LIARS AND BULLSHITTERS !!!

I'm referring here to mostly Arab regimes now in conflict with their people ie; the Syrian or Bahrainy regimes to name a few in the Arab world, but by no means the only example of bullshit regimes in the world, North Korea with it's own news and ways, is another very descriptive case of the bullshit regime in our world today. People and leaders are victims of the two categories as well.

Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them.

For most people, the fact that a statement is false constitutes in itself a reason, however weak, not to make the statement.

What a bullshitting regime essentially represent is not the state of affairs to which the regime refers to nor the beliefs of the regime or it's leaders.

The bullshitter regime ignores these demands( whether from it's people or it's own) altogether. It does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar regime does and oppose himself to it. The bullshitter regime pays no attention to truth at all, nor is such a regime interested in the truth. By virtue of this, bullshit regimes are a far greater enemy of the truth than liars are.

This same unfortunate state of affairs apply today very well to the United States own affairs, I'm of course referring to the electoral mood and arguments of a good number of Americans, republicans and others, voters or leaders, regarding the reelection of the actual President for office in 2012.



Thanks as usual for your time and patience, your comments are always welcome, salamat.

BEGGING THE QUESTION !!

Many hold political, religious or social opinions not because they have any reason to think them true, but just because they like the associations.

We live in mobile and complex societies, there is no need to feel bound to one style of thinking forever.

I must confess that since I started blogging and putting down my opinions and ideas, there has been no deep reform of my character. I still want to write those lines. It's just that what gets me so irritated and sometimes even angered doesn't seem to be of the least interest to the readers of my blog. Nor to my increasingly fewer friends, who yawn and roll their eyes as I explain my concerns.

What bothers me so much ??

Errors in reasoning, misconceptions, faulty or misleading reasoning, unsound arguments, confused or mistaken beliefs, call it what you want, you know the kind of thing I mean.

Why are we protesters so lonely ?? why don't we all complain to whoever else will listen ?

The simple answer is that most people don't notice the problem. When a car for instance, breaks down, anyone can see that it has, even if he or she knows nothing about how cars work. Reasoning is different. Unless you know how reasoning can go wrong, you can't see that it has. Which makes for huge numbers of innocent suckers, unable to resist the fake reasoning of those who want something from them, such as votes or money or devotion.

Covering those errors in reasoning that are commonly encountered, when discussing or debating controversial topics, drawn from politics, theology, business or the social, and wherever people engage in reasoned debate. Is what we ought to aim for.



Thanks for your time , and your understanding, and as usual salamat to all.

I'VE GOT A SIXTH SENSE ABOUT RESTAURANTS !!

Once inside they realised that the place specialised in crab dishes. The menu was written in English and Portuguese. Most of the customers were locals, and the prices were quite reasonable. According to the menu the area boasts dozens of varieties of crabs, with more than a hundred types of crab dishes. The man and the woman ordered local white wine, and after looking over what was available, selected several crab dishes and shared them. The portions were generous, the ingredients all fresh, the seasoning just right.

This is really good, the woman said impressed.

See? what'd I tell you?? I told you I have the power to find the best. now do you believe me?

Yup. Have to say I do, the woman admitted.

This kind of power really comes in handy, the man said. "you know, eating's much more important than most people think. There comes a time in your life when you've just got to have something super-delicious. And when you're standing at that crossroad, your whole life can change, depending on which one you go into - the good retaurant or the awful one, the good meal or the bad one. It's like, do you fall on this side of the fence, or the other one.

"Interesting", she said. Life can be pretty alarming and interesting, can't it?

"exactly" he said, and held up a mischievous look. "Life is an alarming and interesting thing. More than you can ever imagine".

The woman nodded. "And we happened to fall on the inside of the fence, didn't we"??

"exactly."

"That's good" the woman said dispassionately. "Do you like crabs?"

Mmm, I've always loved it. How about you?.

I love it, I wouldn't mind eating crab every day.

A new point we have in common, he beamed.

The woman smiled, and the two of them raised their glasses in another toast.

"We've got to come back tomorrow", he said ," there can't be many places like this in the world. I mean, it's so delicious - and look at the prices !!".




Haruki at his best, with some inspired amendments by me, salamat.

THE ARAB REGIMES !!!

The totalitarian regimes, like the fascists, or the fundamental Islamists, they all see force as necessary to effect the rule that they desire, reason is impotent; therefore force is the only instrument for survival.

The transformation of the countries into a totalitarian gangs saviors led regimes (Shabbiha) is bad news to the majority of Syrians, or similar Arab populations in other countries, and not only to them but to the international community and the west.

In this respect, a regime powered by it's armed and mostly semi legalized gangs is a form of neobarbarism. Civilisation is defined by the act of recognising another person as a human being. The definition of a barbarian is someone who cannot perform this act. Often because he has either come from or chosen a universe of meaning that does not contain the term "human being." If one is unable to recognize another person as a human being, then one does not know the difference between the human and the animal, confusion over these matters leads to slavery,human sacrifice, cannibalism, genocide and other horrors, such a regime is an engine of dehumanization, of turning other people into animals or less, in the name of this dark, neotribal leadership, one becomes a barbarian.

The regime's justice is not to be compared with the justice of man, a man may be considered to act unjustly by invading the position and rights of another, but no injustice can be conceived on the part of the regime or its leader. It is in his power as a leader to pour down torrents upon his people and mankind, and if he is to do this, his justice would not be questioned, there is nothing he can be tied to, nor can any injustice be supposed of him, nor can he be under any obligation to any person whatever.

It also means that the "moral" obligations that the regime sets upon man do not originate in reason, nor is there anything that the regime is obligated to do by reason. The leader can command what is evil to be good, or good to be evil. Reason has nothing to do with justice or morality. Only absolute regime will does matter.

Independent human reason implies a limit on the power of a regime or a leader, for if man could judge what is right and wrong, he could rule on what the regime in power could rightly prescribe for its subjects, and this in Syria and most of the Arab world,(including all of the gulf kingdoms and emirates)would be presumptuous and blasphemous.


Thanks for your time and patience, and my as always, salamat.

WE NEED TO ......

And yes, we need to rebuild America, and not Afghanistan and Iraq, or Israel for that matter, that's a very true statement, it's high time to start looking at our problems, and not everyone else, and not our so called allies who could turn into our enemies any time we don't suit their policies.


Again thanks for listening.

THE NATION"S SITUATION !!!

The US. government regularly prints money, as it is doing now to finance a colossal national dept, a direct result of a huge tax cut and a disastrous policy of waging wars. This is not a partisan rivalry or dispute; it is a condition decried by both liberal and conservatives alike, our children will pay for these decisions, and poor children will pay twice.

The idea that "for those able, the virtuous thing is to give voluntarily to the needy, unlucky or unable" is bogus, unproductive and unrealistic in a country and society as complex and large as ours. You can do this only with the help of institutions. Social planning is neither desirable nor undesirable; it is unavoidable and an absolute necessity in our world.

A decent society would order national priorities, it would make explicit decisions in diverse contexts and format, about national security, economic growth and employment, caring for the poor and sick, and for the environment.

We could for example, track existing experiments and policies in countries comparable to the United States that had nationalised health care, strict gun control, and social-protection programs.

Begging and charitable giving is not and should not be the policy nor part of the solutions.

What would happen if we took seriously the state-of-nature view romanticised by critics of social protection programs ?? Imagine the unregulated state, it is a dark and an impossible world, a world of food poisoning,drug fatalities, rampant crime,deceptive marketing, a world of unlimited ponzy schemes, chaotic highways, unaccountable sexism and racism, financial ruin caused by unscrupulous entrepreneurs, and constant fear in response to it all.

In a nation whose average household income, so far, exceeds basic needs, it would be a wonder if we weren't among the happiest of nations, and that should make us wonder why more than 70 percent of the US. population - mostly the poor and middle classes- struggle to ensure some of the most basic achievements of modern democracy, and why other liberal democracies are happier with far lower mean household incomes.

Now a days the administrative obstacles to construct a good and better society are greater than ever before. Again, there is a big difference between democracy in an early American village and democracy in a multi cultural, technologically sophisticated country of 300 million citizens.

In order to recover our trust in government, we need to see public officials constantly proposing enterprising ways to make our lives better, proposals to make us healthier, provide more leisure and vacations, more health protection, and in general, more real and effective opportunities and policies to correct the actual huge imbalances between the lower and higher echelons of citizenry, rather than mere freedom from the interference of others.



As usual I'm grateful to J. D. for his insight and inspiration, thanks and salamat

WE'RE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS

The slogan "you are entitled to your opinion" is so often repeated that it is almost impossible for the brain of a modern person not to have absorbed it. Before showing that this cliche is very tricky at best "Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but...." Here is a simple way of putting it, if the opinions to which we are entitled might be false,the entitlement cannot properly be invoked to settle a dispute. It adds no new information on the original matter, it does nothing to show that the opinion in question is true.It does not in fact make the entitlement to an opinion relevant in deciding who is correct in any dispute.

You are entitled to an opinion, in this sense, only when you have good reasons for holding it, evidence,sound arguments, and so on.

It is increasingly a part of a mindset that obstruct the free flow of ideas and their robust and correct values. Many people seem to feel that their opinions are somehow sacred, so that everyone else is obliged to handle them with great care. When confronted with counterarguments, they do not pause and wonder if they might be wrong after all, they take offense.

Does your right to your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to agree with you? NO, as others too, are entitled to their opinions, which might contradict yours. Just think of the practical implications. Everyone would have to change his mind every time he met someone with a different opinion, changing his religion, his politics, his eating and drinking habits.

Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you ? NO, many people have many opinions on many matters. You cannot walk through your normal day without hearing some enthusiast declaring his opinions on God or the Christian religion or the Zionist and imperialist conspiracy or some other topic of pressing concern, listening to them all is practically impossible, and not a duty.

Does your right or your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to let you keep it ? This is the closest to what I think most people mean and want when they claim a right to their opinion. They do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and have to change their position.

It's just that, on some topics, many people are not really interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turns out to be true.

Many of my friends, though not practicing members of their religions or not even accepting the many absurd details of their different sects, claim to believe in a "superior intelligence"or " something higher than us." Yet they will also cheerfully admit the absence of even a shred of evidence. Never mind. As truth really is not always the point,and it is very annoying to be pressed on the matter.

Finally to register all this, and to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare, " I am entitled to my opinion." Once we hear these words, one should realize that it is rude and inefficient to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true,but accept that they are not.

As usual my thanks go to Jamie for inspiring and contributing to these ideas, and as always thanks for your time and patience, salamat.

A VERSION OF OURSELVES !!!

My mother used to tell me for years, that when very young, I refused milk, her milk, or any other from different animals, a doctor at the time advised her to try and feed me with yogurt as a trial, it worked, I'm not sure whether it was the sour taste or the fermentation that I must have liked, but, that was the beginning, I'm still hooked to fermentation,

Everyone knows someone who has a so called eating disorder,and everyone knows about the the huge numbers of people in the world who are starving. Excess is everywhere now, excess of wealth and of poverty, of sex and greed, of violence and of religious belief.


When people are being extreme they push things to their limits, when they are being excessive they push things beyond their limits.


When we are excessive we depart from custom or reason, we overstep limits, we go beyond our rights, we involve in what the dictionary calls extravagant violation of law, decency or morality, we are guilty of outrageous conducts. When we are excessive, in whatever way, we depart from what is considered appropriate behavior, we go out from custom or reason, we abandon, the version of ourselves we are supposed to be.


And where do we get our standards of appropriate behavior, our pictures of ourselves as we are supposed to be ??? from societies, tribes and families we grew up in.


We should be able to enter into the minds and circumstances of those with opposing views to our own.


It's all a matter of balance, as A. Phillips worked hard to express, again thanks for your patience and time and salamat

J.J., IMMANUEL, FRIEDRICH, AND ME.....

MY, your, or our own odyssey ended in serene isolation and tranquil passivity.

To finally choose to will not to will, and simply to exist in a state of perfect indolence and listlessness.

In my present situation, " I no longer have any other rule of conduct than in everything to follow my propensity and inclinations without restraint."

To record in writing my daydreams and to savor select episodes from my past in the pages of my reveries, a good man lost in his thoughts, savoring anew those moments, brief and transient yet sweet. When I had felt most " perfectly free."

It is founded on daily Soul-searching, "one may say about this way of life what one will." People who take it seriously are distinguished in a way that is worthy of honor. They possess the highest qualities that a human being can possess, namely a calmness and pleasantness, an inner peace that can be disturbed by no obsession, passion or craze.

"The gentle but sensitive tranquility," of the philosopher is infinitely preferable to the euphoric elation and thrills dreamed of by the mystics.

His would be a philosophical life devoted to calm reasoning, impermeable by design to the caprices of strong feelings and unruly impulses.

All changes nowadays frightens me, even one that might offer a greater prospect of improvement in my circumstances.

All I have wanted is a situation in which my spirit, hypersensitive but in other respects carefree, and my body, more troublesome but never actually sick, can both be kept busy without being strained, and that is what I have managed to obtain.

to reach the conclusion that;"The unexamined life is not worth living."


Again many thanks for your patience with my ideas, opinions and my friends, salamat.

THROUGH THE EYES OF ROUSSEAU

Rousseau brings into play in his second Discourse, his great principle for "judging properly," the principle of freedom. Evil is essentially artificial,a product of society. As a result, there is no reason to suffer evil at all.

Instead, one can strengthen one's will, in order to resist the injustices of civilisation, the unfairness, the economic and social inequalities and discrimination against whole segments of the population. And in this way attain a measure of virtue and fairness. We can also exercise our free will justly and righteously in concert with others, in order to change the laws and the unjust conventions that lead a people to accept living under conditions of grotesque inequality and lack of basic human freedoms.

The ending is up to the people, their historical destiny is, to an uncertain but critical extent, in their hands. Such is the significance of being free. By rising up against a regime that would instill only " the blindest obedience."

Rousseau reminds us, a people acts only according to the natural order, by reasserting its essential freedom, and whatever the outcome of these revolutions, a new beginning, or a relapse into bad habits, as we are witnessing with different aspects nowadays in some countries. No one can complain about someone else's injustice, but only of his own imprudence or his misfortune.

A new way of thinking about the human condition is appearing in the Arab world, despite the gloomy description of mankind's decline and fall. The principle of freedom dawned on the Arab world, and gave infinite strength to man, who thus perceived himself as great and limitless.

Inspired from a text by J. Miller about J.J. Rousseau. thanks for your patience and salamat.

" TO LOVE... !!! "

What is real love ? I'll tell you what I think real love is. I'll draw you couple scenes, and then you can form your own conclusions.

What do most of us really know about love, it seems to me we just pass by love, and always begin love and end it as easily.

We say we love each other and we do, I don't doubt it. I love my wife and my wife loves me, and you guys love each other too, the kind of love I'm talking about, the physical love, the impulse that drives you to some-one special, as well as love of the person's being, his or her essence. Carnal love , and sentimental love, the day to day caring about the other person.

But sometimes I have a hard time accounting for the fact that one must have loved his first wife too, or her first date and dream boy. And we all did, I did, I know I did. So I suppose we're all alike in that respect.

" There was a time when I thought I loved my first wife more than life itself. But now I hate her memory." A friend once told me. How do we explain that ? what happened to all that love ?

I will hypothetically address a couple who met not too long ago, you love each other, it shows all over you, you glow with it. But you both loved other people before you met each other, you both could have been married before, just like some of us, and you probably loved your spouses very much and sincerely.

My wife and I have been married for many years now, and the terrible thing is, is that if something happened to one of us tomorrow, I think the other person, would grieve for a while, but then the surviving party would go out and love again, have some-one else sooner or later.

All this , all of this love we're talking about, would just be a memory, maybe not even a memory.

Am I wrong ?? Am I way off base ? because I want you, some-one, to set me straight if you think I'm wrong.

Inspired by R. Carver. And as usual thanks for your time and patience, salamat.

ARAB "FAMILY REGIMES....."

In many Arabic countries nowadays, we are witnessing upheavals of large segments of the population, whether it turns more Islamic or more secular, young or older generations taking control, depends on each of the countries, i.e. Egypt and Tunisia are showing different paths from Libya, Yemen , or even Syria. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and some gulf states are different cases from the rest.

The causes that led to these upheavals, produced by degrees a sort of relaxation in the different constitutions of these regimes, those for whose interest it was to maintain this constitution held to it less, while those who had an interest in modifying it became bolder and stronger.

The rule of some regimes was therefore reconciled with that of the city, while some others reconciled with the heads of tribes, but these were in reality two antagonistic forms of governance which men could not hope to ally forever, and which must sooner or later be at war with each other.

The family regime, indivisible and numerous, was too strong, rich, and too independent for the social power not to feel the temptation, and even the need, of weakening it or even destroying it. Either the city or the tribe could not keep their side of the alliance, for it must in the course of time break up the family regime.

When authority ceases to appear just to the subjects, time must still elapse before it will cease to appear so to the masters. But this happens after a while, and then the master, who no longer believe in the justice of his authority, defends it badly, or ends by renouncing it.

An invincible necessity obliges the masters of different regimes, little by little, to relinquish or obliterate some or all of their omnipotence.

In some countries like Libya, Yemen and Syria, the regimes did no more than to preserve their authority and omnipotence, and in this alone was their gravest injustice; they maintained these laws and constitutions beyond the time when men accepted them without complaints, and maintained them against the will of the people.

It is therefore wise for these family regimes and masters to satisfy these men, their own interests united with humanity recommends concessions.

thanks as usual for your time and patience, and salamat.

THINK OF IT !!

HAWKING : "THERE IS NO HEAVEN".

By John Rouch

Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story" in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published yesterday.

The physicist, 69, who was diagnosed with A.L.S. at age 21, made the heaven comment in response to a question about his fears of death. "I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he told the news paper.

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it's components fail. There is no heaven of after life for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.

The comments are seen as going beyond those in his 2010 book "the grand design," which stirred up passions with the observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.

Hawking has far outlived most people who have A.L.S., also known as Lou Gehrig's decease, producing important cosmological research and writing books. His " A brief history of time," published in 1988, has sold more than 9 million copies.

The Guardian interview is the latest the scientist has given to news media in recent weeks. It is published the day before he is scheduled to address the question " Why are we here?" at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London.

In the talk , according to the Guardian, he will argue that the tiny fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged.

" Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.

In Arabic there's an expression that goes by " AKHOU EKHTOU." Meaning literally, the brother of his sister, or brother of your sister, I don't know why, or how, but it means that he is or you are the guy,the man, you're the one. So I would like to say to Stephen that he is " Akhou ekhtou " you're the brother of your sister, you're the MAN.

Let's think of it for a moment, the idea that us humans; for all times since the spontaneous creation, we, never really stopped hating or killing each other, daily, mostly for heavens sake.

The article by J.R. was on MS NBC site yesterday, the final conclusions are mine, thanks for listening and salamat.

How To Post Comments to My Blog

I adjusted my blog settings so that you no longer need to have an account (e.g., gmail) to login, rather, you can select "Name/URL" when asked for a profile and just type in your comment in the text box (no need to provide a URL, just your name).

Actually don't believe it's me who did that, in fact it was my genius better half Nada who keep saving me and my work from tech ignorance on the Internet, hope to hear more of your ideas or comments now that it's easier to publish in the comments box, salamat.

GOOD OLD OUSSAMA !!!

In one of his statements some years ago, Bin Laden spoke of "the humiliation and shame which the Muslims have suffered for more than 80 years," this sent Middle-east experts and many others looking for explanations , some explanations were offered, most of them totally inaccurate.

He was referring with no doubt to the end of World War I, and the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the last, the most enduring and, in many ways, the greatest of the Muslim states and empires. For Oussama Bin Laden and those who thought like him, this was the low point, the final defeat, it was indeed, in his perspective, a moment of humiliation, of bitterness, of defeat.

It is , in a very real sense, the turning point, the beginning of a new era. The struggle between Islam and Christendom had been going on for considerably more than a millennium. One can trace it through its various stages of crusade and jihad, attack and counter attack, conquest and re-conquest through the centuries but ending in what seemed in 1918 to be the final and total defeat of Islam. This sense of history, this awareness of the larger historical perspective is essential for the understanding of what he and his like say and how those to whom they say it respond.

The question that one must ask, is why is it that this man evoked so tremendous a response all over the Muslim world and beyond? what was his appeal ? I think one may give three answers to this, all of which are relevant.

The first is his eloquence. Eloquence has always been a quality greatly admired in traditional Arab culture. His depth, breadth and force of eloquence, moved crowds. This is part of the tradition, a quality much appreciated, greatly admired, but in recent history rarely practised. The form of government prevailing in most Arab countries at the present time relies on force, not persuasion, to secure loyalty and obedience. there is also the fact that most of the rulers now come from the military, a profession of many merits, of which eloquence is not normally one. Oussama bin Laden's command of the Arabic language was truly remarkable, he used it forcefully and very effectively and that won him admiration from many of those who listened to him.

The second was his lifestyle. In the modern Middle Eastern world, the normal pattern is rags to riches, usually by the exercise of force, with the riches then being shared with other members of one's family, one's solidarity group. There is corruption in every civilisation, but corruption takes different forms and levels in the Middle East. In western societies corruption takes this form; you make your money in the market-place, through economic activity, and then you use that money to buy power or, at least, to buy access or influence. The Middle Eastern pattern is the exact opposite; you seize power, and you use the power to make money. Morally, I can see no difference between them. This makes the case for Bin Laden even more dramatic. Here is a man who was born to riches and comfort and chose a life of hardship, danger and humility. One cannot, fail to see the appeal that this would have in those societies.

Third, and perhaps most important of all, is the message that he brought. I would describe it as rejection. He is rejecting not so much western power, as domination, though it is often presented that way. No, it is not so much against power as, rather, against influence; western ways, western ideas, western notions, western practices which have become dominant. And it is, therefore, against the "westernizers" rather than against the westerners, that the main anger was directed. He was against the whole notion of westernisation, which he saw as a form of apostasy, an abandonment of authentic Islam in favour of adopting alien and infidel ways. And for him and those who agreed with him, most of the rulers of the Muslim world are no longer Muslims, though they pretend to be. They are renegades or apostates.

The second element of his message, was the feeling he tried to portray that the tide has turned, that the west has become weak, the west is in retreat, and that it is now their great opportunity to reassert themselves and win victory. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union ,was to Oussama bin Laden and his followers the greatest of victories, the west tend to think of this as a victory for the free world over the Soviet Union, ending the cold war. That is not how he saw it, in his perception this was a victory of Muslims over infidels. They drove the red army in defeat out of Afghanistan, back home to defeat and collapse. One must agree that this explanation is certainly not lacking in plausibility. this was certainly the immediate cause, at the very least. This gave them the feeling, and it reflected in their statements and actions that; there were two great infidel superpowers, we have defeated one- the more difficult, the more dangerous, the more deadly, the more vicious. Dealing with the other will be comparatively easy.

This is related to a certain perception of the western world in general and of the United States in particular which was constantly reiterated and expressed in many of his messages, hit them and they will run, these can only have strengthened the perception that they were dealing with a soft, pampered, defeated enemy.

If you look at the accusations against the United States over the last few months all over the Middle East and, more particularly, the charges of American imperialism, if you look into the details, you will see that what they are complaining about is not American imperialism but the LACK of American imperialism. They are complaining that the United States is failing to fulfill its imperial duties as the greatest power of the world, with a duty to solve disputes, adjudicate between rival peoples and between peoples and their self imposed regimes.

There was a widespread belief in the Middle East that freedom and independence were two different words for the same thing. In recent times the people have discovered painfully that they are not two different words for the same thing, they are two different things. The ending of imperial domination and the establishment of independent national regimes all too often meant the replacement of foreign overlords by domestic tyrants, more adept and more intimate and less constrained in their tyranny.

Inspired, Compiled and arranged by me from excerpts from a lecture by professor B. Lewis around the beginnings of this century at the university of Toronto, again thanks and salamat.

AGAIN AND AGAIN THE ARAB WORLD...

If it isn't now, in the face of horror, that one can say, "force, terrorism, more force, more violence doesn't achieve anything," when is it going to be said?? One of the things that one tends to forget in periods of turbulence is how unsuccessful violence is, even for those who have power.

Nothing has been resolved by violence over the last sixty years, not the Arab-Israeli conflict nor any internal Arab conflict, or any of the regimes that has been self imposed for decades, not even the situation of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. All need to change, all need to think, to stand back and say,"What on earth has got us here?"

Thanks for listening and salamat.

THE LEGITIMACY OF VIOLENCE AS A POLITICAL ACT.

In most of the world, political methods involving violence are the only methods which offer a possibility of bringing about social changes amounting to a social revolution which everyone agrees are necessary in the poorer world.

The democratic conventions which make possible certain kinds of non-violent transfers of power have only a very limited extension in these societies. In most third world countries, they either never existed,or had only a fake existence or have been abolished. In these countries, governments and or regimes are changed by "coups d'etat" , palace revolution, or much more often, by mass revolution. And not by other means.

There are some people , of course who say that one must oppose violence in general, and that there is always better ways than to resort to violence. I think we are hardly in a position which allows us to tell others that violence as a political method is illegitimate . Or even to tell them what kinds of violence are legitimate and what kinds are not. We can say that we reject or do not choose ourselves to use violence, but that is a different and personal matter.

We all know the saying "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" it is much wiser than the acts of most Arab ruling regimes, that plainly say that they can break many eggs without ever making an omelet.

No doubt this violence seen nowadays in countries like Libya, Syria or Yemen and Bahrain can destroy the native power, but it cannot replace it. Nothing will be left after destruction but destruction.

It is a dangerous illusion to measure the power of a regime by it's capacity of violence.

Under what conditions can violent actions be said to be legitimate ?? legitimate, for example, as a form of self-defence or self-assertion by those who see themselves as victims of a system of oppressive violence managed by the self-imposed authorities. As a way of bringing about social change in those backward countries where the ruling elite is wholly intransigent and repulses all attempts to modernise or reform.

There is an opposition rather than a distinction when we speak of violence when used by states, as to force exerted by crowds and masses. I cannot see a legitimizing factor in the fact that violence is used by the state, any state for that matter.

HOPE FOR MORE INTELLIGENT ACTS AND RESPONSES

Do not point your nose too high, do not swell your chest too much, do not boast too loudly, do not be puffed up, let not your ambitions be excessive or take a wrong direction, remember you have done nothing at all, you are just the same member of society you were last week, you are on no higher plane, deserve no new consideration, and will get none and nowhere.

These words !!! How pertinent and timely would they be, pronounced by different Arab leaders and their regimes in power, to all of the uprising populations and youth in their countries. In every one of the Arab countries, Libya Syria and Yemen, Bahrain Jordan and Morocco, even the very repressive kingdom of Saudi Arabia, just a few with ongoing violence and total disdain from the rulers toward their own populations seeking freedom, dignity and well deserved change.

Those of us who live in the developed world are becoming increasingly disturbed by this capacity to do one another harm. We are less tolerant of violence and the behaviour of repressive regimes toward their uprising populations. We are totally uncomfortable with ideologies that demonise whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction.

BUT the evidence of change is undeniable. Most readers will have viewed pictures and documentaries of brutal violence, in which whole towns turned out, as though for a carnival, only to demand more freedom and dignity. To be brutally repressed.

One would have hoped for a different response from the different leaders and regimes in all or most countries, I would have surely hoped for a very different response and approach from the young Syrian leader, any dialogue trying to understand and accommodate would have been smarter and by far more fulfilling, than repeating the same rituals of brutal killings, exercised by his predecessor decades ago, or by his contemporary friends in Libya and Yemen.

The history of these Arab countries will become even more annoying and difficult to contemplate, and future generations will marvel at the ways that we, too, failed in our commitments to the common good of these populations. We will embarrass our descendants by not upholding historic moral progress.

THE ARAB REVOLTS THROUGH HANNAH ARENDT'S EYES

Arendt is well known for her celebration of "ACTION". She speaks of action as "the one miracle-working faculty of man" Pointing out that in human affairs it is actually quite reasonable to expect the unexpected,and that new beginnings cannot be ruled out even when society seems locked in stagnation or set on an obstinate course.

Since the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts took place, her observation on the unpredictability of politics have been strikingly confirmed, not least by the collapse of both regimes, but also by the ongoing revolts in Yemen, Bahrain, and other places, especially the revolt in Libya and the ensuing bloody events and scenes from that country, all are Arendtian scenes par excellence. Illustrating her account of how power can spring up as if from nowhere when people begin to "act in concert" and can die down unexpectedly from apparently powerful regimes.

But if her analysis of action is a message of hope in dark times, it also carries warnings. For the other side of that miraculous unpredictability of action is lack of control over its effects. Action sets things in motion, and one cannot foresee even the effects of one's own initiatives, let alone control what happens when they are entangled with other people's initiatives in the public arena. Action is therefore deeply frustrating, for its results can turn out to be quite different from what the actor intended.

But apart from the physical difficulties of gaining control over the situation that's set off by action of the masses, she also reminds us of the political problems caused by plurality itself.

In principle, if we can all agree to work together we can exercise great power; but agreement between plural persons is hard to achieve, and never safe from the disruptive initiatives of further actors.

As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, the one safe prediction we can make is that, despite the continuation of processes already in motion in the Arab world, the open future will become an arena for countless human initiatives that are beyond our present imagination.

PROFANE !!!

The word profane in the English language, as in French and most Latin languages, has a wide circulation and usage and is misused in many cases.The Oxford dictionary defines and explain the word as follows :

Profane. adj.1 not sacred; secular. 2 a- irreverent; blasphemous. b- vulgar; obscene. v.tr. 1 treat (a sacred thing) with irreverence or disregard. 2 violate or pollute ( something entitled to respect), profanation n. profane'ly adj. profan'er n.
Adj.1 nonreligious,laic,lay,nonclerical,temporal,unsanctified,unconsecrated,unhallowed. 2 a- sacrilegious, idolatrous, irreligious, unbelieving, disbelieving, impious, godless, b- impure, unclean, dirty, filthy, smutty, foul, foulmouthed, coarse, uncouth, rude, low, bawdy. Verb. debase, contaminate, taint, vitiate, degrade, defile, desecrate, pervert.
profanity : 1 n. profane act; 2 profane language; blasphemy, see 1 sacrilege 2 obscenity, cursing, swearing, foul or bad language.

Notice here the mix and blending of two very different notions, the belief in god and the sacred, or should I say the non belief in god and his sacred on the one side, and the making and adding to the word, a variety of different low and base meanings, and degrading insults, perverting the profane rs.

In most languages words like profane had with time more meanings added to them than the words originally meant, with the sole object of brain washing users, that the questioning or negating of some or all of the godly and sacred is a dirty and degrading act, fit only to perverts.

Thanks for listening and salamat.