coming: Naomi Wolf and Laura Kipnis - two women who would have made my version of "Women We Love" list if I ran Esquire (and therefore entitles me to refer to them by their first names) - face off as a result of Naomi's recent article in New York Magazine.
Naomi recounts an incident years ago, while she was a student at Yale. It seems a professor put his hand on her thigh over (or rather under) a candlelit dinner. Not only did this gross Naomi out so badly that she immediately barfed right in front of him. It was so traumatic that she got C's, D's and F's in some classes and (horrors!) failed to get a Rhodes scholarship.
Naomi still feels bad about this, and ignoring the precepts of lashon hora, nevertheless attributes her need to expose this professor's name to a feeling of guilt that came upon her at Yom Kippur. (It may have been a sin of commission to not alert Yale to this kind of "abuse," Naomi, but it was a sin of commission to name the prof.) Naomi feels that Yale should have guidelines by now to prevent and punish this kind of "sexual encroachment."
Laura - who has written on sex between faculty and students before - basically says "lighten up." It's tough growing up and it involves getting used to not just flattering but disgusting sexual advances. Especially if you're a smart hottie like Naomi was - and (dare I say?) is. After all, Naomi's "no" and (profuse vomiting) obviously gave her professor the right idea. And he left her alone forever, making a sour grapes kind of comment as walked out. He ended up looking the shmuck, in more than one sense.
The fact that this professor wanted to have sex with her, made Naomi so uncomfortable that she in Laura's terms was left "demean[ed] and disempower[ed]" by the experience. She had expected that this professor judged her solely by the product of her minds.
But it seems to me that it was Naomi's realization that this professor wanted her that disturbed her so much. The physical contact was uncomfortable, but it was knowing his urge that upset her rather than the experiencing his advances.
So let me give a guy's perspective here, and let me construct a plausible hypothesis to illustrate my point. Naomi and I are about the same age. While she was at Yale, I was at San Francisco State. As far as I know, I have never been within eyesight of her, but I know this: if she and I had met in the early 80's, I would never have had the courage to hit on her, or even talk with her. Not that I think I was a particularly loathsome guy, but women like Naomi (smart, feminist, beautiful Yalies) intimidated the hell out of me. Why? Fear not just of rejection, but humiliation. (Though I have to say that a woman throwing up because I hit on her went beyond even my most terrifying scenarios).
It seems to me that it's at least possible that this particular professor had a thing for smart, attractive, sexually confident women. So a) who could blame him for that? and b) isn't that precisely the image that Naomi projected at that time? In other words, even if the act was inappropriate (which it certainly was), is she right to judge his impulse so harshly?
I'm going out on a limb here in assuming that Naomi has been hit on often. She's welcomed some of these advances; others she's probably declined but felt flattered by; and some have probably disgusted her. From a man's point of view, this array of responses is utterly bewildering, and it doesn't help that men seem to be hardwired to misinterpret cues. For well-meaning men who occupy that large middle range of attractiveness, following our desires is dangerous stuff. We may get our egos gratified by getting laid or demolished by being humiliated. So it's not all fun and games for men, either.
I'm all for questioning gender roles, but I think it's too much to expect that men - even professors! - should be able to control what attractions and impulses they experience. (There should be limits on our conduct, for sure. Doctors shouldn't hit on their patients; bosses shouldn't coerce their subordinates to have sex with them; professors shouldn't make attractive students nervous about their grades; married men shouldn't hit on anyone but their wives.) But what's expected of us is to refrain from unwanted advances, not advances altogether. If a woman is attracted to a man, he's doing right by hitting on her; if she's not, he's a jerk, a sleaze, or whatever. It seems that a woman's inviolable right to say "no" isn't enough - she should also have the right to be spared the need to say no.
What's more, Naomi also seems to believe that this professor simply was a pig and that the attributes she cultivated had nothing to do with his attraction. To me, this demeans men (or at least a lot of men) quite a bit. I doubt many of us can precisely deconstruct the bases for our attractions, but there is no question that for the editors of Esquire (and me) sexual allure is more than skin deep.
Run-on sentence coming: Naomi Wolf and Laura Kipnis - two women who would have made my version of "Women We Love" list if I ran Esquire (and therefore entitles me to refer to them by their first names) - face off as a result of Naomi's recent article in New York Magazine.
Naomi recounts an incident years ago, while she was a student at Yale. It seems a professor put his hand on her thigh over (or rather under) a candlelit dinner. Not only did this gross Naomi out so badly that she immediately barfed right in front of him. It was so traumatic that she got C's, D's and F's in some classes and (horrors!) failed to get a Rhodes scholarship.
Naomi still feels bad about this, and ignoring the precepts of lashon hora, nevertheless attributes her need to expose this professor's name to a feeling of guilt that came upon her at Yom Kippur. (It may have been a sin of commission to not alert Yale to this kind of "abuse," Naomi, but it was a sin of commission to name the prof.) Naomi feels that Yale should have guidelines by now to prevent and punish this kind of "sexual encroachment."
Laura - who has written on sex between faculty and students before - basically says "lighten up." It's tough growing up and it involves getting used to not just flattering but disgusting sexual advances. Especially if you're a smart hottie like Naomi was - and (dare I say?) is. After all, Naomi's "no" and (profuse vomiting) obviously gave her professor the right idea. And he left her alone forever, making a sour grapes kind of comment as walked out. He ended up looking the shmuck, in more than one sense.
The fact that this professor wanted to have sex with her, made Naomi so uncomfortable that she in Laura's terms was left "demean[ed] and disempower[ed]" by the experience. She had expected that this professor judged her solely by the product of her minds.
But it seems to me that it was Naomi's realization that this professor wanted her that disturbed her so much. The physical contact was uncomfortable, but it was knowing his urge that upset her rather than the experiencing his advances.
So let me give a guy's perspective here, and let me construct a plausible hypothesis to illustrate my point. Naomi and I are about the same age. While she was at Yale, I was at San Francisco State. As far as I know, I have never been within eyesight of her, but I know this: if she and I had met in the early 80's, I would never have had the courage to hit on her, or even talk with her. Not that I think I was a particularly loathsome guy, but women like Naomi (smart, feminist, beautiful Yalies) intimidated the hell out of me. Why? Fear not just of rejection, but humiliation. (Though I have to say that a woman throwing up because I hit on her went beyond even my most terrifying scenarios).
It seems to me that it's at least possible that this particular professor had a thing for smart, attractive, sexually confident women. So a) who could blame him for that? and b) isn't that precisely the image that Naomi projected at that time? In other words, even if the act was inappropriate (which it certainly was), is she right to judge his impulse so harshly?
I'm going out on a limb here in assuming that Naomi has been hit on often. She's welcomed some of these advances; others she's probably declined but felt flattered by; and some have probably disgusted her. From a man's point of view, this array of responses is utterly bewildering, and it doesn't help that men seem to be hardwired to misinterpret cues. For well-meaning men who occupy that large middle range of attractiveness, following our desires is dangerous stuff. We may get our egos gratified by getting laid or demolished by being humiliated. So it's not all fun and games for men, either.
I'm all for questioning gender roles, but I think it's too much to expect that men - even professors! - should be able to control what attractions and impulses they experience. (There should be limits on our conduct, for sure. Doctors shouldn't hit on their patients; bosses shouldn't coerce their subordinates to have sex with them; professors shouldn't make attractive students nervous about their grades; married men shouldn't hit on anyone but their wives.) But what's expected of us is to refrain from unwanted advances, not advances altogether. If a woman is attracted to a man, he's doing right by hitting on her; if she's not, he's a jerk, a sleaze, or whatever. It seems that a woman's inviolable right to say "no" isn't enough - she should also have the right to be spared the need to say no.
What's more, Naomi also seems to believe that this professor simply was a pig and that the attributes she cultivated had nothing to do with his attraction. To me, this demeans men (or at least a lot of men) quite a bit. I doubt many of us can precisely deconstruct the bases for our attractions, but there is no question that for the editors of Esquire (and me) sexual allure is more than skin deep.
Monday, March 15, 2004
I was wrong: evacuate Spain
In 1492, the bad guys won: the (relatively) enlightened Moslems were banished from Spain, as were the Jews, and the Medieval Groundhog say his own shadow, retreating for another few hundred years of dark ages in Europe.
It would be too much to say that Spaniards collectively gave in to terror - some of them would have voted for the Socialists out of ingrained ideology. But a decisive block looked at the carnage in Madrid and said "oh shit, let's get the fuck out of Iraq" or however you say that in Spanish and voted with fear.
That officially opens the hunting season in Europe. Al Qaeda, Fatah, Hizballah, Hamas, and the other sociopathic groups will now - if they're smart, and they are - figure that hey, if they can move an election in Spain, let's try other places, too. What will it be - Denmark, who sent specops troops to Afghanistan? Or maybe any country that has a formal alliance with the US - maybe any country in NATO?
And this should leave no doubt why the Europeans prefer condemning Israel to pissing off the terrorist organizations. It has nothing to do with compassion for Palestinians or concern about human rights. It has everything to do with cowardice - the hope that the bullies will go after someone else - maybe Americans or Jews.
In 1492, the bad guys won: the (relatively) enlightened Moslems were banished from Spain, as were the Jews, and the Medieval Groundhog say his own shadow, retreating for another few hundred years of dark ages in Europe.
It would be too much to say that Spaniards collectively gave in to terror - some of them would have voted for the Socialists out of ingrained ideology. But a decisive block looked at the carnage in Madrid and said "oh shit, let's get the fuck out of Iraq" or however you say that in Spanish and voted with fear.
That officially opens the hunting season in Europe. Al Qaeda, Fatah, Hizballah, Hamas, and the other sociopathic groups will now - if they're smart, and they are - figure that hey, if they can move an election in Spain, let's try other places, too. What will it be - Denmark, who sent specops troops to Afghanistan? Or maybe any country that has a formal alliance with the US - maybe any country in NATO?
And this should leave no doubt why the Europeans prefer condemning Israel to pissing off the terrorist organizations. It has nothing to do with compassion for Palestinians or concern about human rights. It has everything to do with cowardice - the hope that the bullies will go after someone else - maybe Americans or Jews.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Murder in Madrid
From afar, terrorist attacks are deplorable, regretable events. We feel bad for the victims, outraged by the carnage, anger at the perpetrators. But it ends there - the event fades into a series of tragedies that happened recently but affected others. You put it in a political context, where the victims are part of the story.
But when there's a terrorist attack in your home town, feelings intensify. First there's disbelief. When the news is confirmed and you hear sirens and see emergency vehicles, there's confusion. You simply don't know the extent of the attack and you fear that it'll get worse than it already is. Then you realize that someone you know might have been hurt and you start wondering who might have been "there." And for days or even weeks the world doesn't quite make sense at all.
First and foremost, the political context goes out the window. Killing innocent people on their way to work has no political meaning, couldn't possibly serve any constructive purpose, is simply inexcusable. The only possible explanation is that the terrorists are sick fucks who don't have the imagination to do anything worthwhile. They're filth that should be rounded up and shot like rabid dogs.
This sense doesn't give way to anything more reasonable over time. No matter how you look at it, there is no justification for deliberately trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. Whatever cause they claim to be furthering is profoundly discredited by the methods they've used. Terrorism has no other meaning than its evil intent. Terrorism is utterly counterproductive. Instead of weakening us, it builds unbreakable resolve to never let the bastards have any sway.
The people of Madrid are experiencing all this now. Whether Al Qaeda or ETA is responsible, the people of Madrid will never forgive them, never care to understand them, always wish to destroy them. Spain will increase its commitment to the war on terror, send more troops, spend more money, stand and be counted as hawks. Madrid will be a place where people are vigilant but unafraid.
From afar, terrorist attacks are deplorable, regretable events. We feel bad for the victims, outraged by the carnage, anger at the perpetrators. But it ends there - the event fades into a series of tragedies that happened recently but affected others. You put it in a political context, where the victims are part of the story.
But when there's a terrorist attack in your home town, feelings intensify. First there's disbelief. When the news is confirmed and you hear sirens and see emergency vehicles, there's confusion. You simply don't know the extent of the attack and you fear that it'll get worse than it already is. Then you realize that someone you know might have been hurt and you start wondering who might have been "there." And for days or even weeks the world doesn't quite make sense at all.
First and foremost, the political context goes out the window. Killing innocent people on their way to work has no political meaning, couldn't possibly serve any constructive purpose, is simply inexcusable. The only possible explanation is that the terrorists are sick fucks who don't have the imagination to do anything worthwhile. They're filth that should be rounded up and shot like rabid dogs.
This sense doesn't give way to anything more reasonable over time. No matter how you look at it, there is no justification for deliberately trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. Whatever cause they claim to be furthering is profoundly discredited by the methods they've used. Terrorism has no other meaning than its evil intent. Terrorism is utterly counterproductive. Instead of weakening us, it builds unbreakable resolve to never let the bastards have any sway.
The people of Madrid are experiencing all this now. Whether Al Qaeda or ETA is responsible, the people of Madrid will never forgive them, never care to understand them, always wish to destroy them. Spain will increase its commitment to the war on terror, send more troops, spend more money, stand and be counted as hawks. Madrid will be a place where people are vigilant but unafraid.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Bush, 9/11, and the question of character
In business, you don't get a bonus for simply meeting your job requirements. Bush may delude himself into thinking that only he and not Gore would have dealt decisively with 9/11, but the truth is that any president would have cast himself as a leader after such a disaster. To hijack images from 9/11 (when Bush mostly saw the inside of Air Force One) as Bush's ownership is tacky.
Of course, Kerry can respond in kind. He can air a commercial where he's slogging through the jungle in Vietnam, juxtaposing it with shots of Bush running a campaign in Alabama. He can show Bush riding on an aircraft carrier just off the coast of California adorned with "Mission Accomplished" while he - Kerry - is visiting troops who are still slogging it out in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or, he can blame Bush for 9/11, pointing out that the Bush administration shrugged off all the outgoing Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda because they were too busy starting a diplomatic crisis with the People's Republic of China. Well, okay, not "blame" - but make something out of it.
He can also point out that aside from getting rid of about one hundred tyrants, the invasion of Iraq has done nothing tangible to lessen the threat of terror. Or that Bush's compromises with Pakistan over hunting for OBL in the Hindu Kush might open the door to export of technology and material for building a nuclear bomb.
In other words, Kerry needs to make a point out of making Bush out to be a wimp - someone who has the courage of his convictions but not the integrity to change his mind; who can't see the big picture because he's obsessed with singular issues; who in fact is a poster boy for finding the easy way out of any situation, whether it's military service, drunk driving, business problems, or getting elected president. Kerry should make his campaign a matter of character. Bush may have done a lot of things right, but it isn't entirely clear whether he did them for the right reasons.
In business, you don't get a bonus for simply meeting your job requirements. Bush may delude himself into thinking that only he and not Gore would have dealt decisively with 9/11, but the truth is that any president would have cast himself as a leader after such a disaster. To hijack images from 9/11 (when Bush mostly saw the inside of Air Force One) as Bush's ownership is tacky.
Of course, Kerry can respond in kind. He can air a commercial where he's slogging through the jungle in Vietnam, juxtaposing it with shots of Bush running a campaign in Alabama. He can show Bush riding on an aircraft carrier just off the coast of California adorned with "Mission Accomplished" while he - Kerry - is visiting troops who are still slogging it out in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or, he can blame Bush for 9/11, pointing out that the Bush administration shrugged off all the outgoing Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda because they were too busy starting a diplomatic crisis with the People's Republic of China. Well, okay, not "blame" - but make something out of it.
He can also point out that aside from getting rid of about one hundred tyrants, the invasion of Iraq has done nothing tangible to lessen the threat of terror. Or that Bush's compromises with Pakistan over hunting for OBL in the Hindu Kush might open the door to export of technology and material for building a nuclear bomb.
In other words, Kerry needs to make a point out of making Bush out to be a wimp - someone who has the courage of his convictions but not the integrity to change his mind; who can't see the big picture because he's obsessed with singular issues; who in fact is a poster boy for finding the easy way out of any situation, whether it's military service, drunk driving, business problems, or getting elected president. Kerry should make his campaign a matter of character. Bush may have done a lot of things right, but it isn't entirely clear whether he did them for the right reasons.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Mel Gibson and the Jews
So that's already putting the issue the wrong way. Gibson is consumed by traditional (medieval?) Catholic theology and probably loves the Jews the same way he loves anybody who is hell-bound for not having accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. And just because he won't denounce his nutcase father doesn't mean that he agrees with everything old Mr. Gibson says.
I think that most movie reviewers were relieved that the movie was objectionable on other fronts. Antisemitic canards can take a back seat when the movie is the most gory, brutal movie any of them has ever seen. Maureen Dowd said her overwhelming sentiment after having seen the movie was to kick someone's teeth in. Others helpfully point out that all of Gibson's movie involve the hero (played by Gibson) having to endure unearned suffering, but that in most of them there's payback. The theology of the Passion, of course, focuses on forgiveness not vengeance. Christians remind us all the time that the New Testament got rid of "an eye for an eye." So Maureen - don't kick anyone's teeth in - the movie's message is to forgive them, whoever "them" are. In case you hadn't noticed.
Gibson paints a picture of the Jews that is largely consistent with Christian tradition, both when it comes to individual and collective guilt. It is of non-trivial significance to Christians that the Jews to this day refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth as Moshiach, especially when Jews were the Chosen People to begin with - and! - Jesus, his apostles, Paul, and all the early Christians were Jewish by birth and practice. Jewish obstinacy remains a source of doubt for many Christians, and doubt is not a good thing if you think you're going to be saved by faith.
The thing is, you can't tell Christians that their religion is "wrong." Not only is it futile, it's also impolite and breaks with Hillel's premise that you shouldn't do onto others what is hateful to you. But it's kinda hard to get around the special status of Jews in Christianity in the long run.
In other words, Christians can't have it both ways. Core dogma simply won't let them accept Jews as anything but particularly stubborn heretics. Whether they think that this particular type of heresy eventually puts you in hell (as Gibson does) or a simple divine reprimand at the pearly gates (as most modern Christian clergy think) is of course another matter. And so are acceptable means for convincing Jews to see the light. But at the end of the day you can't complain about the way Jews are treated in Mel Gibson's movie without complaining about Christian theology.
So that's already putting the issue the wrong way. Gibson is consumed by traditional (medieval?) Catholic theology and probably loves the Jews the same way he loves anybody who is hell-bound for not having accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. And just because he won't denounce his nutcase father doesn't mean that he agrees with everything old Mr. Gibson says.
I think that most movie reviewers were relieved that the movie was objectionable on other fronts. Antisemitic canards can take a back seat when the movie is the most gory, brutal movie any of them has ever seen. Maureen Dowd said her overwhelming sentiment after having seen the movie was to kick someone's teeth in. Others helpfully point out that all of Gibson's movie involve the hero (played by Gibson) having to endure unearned suffering, but that in most of them there's payback. The theology of the Passion, of course, focuses on forgiveness not vengeance. Christians remind us all the time that the New Testament got rid of "an eye for an eye." So Maureen - don't kick anyone's teeth in - the movie's message is to forgive them, whoever "them" are. In case you hadn't noticed.
Gibson paints a picture of the Jews that is largely consistent with Christian tradition, both when it comes to individual and collective guilt. It is of non-trivial significance to Christians that the Jews to this day refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth as Moshiach, especially when Jews were the Chosen People to begin with - and! - Jesus, his apostles, Paul, and all the early Christians were Jewish by birth and practice. Jewish obstinacy remains a source of doubt for many Christians, and doubt is not a good thing if you think you're going to be saved by faith.
The thing is, you can't tell Christians that their religion is "wrong." Not only is it futile, it's also impolite and breaks with Hillel's premise that you shouldn't do onto others what is hateful to you. But it's kinda hard to get around the special status of Jews in Christianity in the long run.
In other words, Christians can't have it both ways. Core dogma simply won't let them accept Jews as anything but particularly stubborn heretics. Whether they think that this particular type of heresy eventually puts you in hell (as Gibson does) or a simple divine reprimand at the pearly gates (as most modern Christian clergy think) is of course another matter. And so are acceptable means for convincing Jews to see the light. But at the end of the day you can't complain about the way Jews are treated in Mel Gibson's movie without complaining about Christian theology.
Next: nuclear blackmail
On commenting on the imminent release of Mordechai Vanunu (convert to Christianity, darling of Arab despots who also want nuclear weapons) the other day, NPR pointed out the similarities between Israel and Iraq when it came to nuclear weapons: at different times, both "Middle Eastern countries" were doing their best to avoid international scrutiny of their programs. These are the kinds of comparisons that make supercilious, fashionably leftwing people all giddy - you can hear them chortling: see, Israel is no better than Iraq.
In the meantime, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy article in the New Yorker about Washington's willingness to turn a blind eye to Pakistan's export of nuclear technology in return for opening the Hindu Kush for this spring's hunting season on Osama Bin Laden. In other words: Bush is willing to let rogue regimes and/or terrorist organizations get their hands on nuclear weapons if only OBL is at Camp X-Ray (or dead) by Xmas, eh, the November election, whichever comes first.
In a rare moment of insight rather than polemic, NPR pointed out that Israel doesn't like to disclose its membership in the nuclear club because Israelis don't want there to be an overt threat on its enemies. That's a slightly different posture from France, Pakistan, and India, who in recent years have conducted test detonations to show off. If, say, Iran, Syria, Hizballah, or Hamas should get their hands on more than a few warheads, you can be certain they'll want to do a live demo for the world in general and Israel in particular.
In other words, Bush's tendency to set personal vendettas over sound strategy is affecting national security adversely. What have we gained by hunting down Bin Laden if Pakistan can export nuclear weapons with impunity? Since nobody is willing to confirm that OBL is alive, it seems to me that Hindu Kush hunting season is based on even shakier evidence than the hunt for WMD in Iraq.
Bush was right to say that the war on terrorism will be lengthy, messy, and confusing, with any number of temporary setbacks. And he's also right in asserting that the US will have to fight the war on its own if necessary. And he was right in saying that anyone who isn't on our side in this war is on the enemy's side. Pakistan's position is - to put it charitably - ambiguous. Instead of forcing Sharon to evacuate West Bank settlements, Bush should have forced Musharaff to both give up (or maybe hang) Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and allow US troops to roam freely in the Hindu Kush. Not either or.
On commenting on the imminent release of Mordechai Vanunu (convert to Christianity, darling of Arab despots who also want nuclear weapons) the other day, NPR pointed out the similarities between Israel and Iraq when it came to nuclear weapons: at different times, both "Middle Eastern countries" were doing their best to avoid international scrutiny of their programs. These are the kinds of comparisons that make supercilious, fashionably leftwing people all giddy - you can hear them chortling: see, Israel is no better than Iraq.
In the meantime, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy article in the New Yorker about Washington's willingness to turn a blind eye to Pakistan's export of nuclear technology in return for opening the Hindu Kush for this spring's hunting season on Osama Bin Laden. In other words: Bush is willing to let rogue regimes and/or terrorist organizations get their hands on nuclear weapons if only OBL is at Camp X-Ray (or dead) by Xmas, eh, the November election, whichever comes first.
In a rare moment of insight rather than polemic, NPR pointed out that Israel doesn't like to disclose its membership in the nuclear club because Israelis don't want there to be an overt threat on its enemies. That's a slightly different posture from France, Pakistan, and India, who in recent years have conducted test detonations to show off. If, say, Iran, Syria, Hizballah, or Hamas should get their hands on more than a few warheads, you can be certain they'll want to do a live demo for the world in general and Israel in particular.
In other words, Bush's tendency to set personal vendettas over sound strategy is affecting national security adversely. What have we gained by hunting down Bin Laden if Pakistan can export nuclear weapons with impunity? Since nobody is willing to confirm that OBL is alive, it seems to me that Hindu Kush hunting season is based on even shakier evidence than the hunt for WMD in Iraq.
Bush was right to say that the war on terrorism will be lengthy, messy, and confusing, with any number of temporary setbacks. And he's also right in asserting that the US will have to fight the war on its own if necessary. And he was right in saying that anyone who isn't on our side in this war is on the enemy's side. Pakistan's position is - to put it charitably - ambiguous. Instead of forcing Sharon to evacuate West Bank settlements, Bush should have forced Musharaff to both give up (or maybe hang) Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and allow US troops to roam freely in the Hindu Kush. Not either or.
