Saturday, July 26, 2008

Three Songs

"Change we can believe in is back." It went away? Apparently. But I ask you, friends, who will rise up for change we can't believe in? Who speaks for the Alchemist?

"When will it end, oh lord, when will it end?" A few days ago, I heard Benny Morris on NPR, further expounding his view that Israel would soon bomb Iran, unless the US got their first. To his credit, Robert Siegel stepped right up with the "Stalin and Mao were deterrable; why not the Ayatollah Khamenei?" line of questioning, to which we got the fantastic(al) reply, with which we're all now quite familiar: the Soviets and Chinese were murderous, but rational. Meanwhile the Iranians are driven by religious zealotry, and care not for their own self-preservation, whereas Mao, for instance, he mighta killed forty million people, but that guy, he was rational. I eagerly await Doc Morris' take on the Khemer Rouge. It's an interesting spectrum: rational and very murderous vs. irrational and not so very murderous. I do not accede to the notion that the Iranian government is somehow less rational than any other, but I do wonder why irrational, illogical, unpredictable, waxing-and-waning bellicosity is to be considered so much more . . . existentially threatening than our various and sundry vast, monomaniacally ideological evil empires?

On a final, unrelated note, will someone please explain to these sociologists that the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't accurately describe the contemporary understanding of evolution, that it represents an hypothesis by a genius who nevertheless lacked the tools, accumulated knowledge, observational data, etc. to describe the mechanisms of the process he discovered; that for a man in a time before genetics or modern biochemistry, it wasn't all that unlike Newton's ether, say. In any case, the idea that we should seek to countermand students' impressions that the "survival of the fittest" is a valid social model, well, that's not an argument for changing the evolution curriculum, but an argument for abolishing school.

18 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

um, like, why is Osama in hiding?

Brian said...

Abolish school? That means the yout's would be running 'round free all day, getting on my lawn and such.

Plus, how will the yoput's be trained for a life in a cubicle? Hmmmm, Mr. Ioz? You are proposing anarchy...anarchy, I say!

Anonymous said...

benny morris is an interesting character . a first rate historian who did more than any one else to punch a big hole is propaganda little israel david vs them evil arab goliath in 1948 .
and an ultra ( at least lately ) likudnik .
badri

Ashley said...

Change we can believe in is extremely important. That must be qualified though. Change we can believe in is extremely important as long as the belief is honest.

Phillip Allen said...

Morris is a strange one. Like badri said, he was (and in some respects remains) a legitimate historian, and was responsible for clearly detailing the attitudes, policies and tactics of the Zionist movement, then government as regards the forced removal of the Palestinians, destruction of villages, etc. of 1948, and the annexation policies in the OPT from 1967 on.

He was an Oslo partisan, and his unhinging began when the Palestinian people saw how little that agreement meant to their needs and aspirations - thus launching the Second Uprising. It seems to me that when it became clear that the Palestinians were not going to stay content with the deformed pseudo-sovereign status offered in the Oslo accords (when and if Israel was ever going to fulfill them), Bennie's panties got bunched and he started having nightmares. It's not enough that his dream of a Palestinenfrei Grossisrael was kaput. The idea of an Islamic state not under US/Israeli domination with even the possibility of acquiring the knowledge necessary to produce nuclear weapons -- thereby countering Israel's nuclear terrorism and regional dominance has sent him well within the right wing of Likud, Beitanu Yisroel, et. al.

Morris is a legitimate historian in that he related facts with meticulous sources documenting things that the Israeli state would rather have kept camouflaged for international PR reasons. He's got no problem at all with the ethnic cleansing, the expulsions, the demolitions, the expropriations, or any of it.

That he has come to a point where he thinks that an Israeli conventional attack against Iran is the best possible solution should be seen as a symptom of some terrible brain disorder requiring immediate institutionalization. That he is afforded the respect he is, in Israel, the New York Times, NPR etc. is nauseating and horrific.

TGGP said...

"Survival of the fittest" was a phrase that predates Darwin's theory, and is actually Lamarckian. Everything you know about social darwinism is wrong.

TS said...

It would actually imply abolishing everything (the state included). Why should certain individuals be deemed more "fit" because they can acquire protection by patents, or the police.

I actually posted the cryptic comment on TGGP's blog "Post hoc ergo proptor hoc", meaning essentially that the winners in the social darwinic sweepstakes can make up any crazy reason they want for why they're driving a Lamborghini and two billion people can barely feed themselves.

But there is no "social darwinism" in the general sense. There is no analogue to the way creatures adapt to their physical environment, propagate and perpetuate themselves (or not), versus a wholly seperate, artificial social construct which can change at any time.

Cold blooded creatures need the sun for heat. If there ain't no sun, the FDIC can't bail them out.

Crusader AXE of the Lost Causes said...

IOZ has a great point on the "Mao was rational, the Ayatollahs are not" line of crap. How many wars has Iran started in the 29 years or so of the Iranian revolution? They didn't start the war with Saddam; they have avoided getting into shooting wars with the other Arab states and with us, despite sanctions and in the downing of a passenger jet by accident which would probably be provocative enough to drive our current gang of thieves, murderers and child rapists into apoplexy.

No, the right that wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is judging the Iranian clerics against the standards of Pat, Jerry, James, Jimmy and the rest of the end-timers. In other words, they're not rational, so why should the Iranians be rational?

What the hell. Deus vult! Inishallah...and off we go.

Anonymous said...

i assume ioz has caught this previously, but since it's being reintroduced, would now be a good time to point out that it should really be: "change in which we can believe"?

Anonymous said...

Ah, but Obama wants to talk with them - you know, rationally and all - so long as they come out of those talks with the understanding that they do exactly as we tell them, or, as the great humanitarian put it, "then any action against them would be legitimate".

Any action? That's good to know. I guess it will make all the difference in the world whether the nukes we hit them with were launched by a Democrat rather than a Republican.

I think I'll go entertain myself by picking a fight with the Hullabatards over this.

Cüneyt said...

Crusader's got a simple but inescapable point. Who's attacked more of Iran's neighbors? Iran, or...

la Rana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
la Rana said...

OT, I felt myself sliding into a seizure after reading this. First a localized, dull pain appears just above your eyes, then you find yourself blinking for extended periods.

Anonymous said...

Hey IOZ, Goldstein! is supposedly retiring from blogging, and he's currently sending his minions around to swarm any blog that takes the opportunity to have a few laughs at his expense, so why don't you get yourself a little of that action? Maybe you'll get the legendary cockslap threat if you really needle him!

Christopher said...

"They could explain that students should not make an "ought" about human behavior from an "is" of nature and that competition in contemporary society will not lead to increased survival rates...

We recognize that, ultimately, we are asking teachers to shoulder yet another burden."


Which of these statements makes sense:

A) If the theory of evolution is correct, then the only conclusion can be that kindness and altruism are immoral.

B)If the theory of gravitation is true, then the only conclusion is that air travel is immoral.

Now, a great many Americans would say that A) makes perfect sense while B) is clearly insane.

This is a pretty monumental failure of logic. As near as I can tell, thinking logically is not a skill that is comes naturally to most of us.

In my ideal school system, logic and the scientific method would be the cornerstones of the whole system, rather then an "added burden".

Learning how to think seems a lot better to me then learning what to think. I've actually become convinced that a lot of the world's problems could be solved if people just understood that we aren't a particularly rational species.

Montag said...

I don't know. I kinda like that many of us would run out into a busy street to get away from a barking dog, and that so many of us are more afraid of spiders than death. In a way it's sort of adorable.

two to the fighting eighth power said...

Recently I got into a discussion with a friend of mine on the topic of Iran. He said that the Iranian regime is composed of murderous irrational anti-Semites who will kill any Jews they can get their hands on. So I asked him why they had not already exterminated the 30.000 or so Jews still living in Iran, to which he replied: "I have no answer to this, but it is a very interesting problem." (He studies Political Science)

Thomas Daulton said...

Funny enough, if anyone wants backup, I just ran into two separate articles, each quite interesting, which support 2^[f8]'s point, above:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh07142008.html

But noooooo, nooooo, you don't understand, all Muslims are required to exterminate infidels, because Jonah said that Ann read it in the Koran somewhere.