Shorter David Warren

Article: Ape & Man

The recent maiming of a person by a chimp is more proof that evolution is a sham.

Call it what it is

The above poster is a cartoon. Whether or not a small boy holding a teddy bear, casting a shadow forming the word "Gaza" was ever fired upon by an Israeli helicopter is irrelevant.

The poster makes no claims about Jews, or even about Israelis. It presents the conflict, however, as the David-and-Goliath struggle that it is, where a high-tech, multi-billion dollar army of occupation, motivated by a religious-nationalist ideology, seeks to crush the life of the native population.

When two Canadian universities banned the above poster from appearing on their billboards, the argument of one of them was:

"A poster from the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights has recently come to the attention of the Communications Office. All posters approved by the Communications Office must promote a campus culture where all members of the community can play a part in a declaration of human rights recognizing the inherent dignity and equal rights of all students. Consequently, we will not place this particular poster on our campus billboards."

In other words, because the poster was going to upset Zionists, it couldn't be displayed.

When the Muhammad cartoons were published in Canada, every wingnut came out of the woodwork to defend Ezra Levant. Despite my distaste for the man, I was with them, and not only because fining the man only increased his fame. When Geert Wilders produced his film "Fitna," I yawned, and wondered what the fuss was about. He has since become a hero amongst the usual anti-Islam types who style themselves "defenders of free speech."

Will they stand up for the artist in this case?

Don't hold your breath.

On Jewellery

To me, one of the great mysteries of human life is the phenomenon of jewellery. It is common to all societies that I know of (and, by extrapolation, probably a great many that I don't). From bracelets to nose-piercings, it is also an ancient custom. Some jewellery serves a ceremonial purpose, or serves as a formal indication of status; other jewellery is purely decorative, and indicative of nothing more than the tastes of the individual. In most cultures of the West, plus a couple of the East, a wedding ring is a sign that a man loves a woman enough to part with a substantial quantity of money.

Beyond, however, that particular ritual, I don't understand the compulsion of people to make, buy, or wear jewellery. Now, nobody needs a 48" plasma screen TV, but at the very least, you can watch TV on it, and one assumes that to whoever buys such a thing, the picture is worth it. What exactly can you do with a $400 necklace?

A gold Rolex watch glitters a bit more than a $30 RadioShack special (oh, for the days of RadioShack!), but it offers relatively little improvement in its accuracy, and at any rate, most people buying watches don't need to-the-millisecond timing. The Rolex might last a bit longer, but the cost probably doesn't justify it.

So what is the human attaction to things that glitter?

In some cases, it probably remains a sign of status, not unlike a Mercedes or a Rolls-Royce. The majority of people driving such cars do not need them, and the advantages likely do not outweigh those of a VW or a well-built Subaru. Still, they serve some function, they're useful, even if only slightly more so than other vehicles. What function does a platinum ring serve?

I can intellectualize and theorize about jewellery, but I'm not sure that I will ever truly understand the desire to own it, or to buy it, or to wear it. I suppose that in the end it is one of those things that must be experienced in order to be understood.

I certainly hope I never do.

"all in 5 square kilometres"

From a conversation with a Gazan (who apparently follows this blog) that I had a few days ago, that seems to be stuck in my head:

"Gaza is not like the West Bank - in the West Bank, the Israelis can come into a town in a Jeep, with maybe 3 or 4 soldiers even walking along, arrest whoever they're interested in, and then leave. Nobody does anything about it. They would never dare try that in Gaza. Gaza is too well-armed. There are guns everywhere. The Gazans would fight. . .

". . . I was talking to an uncle of mine, and he said 'You know what? I've spent my whole life in 5 square kilometers. I was born, went to school, got married, got a job, all in 5 square kilometers. I've never left.' You have to wonder what that does to the society."

Shorter Diana West

Article: Win the "Trust" of People Who Hate Us? What?

Obama is devoting more troops to fighting the non-rational Afghan savages, when he oughtta be stopping the Moslems from coming over here.

Rational.

Obamarama

. . . if I can just make it one more day, maybe they'll stop talking about Obama.

Just one more day. . .

So it's almost like a divorce

Except that it bears no resemblance to a divorce whatsoever.

From Ha'aretz's Elah Alkalay:

. . . The outcome of the elections indicates that Israelis view the "peace process" with the Palestinians as a divorce process. As their unwilling embrace was arranged by global forces, so apparently will be their separation. Think of it as severance of an arranged marriage, and the vote Israelis cast last week was for what they perceive as the roughest, toughest divorce lawyer in town.

In other words, the majority vote was cast for a leadership - the right wing - that the public thinks can end the relationship with the most assets for Israelis and preferably no alimony at all for the spouse. . .

Which sounds really great, until one stops and wonders what exactly this "divorce" will look like. For instance, will there still be settlers in the West Bank? If anyone on the Israeli right has their way, there must be.

Will the Palestinians have control of their water? 1/3 of Israel's water comes from the West Bank, so we can assume that the answer to that question is "no."

How about the Separation Fence/Apartheid Wall that snakes through the West Bank? Is it going anywhere? Don't hold your breath. Or how about the fence around Gaza? Will the crossings be opened? Probably, but only under Israeli control.

What about an army and an air force? Certainly the Palestinian "State" should at least have control over its own borders and air space! Certainly it should, but not if Netanyahu has anything to say about it.

What we are talking about here is, in the end, not a marital separation, because it lacks that characteristic that makes a "separation" what it is: separation. The two parties must, at a minimum, be able to go about their own lives without interruption from the other. In this case, the parties are under one another's skins, and there is no way that any Israeli administration that results from this election will be able to "divorce" them.

Absent a sea-change in Israeli politics, any "peace agreement" between Israel and the Palestinians will not resemble a "divorce." All that will follow is more domestic violence.

Recycled: "Manufactured Holidays"

For those of you enjoying a leisurely Family Day, why not take a moment to read over what I wrote about it during Ontario's first such holiday?