France moves to ban "psychological violence" in marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Britain's Daily Mail:

Married couples in France could end up with criminal records for insulting each other during arguments.

Under a new law, France is to become the first country in the world to ban 'psychological violence' within marriage.

The law would apply to cohabiting couples and to both men and women.

Would this mean no trash talking during fantasy football season?

While it seems initially like a good idea, and while real "psychological violence" can be incredibly abusing and ought to be addressed, I have my concerns. Who is to say what amounts to such violence and what doesn't? That is, who is to say what is criminal and what isn't? Couples fight and shout and say things that shouldn't be said, after all, and sometimes things can get nasty. That's normal, isn't it? Yes, it can go too far, but the risk is that the law could be far too broadly applied, with the state intruding into people's private lives, including into their bedrooms, with heavy-handed Orwellianism.

So while a man or woman should probably have some legal recourse in the event he or she is abused in this way, and while there may be occasion for the state to intervene with criminal charges, this is a delicate area where the state should be careful to tread. The intent may be admirable, but this law, it seems to me, fails to account for the nature of the intense, intimate relationships between consenting adults (if one partner doesn't consent, that's another matter). To the extent that the law is even implementable, it's a potential quagmire of abuse and misuse.

Republicans ain't got balls

By Carl

This comes as no surprise to liberal men:

Republican men nationwide may have experienced a drop in testosterone levels the night Barack Obama was elected president, according to the results of a small study that found another link between testosterone and men's moods.

I've long known that Republican men have no balls.

But let's take a closer look at this phenomenon. After eight years of balls-to-the-wall international violence, aggression, and bullying, in one night of repudiation, we find that aggressive men have lost a few feet off their fastball (pun intended).

Which raises an interesting question: is man, as a gender, inherently and genetically predisposed to violence?

Perhaps. Testosterone is associated with fear and stress: there seems to be a correlation between aggression and testosterone (so the old wive's tale appears intact). Since testosterone is also closely linked to the genetic drive to reproduce, and since our cave ancestors often had to fight for the right to deposit their seed in a woman, there seems to be some anecdotal association that allows for the equation "violence=sex".

Certainly the crime of rape is about violence, possession, aggression and control, and yet it is undeniable that somewhere in there is an element of sexuality.

Too, it has been demonstrated that the observation of violence and aggression can trigger violence and aggression in men (and women). How else can one explain how a bar fight turns into a brawl?

Now, our friends on the right will come up with reams of anecdotal evidence to contradict... something... here, but the simple fact is, cause and effect: they lost, their testosterone dropped. If they had won, their testosterone levels would have remained the same.

This is, of course, good news for John McCain's campaign. All he has to do is just win the 2008 election, and his followers will get erections. He'll be like political Viagra if he can just beat Senator Obama!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

So Joe the Plumber wants to beat the crap out of Nancy Pelosi...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The culture of violence and death on the right is rather alarming, is it not? Earlier this year, it was the shooting in Pittsburgh. Throughout the Bush years, it was the bloodlust of the warmongering neocons, the view that there's no problem that can't be solved with a little killing, or a lot.

Now, it's the guns and rifles brought to the health-care town halls.

And it's also Joe the Plumber saying that he'd like to "beat the livin' tar" out of Nancy Pelosi. Yes, you read that right. Samuel Wurzelbacher actually said that he'd take "[t]hose kind of people" -- people he doesn't like -- out "behind the woodshed." (Yes, he'd like to beat the crap out of a woman.)

Charming. But oh-so-characteristic of a huge swathe of American conservatism today -- and of the mobocracy that dominates the GOP.

A bit of perspective on Iran --

By Carol Gee


Today's post is a compilation of news items from mostly foreign sources covering the Iranian government's presidential election crisis. It begins with how things were before Iran's world turned upside down. I conclude with a bit of perspective on U.S. national security, that reminds us of how lucky we are to have our solid new president around when the Middle East's beset by chaos.

How fast things changed after the election -- On June 15th, Russia's Ria Novosti reported that "the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Monday he welcomed the U.S. initiative to begin direct talks with Iran without any preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect."

Violence escalates -- This rare information is from The Washington Note, "Guest Blog: Dispatches from Tehran," (6/22/09). Steve Clemons introduces the blogger: "An anonymous student in Tehran who has been writing and speaking in the media under the name, "Shane M." has just sent in some more dispatches." The BBC News of 6/22/09 says that details are emerging about how "hi-tech helped Iranian monitoring" of its citizens during the protests, with the help of Nokia Siemens. The world was galvanized on 6/23/09: Memeorandum headlined, "Family, friends mourn Iranian woman whose death was caught on video," taken from Borzou Daragahi of the LA Times In summary: "Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, ‘was a beam of light’ and not an activist, friends say. The video footage of her bleeding to death on the street has turned her into an international symbol of the protest movement." Next "Fresh street clashes in Tehran" outside of parliament were examined by the Financial Times on 6/24/09.

World leaders responded -- The 6/23/09 BBC News reports that the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was "urging Iran to end the violence." Summarizing: "United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon expressed his "dismay" at the use of force against civilians in the wake of Iran's disputed election." The Financial Times of London is of the opinion that President Obama "toughened his stance on Iran" after Monday, June 22. The BBC News (6/23/09) says that President Obama strongly condemned "unjust" violence of Iran clamping down on election protests, saying he respects Iran's sovereignty and that it was "patently false" of Iran to say the West was fomenting the unrest.

Calming worries -- President Obama's handling of the Iranian crisis has been right on point, in my opinion. His "heart broke" along with ours as young women, students and others who want freedom were murdered, beaten and imprisoned. But the deep unrest that might indicate a growing instability in the country is just that. It does not mean we confront a nuclear cloud as might have been the case in a Bush administration. David Morrison, who writes CQ Behind the Lines (6/25/09) said, to quote:

In pondering a nuclear-armed Iran, “no plausible scenarios come to mind where terrorism comes into play, or where Tehran ever would have any reason to share nuclear capability with a terrorist client,” an ex-CIA analyst writes in National Journal.

References -- from Tom Head who writes the About.com Civil Liberties Guide:

• Human Rights in Iran - Iranian Human Rights Abuses


• Shirin Ebadi - Iran's leading advocate for human rights


• Complete Guide to Iranian Politics, Elections and Government

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Reaction in review (Nov. 30, 2008)

A weekend's Reactions that deserve a second look:

Sunday

By J. Thomas Duffy: "Our Ignorant Dolt of the Week ... Little Billy Kristol!" -- Duffy's really on a roll with his fabulous rant against Krystol's call for "pardoning . . . everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror . . . but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points." Indeed!

By Capt. Fogg: "Bond lives" -- With warmth and skill, the good Captain writes a lovely post about one of undoubtedly many small stories of heroism during the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India's Taj Mahal hotel.

By Creature: "Truth in Comics" -- Creature's choice is dead on to the current administration's last ditch attack on the environment.

By Grace: "Rattling the cage: Instability on Canada's political and economic scenes" -- Grace illuminates the ins and outs of the current governance situation, concluding, "It's a little bit frightening to have instability both in the economy and political arena at the same time – especially now."


Saturday
(two-for-the-price-of-one)

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Sign of the Apocalypse #59: Trampling death at Wal-Mart" and "Gun violence at Toys "R" Us" -- Michael, like all of us," is aghast at these two instances of senseless death and destruction wrought by out-of-control shopping nuts.

Gun violence at Toys "R" Us

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So... yeah.

In my last post, written just a couple of hours ago, a SOTA post on the trampling death at Wal-Mart, I wrote this: "And don't think it was just the 2,000 or so people who lined up before 5 am at that particular Wal-Mart. There are countless more just like them, brutally rapacious and more than willing to storm and trample and kill in search of that must-have sale item, or whatever it is they need, or have been told they need, whatever it is they think will make them happy, common decency and everyone else be damned."

Well:

Two people have died in a shooting incident at a Toys "R" Us store in Southern California on the busiest U.S. shopping day of the year.

Seriously. I came across this story shortly after posting on the Wal-Mart incident.

Merry Christmas.

Sign of the Apocalypse #59: Trampling death at Wal-Mart

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Capt. Fogg wrote about the Wal-Mart trampling death yesterday -- and I'm calling it yet another Sign of the Apocalypse -- but I couldn't resist posting this headline from the AP:

Sought: Wal-Mart shoppers who trampled NY worker.

Here's the deal:

Police were reviewing video from surveillance cameras in an attempt to identify who trampled to death a Wal-Mart worker after a crowd of post-Thanksgiving shoppers burst through the doors at a suburban store and knocked him down.

Criminal charges were possible, but identifying individual shoppers in Friday's video may prove difficult, said Detective Lt. Michael Fleming, a Nassau County police spokesman.

Other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man, and customers stepped over him and became irate when officials said the store was closing because of the death, police and witnesses said.

At least four other people, including a woman who was eight months pregnant, were taken to hospitals for observation or minor injuries. The store in Valley Stream on Long Island closed for several hours before reopening.

It's a horrible story, obviously. And, to me, it's even worse when it's juxtaposed with the recent horrific events in Mumbai. Not because, in and of itself, it's worse than the attacks in Mumbai, and certainly not because the Wal-Mart killers are worse than the Mumbai killers, but because while there is serious shit going on in the world, both serious violence and serious suffering, serious shit that deserves our serious attention and our serious efforts to fix the problems that cause it, the Wal-Mart incident, an incident of lethal violence, however unintentional, was, at its core, a display of disgusting, out-of-control greed. It's like, with all the serious shit going on in the world, of which the attacks in Mumbai are a stark, news-dominating example, all these pathetic people care about is themselves -- about consuming more and more and more, about filling up their meaningless lives with material goods, with no apparent concern for others beyond their narrow, self-absorbed existences.

And don't think it was just the 2,000 or so people who lined up before 5 am at that particular Wal-Mart. There are countless more just like them, brutally rapacious and more than willing to storm and trample and kill in search of that must-have sale item, or whatever it is they need, or have been told they need, whatever it is they think will make them happy, common decency and everyone else be damned.

As George Costanza once shouted, when confronted with anti-social behaviour, "We're living in a society!"

But are we?

Brawl in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

By non sequitur

This sort of thing actually happens fairly frequently; many such episodes are described in Amos Elon's excellent book on Jerusalem. But it's still amusing when it happens, and you see clergy from different Eastern Orthodox Rites basically rioting in the holiest site in Orthodox Christianity. And, of course, the altercations are always over someone standing in the wrong place, or trying to move a ladder, or something equally absurd.

Incidentally, having been to Jerusalem I can say that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is rather a squalid little dump. It has the occasional out of the way place that has some character or interest, but for the most part its a squat, dark little building used as a tourist mill. It's very hard to find the experience of going there anything other than disappointing and even slight repulsive. The al-Aqsa compound, on the other hand, is magnificent, probably the most impressive human creation I've seen. The al-Aqsa mosque itself is full of light and space (like the compound as a whole) and stretches itself out with a majestic sense of order and precision. The Dome of the Rock, on the other hand, is much more compressed and dark, but perfect in both design and ornamentation. And the Western Wall is deeply romantic and evocative. So perhaps the regular fisticuffs at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are as much about their own feelings of inadequacy as they are about confessional rivalry.

Will it always be about conflict?

By Carol Gee

The word that best describes the United States' role in the world under the Bush administration, in my opinion, is "versus." By extension that also accurately describes Senator John McCain, who wants to be our next president. He is every bit as conflict-ridden as George Bush.

Current conflicts in the news for example, include these from CQ Behind the Lines (9/24/08), Bugs ‘n bombs:

The Islamabad Marriott bomb owed its apparent intensity to the addition of aluminum powder to accelerate the explosion and add ferocity to the blaze, Danger Room discusses. Seven years after 9/11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been IDed by the FBI and NYC medical examiner, but no one has formally requested the remains in order to bury them, the Times tells. “A key part of the FBI’s early investigation into the anthrax mailings was finding whether the germ that killed five people in late 2001 was weaponized,” a Scientific American technical review leads.

Versus... everybody -- Here are but a few on the Bush conflicts to which I refer: West vs. Middle East, U.S. vs. Europe, rich vs. poor, public vs. private, Democrats vs. Republicans. My hope is that the Obama administration is less about versus and more about common ground. In the spirit of bipartisanship, here is some newsletter information I received from Representative Christopher Shays' office. It outlines some of what I want to talk about news-wise in today's post.

September 12, 2008

Dear Friend,
I recently returned from a trip to Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, others in the Administration, congressional and military leaders and leaders of the four countries I visited, I outlined 20 observations and 32 recommendations.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of grave concern to countries in the Middle East, particularly Israel. It is likely, if the international community does not take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will act unilaterally.

As I recommended following my trip to Iraq in August 2006, we need a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. Most of our troops should be out of Iraq by December 2009, but a small US presence is still required to bolster the Iraq Security Force by offering medical, logistical, transportation and training support; acting as a deterrent from external attack; and providing stability so the Iraq military will not exert undue influence over the elected government.

Pakistan is in serious trouble, and unless the international community provides economic and security assistance the democratically elected government could collapse, with a nuclear Pakistan becoming an even greater haven for terrorists.

It is essential we understand our objective in Afghanistan, what is required to reach it, and whether the objective is possible. Before the United States commits additional forces, we must know what their impact will be; ask other NATO member states to contribute more forces; and request all combat restrictions be lifted.

To read my entire letter outlining my observations and recommendations, please click here.

Israel/USA vs. Iran -- Many countries in the Middle East see the U.S. and Israel as closely linked. In the recent dust-up with Russia, the U.S. linked up with Georgia. Russia has been helping Iran. From this tangled mess comes this little story: "Israeli Bombers Planned to Use Georgian Airfields in Iran Strike Report: Moscow ordered troops to raid Israeli facilities in Georgia to protect Iran#," by Arnaud de Borchgrave at Global Research, September 17, 2008. This is another fascinating piece of GWB diplomacy unhinged, the perfect illustration of the "Bush-versus-them" administration: "Bush: Iranians are "Assholes'"* is from Think Progress (9/11/08) It is about diplomatic Admiral Fallon's short tenure as CentCom Commander, as told in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within."

Iraq vs. itself -- The conflict in Iraq should never have happened. It unleashed a civil war that now waits to break out again when the U.S. leaves. "The surge" may not have been the total answer, after all: "Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq"* comes from Yahoo! News (9/19/08). To quote:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

U.S. vs. Pakistan -- What will happen in Pakistan, now that "The US Declare[d] War On Pakistan,"* according to Survival Acres on 9/18. The author reported on The Washington Post's use of the term, "The War in Pakistan." The conflict with Pakistan has a very uncertain outcome right now, more uncertain than almost anywhere. My Intel newsletter adds more:

CQ Behind the Lines (9/15/08) Over there: U.S. raids on Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan could provoke terror attacks in London, The Times of London reports Pakistan’s high commissioner to the U.K. warning — while The Evening Standard finds an extremist group promising the next 9/11 will take place in Britain. . . Suspected al Qaeda militants killed 12 Mauritanian soldiers Monday, AP quotes senior officials.

USA vs. Russia -- During the Cold War it was the United States and the West versus the Soviet Union. That conflict started an arms race that, in a different way, is manifesting again. This little piece is about Russia selling arms to Venezuela and Iran while the U.S. is also deeply into the business of arms sales. The Real Gun Runners, And It’s Business As Usual,* 9/18/08, is from Survival Acres. To quote:

Except this isn’t a bogus comparison — it’s real. The US really IS selling $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments.

Nothing new here, the American economy is strongly tied to our arms deals all over the world. The nation industry is deeply embedded in arms sales and the death and destruction of millions of people all over the world. But that isn’t my point.

My point was how the lying media refuses to let you know what one hand is doing while it accuses the other.

War vs. Peace -- "Wag the Dog" was a post at Reconstitution 2.0 (9/18/08). It asks whether there will there be an election "October surprise" somewhere near the Persian Gulf? Will the military-industrial complex fight for life after a regime change? Of course they will. They have their tentacles everywhere and will not give up easily. For example, this post at AlterNet (9/19/08), is on the subject of "Public Military Academies: Prep Schools? Or Blatant Recruitment Pools?"* Public school systems are increasingly opening their doors to military academies -- primarily in poor urban areas. Fortunately not everything is about conflict; some long for peace. There is this good news from AfterDowningStreet (9/15/08): "Sir Bob Geldof Launches Peace Channel"* by Rowena Mason. To quote:

Sir Bob Geldof, the charity campaigner and rock star, has opened the way for citizen journalists to report on conflicts around the world with the launch of his Peace Channel. His online TV channel is switched on today at midday at the Point of Peace Summit in Stavanger, Norway, where Nobel Peace Laureates and experts are gathered to discuss conflict resolution. Sir Bob wants people to send in their video reports to “cover the world’s wars and potential flash points”.

Right vs. Wrong -- The following closing story reinforces my hope for less conflict and more peace in my life. It concerns an ongoing flash point within a sister mental health professional organization, that of psychiatrists. It came to me via ProPublica. Titled, "The Ethics of Interrogation — The U.S. Military's Ongoing Use of Psychiatrists," and written by Jonathan H. Marks, M.A., B.C.L., and M. Gregg Bloche, M.D., J.D., it is in The New England Journal of Medicine, 9/11/08. To quote:

In May 2006, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) adopted a position statement prohibiting psychiatrists from "direct participation" in the interrogation of any person in military or civilian detention — including "being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees."1 A few weeks later, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) issued a similar opinion, stating that "physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician–interrogator undermines the physician's role as healer."2 The opinion defines direct participation as including "monitoring interrogations with the intention of intervening."

. . . Yet documents recently provided to us by the U.S. Army in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) make clear that the Department of Defense still wants doctors to be involved and continues to resist the positions taken by medicine's professional associations. An October 2006 memo entitled "Behavioral Science Consultation Policy" (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org) fails to mention the APA statement and provides a permissive gloss on the AMA's policy, at some points contradicting it outright.

The antidotes to national and international conflict include -- the diminished influence of the military, more bipartisanship within the ranks of those who govern, enhanced fairness, respectful attitudes, more transparency, and an increased sense of how fast the globe is shrinking and flattening. The last and most powerful antidote would be the defeat of John McCain on November 4.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Leadership in a very flat world

By Carol Gee

Today is the funeral day for assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. From space we cannot see people where they live and die. It is a very tragic and sad thing for her family and supporters, and certainly for her nation. But it is a sad day for us, as well, because of the flat world in which we live. The reality of her death reverberates far beyond Pakistan. Looking at the Middle East and Southwest Asia from far above reveals a two dimensional view in muted colors of sand and water. Two dimensions are flat; three dimensions reveal true perspective. When we first glimpsed the face of Benazir Bhutto, many of us instinctively held our breath, afraid to hear what was to come next.

(Aljazeera's image heads this paragraph)

Very quickly the world knew what was transpiring with this leader yesterday. Just after the Bhutto rally, the U.S. broadcast TV reports of the shooting and suicide bombing. As time passed the news got worse and worse. What we saw was coming from Aljazeera, from which I quote the beginning and ending portions of this very interesting and seemingly even-handed editorial:

FOCUS PAKISTAN : POWER AND POLITICS

Daughter of tragedy
By Kamran Rehmat (News Editor at Dawn News, an independent Pakistani television news channel).

What ever else the mind-numbing killing of Benazir Bhutto in Thursday’s suicide attack will mean for Pakistan’s future, there is little doubt that politics in this south Asian country will never be the same again.

. . . Bhutto may have been the first woman prime minister of a Muslim country but was twice ousted as premier on corruption charges, which she fought for the rest of her political life.

Ironically, it was only recently that corruption cases against her were "washed" clean courtesy of a controversial ordinance passed by Musharraf on the premise of national reconciliation but effectively seen as a means to win her support for his continued stay in power.

Regardless of what modus operandi appealed to her - and she took many that surprised even her family not to mention, her political adversaries - Bhutto remained a force to reckon with right until the end.

In her death, Pakistan may have lost its most potent political player, who remained at least for its vast moderate and secular population, their best hope.

Given the vitiated international climate vis-a-vis the war-on-terror for Islamabad, deep polarisation within the country and the institutional instability, her loss is colossal not just for Pakistan but for the rest of the world as well.

And very quickly following the news of Bhutto's death, leaders from around the world began to react. The presidents in Pakistan and the United States made statements. Leaders in the United States, and certainly other countries, made telephone calls to Pakistani leaders. And presidential candidates began to release statements or speak with the media on camera or by phone. And we instinctively knew to take the measure of their leadership capacity by how they reacted to the news of the death of this small and fierce unarmed woman halfway around our flat world.

Iowans will be meeting in caucuses in less than a week to make their choices for the POTUS. And the other primaries will quickly follow. It is entirely possible that these outcomes will be in large or small measure be influenced by the current news about the violence in Pakistan, and how the candidates behave as a result. It seems to me that the perspective provided by a reader's comment on my most recent S/SW post (12/19) on leadership -- cross-posted at at The Reaction -- is very apt for the current situation. The entire comment of "Ecophotos" follows:

Reaction: 1 Comment on "Behavior is an Indicator of Leadership Capacity"

Hi Carol,

My apologies for being late to this party, holiday diversions and all. A quick response to this post:

There is a lot of stuff being said about what we should expect from candidates with respect to comfort, character, consistency, and competitiveness.

My concern here is that most candidates repackage themselves according to the latest polls and focus group studies, and what we think we see is not always what we get. Ergo, a repeat of what we had. So I think an onus of responsibility should also be placed on voters to be more discerning. Here is a kind of inventory that voters should ask themselves:

Do you want a candidate who can govern effectively or one you can have a beer with?

Are you susceptible to propaganda, sloganeering, and sound bites, or do you read in search of veracity?

Are you swayed by artifice or authenticity?

Do you equate strength with arrogance or humility?

Voters should understand that elections are about "conquest and control" (no matter who wins); that all governments have a "primordial mean streak" and will violate their own stated principles when confronted with crisis. So the question is: Whose controls are more acceptable to you?

When I consider these criteria, I am able to narrow the field of candidates to one (not exactly one of the front-runners), but at least one in whom I have confidence. Unfortunately, we always get one based on popularity and consensus, never our first choice.

By ECOPHOTOS, at 12:09 AM

I close with some quick random thoughts. Senator Clinton's words seemed just exactly right for the moment. Senator Biden's words had a great deal of authority based on his vast knowledge. Senator Dodd's early words during a phone call with MSNBC carried a great deal of authoritative wisdom and subtlety. On the other hand, I was not impressed with John Edwards' report of a phone call directly to President Musharraf. Nor was I impressed by Senator McCain's litany of how much he knows about the situation, nor by Governor Romney's fear-mongering style of rhetoric. I plan to use Ecophotos' template for further study of all our candidates' potential for foreign policy leadership, based on their take on the current news from Pakistan.

My link to this article, "Non-violent protest has gone on line," in Common Dreams somehow seemed appropriate for today's post. It came to my notice a few weeks ago from my friend, "betmo," who always has a unique thoughts.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

On the eve of elections

By Carol Gee

"Pakistan's Bhutto killed in gun, bomb attack," is Reuters' sad, sad headline. To quote:

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Thursday, her party said.

"She has been martyred," said party official Rehman Malik.

Bhutto, 54, died in hospital in Rawalpindi. Ary-One Television said she had been shot in the head.

Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up.

The attack came just a few days before presidential elections were to be held in Pakistan on January 8. The video came into the MSNBC studio raw, bloody and unedited. News reporters and analysts, Mika Brzezinski and Andrea Mitchell are calling the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, this very brave woman, an "incredible tragedy." Earlier Madeleine Albright spoke eloquently about the tragic circumstances of her death, and commented on how difficult and delicate it was to discuss the very disturbing and complex Pakistani situation. Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute, called it a potential "failing state."

"Who do you want in the White House when something like this happens," asks Brzezinski's sidekick, Joe Scarborough, another of MSNBC's talking heads who immediately put his finger on the related U.S. election question. All the U.S. presidential candidates will be making statements about this very significant development. The first just came in from Rudy Giuliani, whose candidacy will inevitably be affected by the tragedy halfway around the world, because of his association with New York after the 9/11 attacks.

The two presidents have not yet made their statements. President Bush will speak at 11:00 AM, and President Musharraf reportedly "condemned the killing and urged calm."

I close this post with a report that Mika, who is doing a very good job, is now interviewing her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser, for his views. He is pulling no punches with his comments critical of the current administration. It will be very interesting to listen to our candidates on both sides of the political aisle. We again get a chance to assess their leadership skills.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

To war or not to war

By Carol Gee

"Pheromones Identified that Trigger Aggression between Male Mice." This is the headline just in from the NIH News. The National Institutes of Health are in the business of basic research. I would call the findings just announced as very basic (emphasis mine). To quote:

A family of proteins commonly found in mouse urine is able to trigger fighting between male mice, a study in the Dec. 6, 2007, issue of Nature has found. The study, which is the first to identify protein pheromones responsible for the aggression response in mice, was funded in part by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), one of the National Institutes of Health. Pheromones are chemical cues that are released into the air, secreted from glands, or excreted in urine and picked up by animals of the same species, initiating various social and reproductive behaviors.

"Although the pheromones identified in this research are not produced by humans, the regions of the brain that are tied to behavior are the same for mice and people. Consequently, this research may one day contribute to our understanding of the neural pathways that play a role in human behavior," says James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., director of the NIDCD. "Much is known about how pheromones work in the insect world, but we know very little about how these chemicals can influence behavior in mammals and other vertebrates."

. . . [Stowers] "a bar code of individuality for each mouse. And we don't know whether the proteins are actually coding for aggression per se, or whether they're serving as a general cue of individuality for a male."

If the latter is the case, it could help explain why, unlike the males, female mice don't show aggression when with a male. In addition to investigating this question further, the team plans to explore how receptor neurons sift through all of the cues in the environment to detect the relevant cues to influence behavior and how those sensory neurons are connected to the rest of the brain. They also hope to learn more about the neural pathway itself — whether one pathway in the brain is dedicated to one behavior, or whether there are general pathways that can lead to a range of behaviors, which may be modulated by a specific pheromone.

. . . The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases.

I am a elder female mouse, non-aggressive, though my readers at the opposite end of the political spectrum might disagree. Since I was in high school I have been fascinated with why men go to war. I read cheap novels and short stories about dogfights in the sky. I also read "From Here to Eternity," by James Jones (1951); "The Naked and the Dead," by Norman Mailer (1948), and "The Cruel Sea," by Nicholas Monsarrat (1951). And I remain fascinated; so far I have written 446 S/SW posts containing the word "war".

The question about human pheromones is very pertinent here, according to Science News Online and, of course, Wikipedia. As a mental health practitioner, over the years it became much more clear to me how much of human behavior is deeply entrenched in biology. That awareness makes me feel both discouraged and encouraged about the discovery of aggression pheromones in male mice.

Discouragement arises at the possibility that humans may be hard-wired with aggression proclivities. Today's news from the Middle East would certainly argue for that position. However, unless built-in aggression is nature's form of population control in the face of limited natural resources, I just cannot allow myself to believe that we are destined to be at war forever on this teeny little planet.

Recent news from The Financial Times, about an agreement on how to proceed with global cooperation to mitigate threatening climate change, is very encouraging. I feel relieved because I believe that information is power. And I feel more encouraged when I remember that one of our most endearing human qualities is to respond to "our better angels" within. Have a good weekend.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition

By Capt. Fogg

He pulled out his gun and then he said,
If you make a crooked move, you both fall dead.

. . . He loved the women and he hated the law
and he just wouldn't take nobody's jaw.

Doc Watson, Otto Wood the Bandit

___________

When I first heard that a Texan by the name of Joe Horn had shot and killed two men he saw exiting his neighbor's house carrying a bag, my reaction was that he was a long way outside the "castle doctrine" law that allows one to defend one's life with deadly force without the requirement to wait until an intruder shoots you or to first attempt to flee.

At least in Florida, my state of residence, this law does not allow one to shoot someone to protect property or to shoot someone in the back as he runs away. Air America spent a lot of time yesterday discussing this case and listening to the callers, two things struck me forcibly: In Texas it's legal to kill somebody over a watch or a toaster, even if he's no threat and is running away, and that public sentiment seems to back the idea that anyone can shoot anyone observed to be engaging in criminal activity even long after the crime has been committed.

Just how far down the freeway of fear have we traveled that one reads comments in The New York Times like these:

His actions were absolutely and inflariously [sic] justified. It was his Christian duty to protect and defend his neighbor.

Anyone who breaks into someone's home with the intent to steal, rape or whatever is a worthless human being and deserves to be shot.

so as far as i [sic] am concerned, the thieves gave up their right to life when they broke into someone elses [sic] home.

The idea that theft is a capital offense and that any witness has the right to enforce capital punishment without even a casual nod to due process or Jesus is something that would have been radical in the illegal mining camp of Deadwood in 1875. Do I have to admit, after half a century of believing in the basic decency of most people, that all that now separates my fellow Americans from unprincipled savages is the threat of violence at the hands of the law?

Of course, the years of Republican fearmongering have had an effect. Of course years of Reganite insistence that Government has no answers to any problem have had an effect. Years of declining violent crime rates have done nothing to convince much of the rabble that civilization itself is not the culprit and that the wages of lawbreaking is and should be instant death by the hands of any vigilante or self appointed deputy with the few hundred bucks it takes to buy a decent firearm. Of course, this case has been further inflamed by the fact that the burglars were illegal aliens and you'll read that fact cited in may of the arguments that such people have no rights at all much less the right to remain alive.

As for now, I still cling to my childish naivete, but I'm coming close to the point where I will have to declare that I live in a nation of vicious, bloodthirsty, bigoted, and stupid cowards more like a baboon troop than a nation.

(Cross-posted from The Impolitic.)

The explanation: PTSD

By Carol Gee

On 9/11/2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists within our own territory. It was shocking and for its victims and the rest of us, and it was mostly unexpected. In my opinion, as a result the nation has experienced -- and is still experiencing -- the symptoms of PTSD.

A disclaimer to begin this post -- First, I in no way, want to minimize the trauma done to the nation by the terrible terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Almost three thousand people died that day and thereafter, and every one of those lost lives was precious. Second, I in no way want to minimize the current national security threat posed by al Qaeda and its offshoot adherents. It is serious.

When an individual experiences an unexpected traumatic event, or repeatedly experiences trauma, Post Traumatic Stress can develop into a Disorder. The symptoms of PTSD include: reaction to a precipitating event; withdrawal; apathy (lack of interest in life); difficulty concentrating; anger; sleeping problems; fatigue; irritability; fear/hyper-vigilence; recurrent intrusive thoughts/recollections; recurrent distressing dreams; rage; intense fear, helplessness, horror; intrusions; flashbacks; intense psychological reaction at exposure; intense physiological reaction at exposure; restricted affect; or exaggerated startle response.

After our nation experienced an unexpected traumatic series of events on that September day six years ago, a significant percentage of the population is still experiencing these symptoms (with my examples): over-reaction to that precipitating event (administration subversion of civil-liberties protections), our apathy (low voter turnout at elections or boycotting the news), difficulty concentrating (mainstream media's failure to investigate wrong-doing), anger (Bush attacking Iraq), our fatigue (blogger burnout), irritability (partisanship in Congress), fear/hyper-vigilence (extended "Yellow" official threat level), our recurrent intrusive recollections (precipitated by 9/11 anniversary news coverage or administration code phrases), rage (Bush threats of attack towards Iran), helplessness (Congress capitulation to administration demands), horror (administration officials capitulation to "blood on your hands" threats), restricted affect (Vice President Dick Cheney), or exaggerated startle response (Blackwater).

Better treatments for PTSD are being researched by the military, as traumatized soldiers, sailors, etc. come home from combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. One would wish that the benefits of that research could be applied to our nation's recovery after trauma. One would wish that our leaders, who are supposed to provide healing, do not re-traumatize citizens with inappropriate interventions. One would wish that the Fourth Estate (the media) on our behalf would rigorously question those in charge of treatment choices (government actions). One would wish that our elected representatives would advocate for us as they negotiate with Leaders exhibiting the most obvious PTSD symptoms. One would wish that voters would ascertain which of the candidates for U.S. President has the fewest symptoms of PTSD.

A third disclaimer ends this post. I have compassion for all of us who are victims of PTSD, including the members of the Bush administration whose decisions continue to reflect lack of healing, caving Democrats, cowed members of the media, fearful voters, and apathetic judges. I also have compassion for my own obsessive tendencies towards an over-focus on the issues of civil liberties (the PTSD symptom is recurrent intrusions/recollections).

The thing is this. This national trauma seems to be similar to the same way that rape and incest victims, members of the military who have experienced the horrors of war over and over, or someone just fresh from a bad car accident, cannot help what symptoms they are having. But just like individuals with PTSD, leading groups in the nation need to go about getting some healing, regaining some perspective, fighting the actual enemies, and getting on with the business of the country.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Deus ex Video

By Capt. Fogg

God loves slaughter. Never mind that stuff we tell you about Jesus and love-thy-neighbor; God not only likes you to kill, he'll sometimes hate you if you don't. I'm not just talking about the battle of Jericho, I'm talking about God II, Deus ex Video, the shoot'em up game called Halo.

Microsoft's latest version hit $300,000,000 in sales in its first two weeks and at first glance, you'd think it was the sort of thing that Fundamentalists as well as actual Christians would hate. It not only takes place in worlds the Bible does not discuss, but it's all about the thrill of killing and kids love the wanton destruction of life so much they'll put up with lectures about God and his upcoming first person shooter called Armageddon. Even more so if there's free pizza.

This morning's Times tells us about the hundreds of Churches around the country offering free access to the violent video game on big screen TVs to lure kids into indoctrination. In Denver, the Colorado Community Church uses the joy of wholesale slaughter to lure pre-teens. “We want to make it hard for teenagers to go to hell,” says the youth minister. Of course other Churchmen are raising holy hell, metaphorically speaking. “If you want to connect with young teenage boys and drag them into church, free alcohol and pornographic movies would do it,” said James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and he's right.

Of course this is America and what makes money is what is right and the business of religion is business and if it gets asses onto church pews and donations onto the plate it's good. All that's needed is a better video game more in line with the Bible; its drownings, burnings, stonings, floggings, hangings, and disembowelments. Why go looking for alien worlds when you have all the mayhem you need right there? As for going to hell, Microsoft is planning to release that one for the Xbox in time for Christmas.

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

Numbing the effects of Mideast violence in 5 easy lessons

By Carol Gee

Internet news space routinely covers the unsettling facts of death and destruction in the Middle East. Sometimes it is a routine recitation of the numbers, such as a Financial Times story about 1) the crisis in Pakistan.

Sunday and Monday from my desk - As I scanned a number of stories, I was struck by sentences that felt out of place in the pieces. Buried in the middle of the articles, were jarring short sentences marked by banality and minimization. Note the following italicized segments of article quotes that are marvels of understatement focused on economics, mere politics and confusing statistical information.

How to psychologically numb out in five easy lessons. The news over the past few years has been traumatizing. But we have become numb to it as a way of defending against the enormity of actual reality. The following citations are illustrations of why this happens.

Understating the obvious: 2) Anyone traveling to Kirkuk this Monday took their lives in their hands. Unfortunate locals and visitors lost their lives in a coordinated attack, terrible in its effectiveness. Reuters' matter of fact news service story does not begin to adequately convey the carnage. Now an everyday reality in this misbegotten war, it is intensely personal to victims and their families. Buried in the story is the political understatement of the year. To quote,

At least 80 people were killed on Monday in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk in a coordinated attack by a suicide truck bomber in a crowded market and a separate car bomb parked on a busy street, police said.

. . . Iraqi police said 136 people were wounded in the Kirkuk blasts and warned that the death toll could rise further.

. . . Time is pressing. Many Americans want their soldiers to come home soon and senior members of Bush's own Republican Party have broken ranks to call for a change of war strategy.

Violence drives stocks lower: 3) How often have we heard about the connection between war and the economy? Here it seems to also be true in Pakistan, of all places. Yahoo! News carried this recent story from Pakistan about the statistics in the aftermath of Sunday's suicide bombings. To quote,

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani investigators were hunting on Monday for links between a surge of violence in the northwest and an assault on a mosque in the capital as the death toll from two suicide-bomb attacks on Sunday rose to 45.

Nearly 100 people, most of them members of the security forces, have been killed in attacks in the northwest since July 3 when government forces surrounded Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, after clashes erupted. There are also fears the collapse of a 10-month pact with militants in the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border would lead to more violence.

. . . Pakistan's main stock index closed 1.81 percent lower on worry over the violence, dealers said.

Try to keep this straight in your head: 4) One of the most fascinating stories came from the New York Times. Headlined, "Mistrust as Iraqi Troops Encounter New U.S. Allies," it detailed the dizzingly intricate web of changing alliances amongst the combatants in Iraq. We cannot fathom the connections, nor can the decision makers in Washington. It speaks to the heart of the problem with placing U.S. troops in the middle of a very complicated civil war that takes the lives of innumerable Iraqis and 3000+ members of the American military. To quote,

Abu Azzam says the 2,300 men in his movement include members of fierce Sunni groups like the 1920s Revolutionary Brigade and the Mujahedeen Army that have fought the American occupation. Now his men patrol alongside the Americans, who want to turn them into a security force that can bring peace to this stretch between Baghdad and Falluja.

A few miles away, in the town of Abu Ghraib, Brig. Gen. Nassir al-Hiti and his brigade of Iraqi Army soldiers also have the support of the American military. But they have a different ambition, some American commanders here say: doing everything they can to undermine Abu Azzam’s men, even using a stolen membership list to single them out for wrongful detention.

. . . The gulf between Abu Azzam’s men and the Iraqi soldiers remains vast, with American troops sometimes having to physically intercede. And it is an unmistakable caution that the full depths of the problems facing Iraq cannot be measured in the statistics about insurgent attacks and sectarian killings that carry so much weight in Washington.

Political progress unsatisfactory. . . No kidding! 5) The Iraqi parliament is taking August off, but, wisely, the U.S. congress has remained in session. Neither body has made much progress in ending the war in Iraq. This weekend brought us more marvelous minimizations from the Bush administration. The Financial Times headlined, "US politicians unite on anger over Maliki" Quote,

Longstanding US frustration with the government of Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, erupted after the White House admitted last week that political progress in the country was unsatisfactory.

. . . In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Bush pointed to signs that this year’s US troop build-up was beginning to increase security. “Our strategy is built on the premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress,” he said.

But with Iraqi lawmakers on vacation in August, the chances of a political breakthrough before September appear slim. Tony Snow, White House press secretary, defended the parliament’s month-long break, pointing out that August temperatures in Baghdad can reach 54°C . Critics noted that US troops would have no such respite from the savage heat.

Well, there you go. Five. Are you numb yet?

(Cross-posted in extended version at South by Southwest.)

Back to the doctors

By Carol Gee

The medical backgrounds of the alleged terrorists recently arrested in the United Kingdom have been items of fascination for the great number of readers interested in my recent post here at The Reaction, "The irony of doctor/terrorists." I, too, remain fascinated, so today I return to the subject in much more depth.

Yesterday Great Britain lowered the "terror alert" level. Having detained a significant number of suspects, officials have stepped down just a bit. According to Stephen Fidler and Christopher Adams of The Financial Times, "Terrorist alert eased but threat persists." To quote from the story:

The terrorist threat level has been cut from the maximum, signalling that counter-terrorism officials believe a cell responsible for three failed car bomb attacks over the past week has been largely wrapped up.

...Security officials confirmed that investigators believed the main actors in the ring had been taken into custody. Eight people have been detained, all of whom have worked for the National Health Service and of which seven were doctors or trainee medics. Six were from the Middle East and two from India.

...The investigation would look into possible connections between the alleged plotters and others overseas, and examine the suspects' work history while in hospital to see if any of them used their positions for terrorist actions.

One of the eight -- a 27-year-old Indian doctor called Mohamed Haneef -- was still being held yesterday in Australia... Another Indian doctor, also recruited from the UK and who had worked alongside Dr Haneef in Australia, was released without charge.

In a strange way it is a very small world. After hearing about the UK terrorist crisis, I wanted to read what one of my good blogger friends thought about doctors as terrorists. Originally from Basra, Iraq, by way of immigration to Australia, then to the U.S., Fayrouz in Beaumont wrote this (7/4/07 -- from which I quote a portion) about "The terrorist doctors":

"Those who cure you are going to kill you.” That was the cryptic message from an Al-Qaida chief to an Anglican priest who tries to bring Iraqi sectors together. The latest wave of terror in Britain solidified my belief that the main goal of terrorism is to change our way of life. The second goal is to make us distrust each other.

...What's more shocking is the Iraqi doctors who were part of the new cell of terror. Just in time to screw up the hopes of many decent Iraqi doctors who want to make a future in Britain and other Western countries.

Now that Al-Qaida turned our attention toward Middle-Eastern doctors working in the West, I bet it's going to turn its efforts to recruit other unsuspected professionals of Middle Eastern background. They may be nurses, teachers, athletes, actors, professional women or even journalists. The terrorist recruiters and planners would do anything to build more mistrust among us.

I know that I won't change my way of life in the West. I won't let the terrorists take it from me.

We are still mystified by the idea of physicans becoming terrorists. Medical doctors belong to the helping professions, in my mind. As a middle class college student I was "socialized" into my profession - that of social work. I was taught the proud history of one of the "helping professions." I was required to be non judgemental, to follow strict ethical principles, to avoid acting outside of my area of expertise, etc. Thus another headline caught my eye, (for a story by Stephen Fidler and Roula Khalaf in The Financial Times, July 3 2007), "Suspects raise profile of ‘middle-class’ radicals." To quote:

British security services and policymakers face a critical question over the three failed bomb attacks in Glasgow and London. If the main suspects came from outside the UK, were they radicalised overseas or in Britain?

...Regardless of where they were radicalised, their background appears to be decidedly middle-class.

Militants from comfortable backgrounds have dominated the upper echelons of the al-Qaeda network since its inception. Osama bin Laden hails from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia -- the bin Laden group is one of the biggest contractors in the kingdom -- and he is known to have earned a degree, perhaps in civil engineering, from the King Abdelaziz University in the Red Sea port of Jeddah.

...His number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, meanwhile, came from a professional, middle-class family and followed in his father’s footsteps by studying pharmacology at the University of Cairo. Mr al-Zawahiri’s predecessor as leader of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad organisation, Sayyed Imam al Sherif, is said to have been a surgeon. Mr al-Sherif now leads a campaign against violence. Meanwhile, Abdallah Azzam, a Palestinian, and early leaders of the global jihadi movement killed in 1989, studied agriculture in college before turning to sharia law.

“The profile of a poor, destitute jihadi is not accurate,” says Dia Rashwan, expert on Islamist groups at Cairo’s al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies. “Notice how jihadis are good at IT -- and how they set up websites.”

The threat persists -- The most I have learned about what might be going on that could cause this phenomena is from a professor who has made a deep study of jihadis, who they are and what they are about. I watched her on C-SPAN last year. Professor Mary Habeck was also featured at Georgetown University's Women in International Security event, "Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror," October 26, 2005. I quote from the program summary:

Mary Habeck present the logic of al-Qa'ida and like-minded extremist groups by which they justify September 11th and other terrorist attacks.

...This book provided the background of the afternoon’s discussion on Islam, jihadism, and the mindset of jihadist terrorists. Habeck argued that after September 11, 2001, “Americans agonized over why nineteen men hated the United States enough to kill three thousand civilians in an unprovoked assault. Analysts have offered a wide variety of explanations for the attack, but the one voice missing is that of the terrorists themselves.” She delved into the history and root beliefs of Islam and showed the group how jihadists twist the meaning and intent of Islamic law to suit their own needs. She delineated the paradoxes among traditional tenets of Islam, more radical Islamist beliefs, and those ascribed to by jihadists.

Habeck described jihadism’s aberrant view of tawhid, the central belief of Islam (that there is only one god and he has no partners or equals), and its equally aberrant view of jihad. She discussed the political, ideological, and military goals of jihadists and articulated the appeal that jihadism has to those who believe in it:

It claims to be the only authentic version of Islam;
Jihadists are sacrificing their lives for their community;
They are doing something to attain revenge and retribution for the aggression they feel has been waged against them by secular society; and
Jihadism offers certain salvation and participation in liberation.

Habeck then discussed the problems with jihadism, and the real threat that it poses to the Muslim community:

Jihadists kill fellow Muslims and innocents;
They use terror in the name of Islam;
Their definition of jihad is difficult to swallow;
Jihadists declare takfir – declaring all Muslims that do not ascribe to their version of jihad (and other non-believers) as unbelievers who are unworthy of life and are non-human (They are thus divorced, and can have their property seized in the name of jihad);
They mix Islam and politics;
They ascribe to extremist shari’a;
They cross-fertilize wahabism and jihadism to form Wala’ wa’l bara (This is a prescription to love the believers and hate the non-believers–and distance yourselves from them and always hate them in your heart); and
Jihadists hold an aberrant view of tawhid.

But just what is the threat? I am not usually a fan of Christopher Hitchins. But he wrote something on 7/2/07 for Slate Magazine that raised some further questions for me. "Car bombs designed to kill women," was the headline. I am not sure whether I agree or disagree. But of one thing I am sure, it is a big mistake to over-generalize, or fall into stereotypical thinking that paints with far too broad a brush. Because one thing is true, the next thing does not necessarily follow. Misogyny is not the same as suicidal radical jihad. It may be a part of it, but somehow does not seem enough to explain the London and Glasgow events. In conclusion, I believe that we must be willing to learn an awful lot more about the minds of terrorists before we can be the least bit effective against their implacability.

Strong "Community" -- elusive Middle East goal

By Carol Gee

Cross-border conflicts continue to be the stuff of Middle East headlines this week. Violence and angry words, mixed messages from our current president (OCP), splits within Congress, and Iraqis becoming more and more factionalized, all characterize today's reality.

The world is favoring more and more fences, it seems, between members of groups. Rather than finding the common ground enabling them to tolerate the existence of the other at minimum, they split into smaller and smaller units of trust. They have no knowledge of how to be in community, in the best sense of the word. The news in the following stories causes me to think that far too many people desire to apart from each other.

Poor leadership in recent years has made the Middle East situation much worse. The leadership community of George W. Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashaal, Ehud Olhmert, Fuad Signiora, Nuri al-Malaki and Moqtada al-Sadr are collectively among the weakest of leaders. Lacking in diplomatic or visionary skills, these men rely on military or covert operations, or terrorism, at worst to wield power. They fail to deal with terrorism in smart and effective ways. And they fail to anticipate the unintended consequences of over-reliance on "democracy" and free elections to cure the region's problems. In short, none of these leaders seem capable of "being in community."

Cross-border attack -- There is a vacuum of diplomatic leadership and involvement in Lebanon on the part of the U.S. government. From Aljazeera.net comes this inevitable headline: "Rockets from Lebanon hit Israel" (6/17/07). To quote:

Katyusha rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon in the first cross-border attack since last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah...

Israel responded with five artillery shells into southern Lebanon, Lebanese security forces said, but an Israeli army spokesman denied the shelling was aimed at Lebanese territory, calling the exercise "artillery calibration fire" using empty shells fired into Israeli territory...

Fuad Siniora, Lebanon's prime minister, said the attack had "political goals" and was aimed at destabilising Lebanon by casting doubts about the ability of the army and the UN peacekeeping force in South Lebanon to protect the border zone.

No mediation to be given -- In the understatement of the year regarding lack of U.S. attention to the mid-east region, The Financial Times headlined, "US, Israel promise support for Abbas" (6/19/07). To quote:

It was not the job of the US president to mediate between Israel and Syria, Mr Olmert quoted Mr Bush as saying. “He has got many other things to do,” the Israeli prime minister said at a joint press conference.

"First Muslim Rep. mends global fences" is the headline from Politico (6/19/07). The only Muslim in the U.S. congress has modeled a conciliatory spirit and working hard to solve problems. Our current president could take a lesson from his style. To quote:

With a few short words, Rep. Keith Ellison had just stunned a joint session of Congress. Last March, Jordan's King Abdullah II had concluded his address in the House chambers with the traditional Arabic salutation, "as-salaam 'aleikum," which means, "Peace be unto you."

Ellison, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota and the first Muslim in Congress, instinctively replied, "wa 'aleikum as-salaam" -- "And to you be peace"...

A self-proclaimed "bleeding-heart liberal," Ellison says he wants to make a name for himself not just as a Muslim, but by pushing for better health care, reducing poverty, ending the war in Iraq -- and tackling predatory lending practices.

No reconciliation -- Aljazeera headlined, "Abbas rules out talks with Hamas" (6/20/07). The United States abandoned peace efforts between Israel and Palestine when the current administration came into power. This story is the tragic result. To quote:

The Palestinian president has ruled out talks with the Hamas movement which he accused of trying to assassinate him and of carrying out a coup in the Gaza Strip...

Abbas said Hamas replaced the "national project" with "its project of darkness", attacking the symbols of government in Gaza, including the house of the late leader Yasser Arafat.

[Abbas continued]: "It's a fight between the national project and this small kingdom they want to establish in Gaza, the kingdom of Gaza, between those who are using assassination and killing to achieve their goals, and those who are using the rules of law."

Egypt provides leadership -- Once again the vacuum left by the U.S. lack of diplomatic effort in the Middle East is apparent. From Israel's Haaretz, "Egypt to host Olmert-Abbas summit next week" (6/21/07). To quote:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has invited Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah II to attend a summit in Egypt early next week, a senior aide to Abbas said Thursday.

The meeting will focus on bolstering Abbas and opening diplomatic channels between Abbas and Olmert, following the Hamas takeover in the Gaza Strip last week and the establishment of an emergency government in Ramallah over the weekend...

Olmert reached an understanding with United States President George W. Bush during his visit to Washington on Tuesday that it is necessary to support Abbas, a senior political source in Jerusalem said Wednesday.

Shiites fight -- Bogged down in an increasingly factionalized Iraq, the current administration seems incapable of taking in the implications of this reality. From The New York Times came this very sad headline: "Shiite Rivalries Slash at a Once Calm Iraqi City" (6/21/07), from which I quote:

The Shiite heartland of southern Iraq has generally been an oasis of calm in contrast to Baghdad and the central part of the country, but now violence is convulsing this city. Shiites are killing and kidnapping other Shiites, the police force is made up of competing militias and the inner city is a web of impoverished streets where idealized portraits of young men, killed in recent gun battles with Iraqi and American troops, hang from signposts above empty lots.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)