START: A TALE OF TWO TREATIES

24 December, 2010.
Don’t get me wrong, there is just one START Treaty between the United States and Russia, recently ratified by the U.S. Senate, and currently under an unexpectedly protracted consideration by the Russian Duma, that may now take until the end of January, or even later, before it will (or will not) be ratified. At least, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists that there is just one Treaty, although this claim has been questioned in the Russian legislature, ever since the Treaty’s U.S. Senate Ratification.

The Treaty may, indeed, be one, but there is a mildly scandalous situation around it, causing many to suspect that America and Russia could, in the end, be ratifying two quite different versions, caused by two different understandings of the START. The trouble began right at its April 8, 2010, signing in Prague, by Presidents Obama and Medvedev. There were two sticking points in its text, conspicuously unresolved, but gallantly papered over. One was the linkage between strategic offense and strategic defense. The Russians have been insisting on it, whereas the American side has been trying to neutralize all references to it. The idea of an American nuclear shield in Europe has long been a mantra of American Foreign and Defense Policies, too sacred to compromise on it, even for the sake of the Treaty’s proposed radical reduction of both countries’ nuclear arsenals.

The other sticking point, that of conventionalization of strategic delivery systems, was already discussed by me some time ago, in my 2006 article in the Baltimore Sun. (Fitting ICBMs with Conventional Weapons Risks Catastrophe; 11/29/2006.) But apparently this explosive issue has not been laid to rest yet, with the American side still insisting on the permissibility of conventionalization, while the Russians are vehemently determined to count all non-nuclear strategic delivery systems as if they were carrying nuclear weapons. (When an ICBM is launched by the United States, how can the Russians instantly verify that this is not the start of a nuclear war against Russia?!)

Before the U.S. Senate had taken up the START ratification proceedings, many Senators demanded that the Treaty be renegotiated, with the two American demands satisfied in its text, to which the Russians naturally objected in the most resolute terms. Facing a collapse, the American proponents of the Treaty decided on an odd compromise with its detractors: the Treaty would not be changed, but its ratification would be tied with special legislation, stipulating the contentious “American understanding” of its sticking points in an accompanying Senate Resolution. Having thus ascertained a formal acceptance of the unnegotiated American position, the Treaty was ratified, but the Russian side, following these proceedings with a watchful eye, immediately jumped on the conspicuous irregularity thinly concealed in the U.S. Senate Ratification.

The Russian legislators have, as a result, found themselves in a tight spot. On the one hand, refusing to ratify this Treaty, after the U.S. Senate has just ratified it, would be terrible publicity in Europe and in the rest of the world, where Moscow has been painstakingly cultivating a peace-loving anti-nuclear arms image. But to allow the U.S. Senate’s trick to go unchallenged would be no less unacceptable.

Konstantin Kosachev, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the State Duma talked about this at a press conference today, explaining the necessity of the delay in the Treaty’s ratification by the Russian side, as in view of these new developments initiated by the American side, the Duma will have to respond in kind, and producing such a response will take time.

“We do not have the right to leave their interpretations unanswered,” he told reporters today. “Otherwise, it may give extra advantages to our American partners… or, possibly, adversaries. We need to balance those advantages.”

…Thus from the smoke of the latest START Treaty a new propaganda war is about to start. Who is going to win it cannot be determined in the short run, but in the end, we can regrettably assume that the Treaty won’t be very effective, and to expect an energetic start of mutual nuclear arms reductions, resulting from it, might prove to be too much wishful thinking.

…And so goes our tale of two treaties. It was the best of treaties, it was the worst of treaties.

WikiFarce

Do not expect me, with a straight face, to discuss the intelligence value of the by now notorious WikiLeaks revelations. Honestly, I think that there isn’t any. At least, not to the intelligence communities of the world’s reasonably advanced nations, and, consequently, not to their employers. In fact, every foreign and security policy professional knows ipso facto much more than anything WikiLeaks has to offer. As I have checked on the Internet, the highest classification level of the most sensitive document released in this recent “dump” does not rise to the level of being treated seriously by the intelligence people anywhere on this planet.

The only value which this “9/11 of world diplomacy” (in the rather overly-dramatic expression of the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini) may possess is its possible effect on the public at large, particularly, when the ore from this “dump” will be processed into the nuggets of propaganda unleashed by all interested sides in accordance with their specific tastes and objectives. But even then, after its propagandistic regurgitation, most sober members of the public will be likely to take this information with a big grain of salt, and the only ones accepting it at its face value will be all those who have long been convinced anyway, and do not really need to be convinced all over again.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that this information will do nothing to set Iran against its Arab “detractors,” or the North Koreans against China, et cetera.

The most unpleasant fallout from these recent revelations, however, will be felt not in terms of any concrete “facts,” most of which are terribly untrustworthy anyway, but in terms of the unfortunate general climate of anti-Americanism around the world. The main weapon here is not contained in the accusations themselves, but in the atrocious ridicule, to which American diplomacy has been subjected. What is the worst thing in it, is not that it would surprise anybody, but that it would not surprise anybody, reinforcing a stereotype which had been set long before Sunday November 28, 2010.

“To be with a woman (who is not your wife) is French. To be caught is American.” This one-liner from the comedy film Once Upon a Crime elicits a laugh from the audiences, by virtue of them recognizing its stereotypical comical treatment of an American in Europe. Unfortunately, the latest WikiFarce does not come from a film script. It carries an aura of legitimacy, especially after some very senior American politicians have gone on record selectively quoting from it (most significantly, regarding Iran and the Arab world), and thus by giving legitimacy to a part, have implicitly given it to the whole.

So, why shouldn’t they have one more laugh at our expense? one may ask. Regrettably, this kind of ridicule is not a laughing matter. It will surely translate into negative public opinion and into negative political votes of erstwhile staunch American allies around the world. This is where I see the greatest damage done by this WikiLeaks scandal to the American national interest, and not only in the way how it was unleashed, but also in the way how it was reacted to by the American Government, the political elite, and the national media.

THE TWO KOREAS AND THE BOMB

Fafner the Wagnerian Dragon, although a despicable fellow, did not go to Siegfried’s house. Siegfried went to him, and taunted him. Siegfried’s provocation makes sense: he was asking for a fight, fought it, and won, gaining something very tangible as a result. Had he taunted him without the intent to fight, that would have been sheer recklessness.


The two Koreas have a sixty-year history of recklessness and provocation. North Korea, unquestionably, is a worse abuser, with the highlight of her recklessness being the unprovoked start of the Korean War, which was militarily bound to end up in a debacle, except that the United States stopped short of defeating both the reckless Kim Il-Sung and the reluctant Mao, for purely political reasons, which I am elucidating in my book Nunc Dimittis.

South Korea’s recklessness is of a lower caliber, although more frequent, and shows a similar disregard for human life. The 1983 KAL-007 tragic incident was a repeat provocation on South Korea’s part toward the mighty USSR, who in that particular case chose to respond with excessive force, to which South Korea had no response of her own, except for the largely ineffective international propaganda offensive.

Before the most recent incident over Yeonpyeong island, there was the bizarre incident on March 26th 2010, when a South Korean warship sank in the disputed zone between the two Koreas. There were some serious allegations at the time of a direct North Korean involvement, but they were eventually suppressed, and the potentially explosive conflict fizzled out, with the net result of many Korean lives lost, with no explanation or justification whatsoever. It is because of that pathetic outcome that we ought to address every subsequent incident of such nature with a well justified prejudice.
Coming to the subject of the disputed Yeonpyeong island now, the reader may not remember or even know that the selfsame island was the scene of previously fought battles between the two Koreas, as recently as in 1999 and 2002. Generally speaking, the disputed area we are talking about has always been so sensitive for both parties, that an effort was made during the Sunshine Policy interlude of South Korean President Nobel Prize Laureate Kim Dae Jung (1998-2003) and his successor Roh Moo-Hyun (2003-2008) to minimize the danger of another such confrontation and turn the disputed territory into a "zone of peace" (meaning that South Korea would abstain from all provocative action in the area). The Sunshine era ended in 2008 with the accession of President Lee Myung-Bak, who effectively abolished it.

As always in such cases, finding the guilty party in the latest incident is not a matter of facts, but of politics, and there are people on both sides and in the center, blaming either North Korea for shelling the island, or South Korea for provoking the North with a thoughtless military exercise conducted in the disputed area, or those like the South Korean-born current General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon, who have “deplored the situation” without assigning the blame to either side.

Leaving all such partisan and non-partisan things aside, it is clear from what we know that South Korea was indeed conducting a military exercise in the disputed area, to which North Korea responded with excessive force. The question remains, though, as to why the South found it prudent to provoke the North into a very predictable overreaction? What did the South hope to achieve by conducting the exercise in that particular area?

Here’s where Wagner’s Siegfried comes back into the picture. He taunted Fafner with the intent to fight, but there is no way South Korea can fight North Korea, on account of the latter having the Bomb. My prediction is therefore that another such incident, another loss of human life will end up in nothing, like in the Cheonan incident earlier this year.

My conclusion is that South Korea might have been better served by continuing the Sunshine Policy started by the previous two Presidents, as there is clearly no reasonable alternative to it.

APTE DICTUM

I am currently in the process of writing a very large book (currently close to two million words), which I have titled Nunc Dimittis. It is a collection of my thoughts, feelings, and experiences. It has an Introduction, eighteen giant Sections and several Appendices. The first of these appendices (I have called it Apte Dictum) is a collection of my aphoristic sayings (they are normally one-liners, with one or two exceptions). Here is a selection of them, which I am now offering to the readers of this blog.

(1901)

Love of money is the root of all evil? (1 Timothy 6:10) Tell it to the billionaire!

(1902)

Capitalism and Christianity---a contradiction in terms?

(1903)

Where Greed is good, there Greed is God!

(1904)

Truth is a hypothesis.

(1905)

Where there is no room for the exceptional, the rule rules!

(1906)

Life is a contract between man and God, at the end of which we get our wages.

(1907)

The “pursuit of happiness” is a false pursuit, unless we first define “happiness” as something worthy of being pursued.

(1908)

Not by reason alone!

(1909)

Besides action and reaction, there is also interaction: a philosophical riddle.

(1910)

Unhappy Are The Free…

(1911)

The $64 Trillion Question: Who won the Cold War?

(1912)

Every society has its own fifth column.

(1913)

Excuses, excuses! Sic venit gloria victis…

(1914)

Our morality has committed suicide.

(1915)

Civilization does to nations what domestication does to cats. It makes them want the same: a rug by the fireplace where they can lie and purr. Yet, it is a terrible mistake to think that’s all they want.

Unique and feral, inside each cat there is a tiger. Among the nations it is called their national spirit. One cannot ignore the tiger, one cannot kill the tiger, one cannot tame the tiger. The only way to deal with the tiger is to make him like his life as a cat.

To understand the world, we must understand the tiger inside us, and not misunderstand him inside the others.

(1916)

Statesmanship, which is politics at its best, is the practice of enlightened nationalism.

(1917)

“Dual citizenship,” like “dual religion,” is a form of polygamy, and must be outlawed.

(1918)

The Doomsday Writing on the Wall has been Written, but alas, this culturally-illiterate generation cannot read!

(1919)

America must have humility as the sugar coating on the bitter pill of her strength, if she wants the world to swallow the pill. Arrogance is the self-defense of the weak, it is unbecoming a great nation.

(1920)

It is hard to be cheerful when senseless bloodshed is all around us, when people are sent to kill and to die without a compelling reason, when the putting down of the fires of hatred is entrusted to the arsonists…

(1921)

Perhaps our culture has lost its innocence to such an extent that even knowing that the Emperor has no clothes, it sees nothing wrong with it?

(1922)

Political science is notorious for making large marble pedestals for monuments made out of dust…

(1923)

All consistency is boring and the sign of an average mind. Brilliance is always inconsistent.

(1924)

Inconsistency is always preferable to consistency. The former often stumbles onto the right path, and then becomes synonymous with ingenuity. The latter usually boils down to persistence in error.

(1925)

The justice of the strong is peace; The justice of the weak is war. It follows, in part, that the war of the strong is an injustice.

(1926)

Does our mind, like our body, consist only of the food we have eaten, that is, of our digested life experiences?

(1927)

Today, like in the Dark Ages, they are still teaching school children that the earth is flat. This is called Euclid’s geometry.

(1928)

Come to think of it, all scientific discovery is made utterly impossible by the logic of multiple choice. The cultivation of the “multiple choice mindset” develops slave mentality.

(1929)

Here is what real genius is all about: Whether you agree with him or not, does not matter, as long as he makes you think!

(1930)

The Great Religions (such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) are fundamentally not so much about a religious doctrine per se, as about national culture, history, tradition; and they always ought to be seen in that light.

(1931)

‘Who are you?’ said the caterpillar. How many of us can answer this question with good conscience?

(1932)

Every good instructor teaches his class always one and the same subject: himself.

(1933)

“The most miserable animal can prevent the genesis of the mightiest oak by swallowing the acorn.” (Nietzsche). The most challenging and the most rewarding task of the political philosopher is to identify both the acorn and the predator and to offer his solution on how to save the one from the other.

(1934)

Charity begins at home? I’d say, everything begins at home!

(1935)

It is surprising how many people are at home in faraway places where they have never been and know nothing about, but completely homeless in their own back yard.

(1936)

Life needs a balance: the sick need laughter, the healthy need tears.

(1937)

Proselytizing makes mockery out of religion even when both sides are sincere, but especially, when they are not.

(1938)

An ideology is always a substitute for religion. Any government that professes both has to be mentally dysfunctional and fundamentally schizophrenic.

(1939)

A true thinker is always lonely, at least when he engages in thinking, because thinking is by nature an introverted activity.

(1940)

Insofar as aesthetic culture is concerned, ‘democracy’ is not a good, but an evil.

(1941)

I do not believe in the technical aspects of reincarnation, but the human mind is certainly capable of incorporeal transmigrations by virtue of its creativity.

(1942)

The common distinction between prose and poetry is that the one is mostly rational-intellectual, while the other is mostly irrational-intuitive. But rational prose can easily become poetry whenever its aesthetic value is on par with, or above, its intellectual content.

(1943)

Let the fish enjoy its water, but let it not convince us to abandon the high ground.

(1944)

“Death before dishonor” are empty words. The real dishonor is running away from life.

(1945)

Come to think of it, under the strongest armor and finest silk, every Emperor has no clothes.

(1946)

Alas, the good old Pax Americana has for some time now been steadily mutating into a Pox Americana…

(1947)

Freedom of speech is worthless when we don’t know what we are talking about.

(1948)

The greatest, yet the most elusive of all freedoms is the freedom of thought… Otherwise the term “free thinker” would not have been such a rare compliment.

(1949)

Nietzsche’s famous “Revaluation of All Values” does not sound at all iconoclastic to me. Considering the moral degradation of our Western Civilization, the only way perhaps to save our so-called “old values” is to start looking for “new values” and, in the process, to rediscover the old ones anew.

(1950)

American-style democracy is a luxury of the very rich and very lucky. It is an exception, rather than the rule. And the rule ought never to be measured with the yardstick of an exception.

(1951)

Totalitarianism is in its very nature the child of a nationalistically self-conscious democracy, begotten in self-defense to protect her against the real and potential enemies to her sovereignty.

(1952)

The higher strategy in a game ought not to be necessarily aimed at winning, which constitutes the lower strategy, but at being able to turn your opponent’s potential win to your utmost advantage.

(1953)

Propaganda is the opposite of free speech.

(1954)

You know that you are in a really bad shape when your enemies rally to your defense.

(1955)

I’ve been wondering for quite some time now whether we-the-people are still related to Uncle Sam…

(1956)

Many people prefer to see God as an Answer, while I see Him as a Question, addressed both to Him by us, and to us by Him.

(1957)

Censorship is like the hot rays of the sun that melted the wax of Icarus’ wings, turning his free flight into a freefall.

(1958)

Being ahead of the time does not mean that your watch is too fast, but that perhaps other watches are too slow.

(1959)

Carrots and Sticks may be a successful policy with donkeys, but humans and nations may not be quite as predictable as donkeys are.

(1960)

Impeachment of public officials is America’s best political means of making them accountable. Then, how on earth can this nation heal itself, if it is afraid of the most effective remedy?

(1961)

Playing the cynic, I may replace the Baconian gem ‘Knowledge is Power!’ with one of perhaps greater actuality for modern times: ‘Knowledge is Propaganda!’

(1962)

Life is a large refrigerator filled with food, which we open to find the food we are looking for, while the food which we ignore retaliates by taking control of our thoughts and dreams.

(1963)

It is so terribly humiliating when a great superpower tells others, “I want this!” …and does not get it.

(1964)

Rationalization of religion and, on the other hand, moralization of capitalism are tantamount to efforts to sell God to Caesar or to sell Caesar to God.

(1965)

America today is like a man whose house key is so well-made that he thinks it can open all doors.

(1966)

Loving others is like the sun that rises for the benefit of all, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

(1967)

Leaders and followers are two different species of the same genus: the herd.

(1968)

A new political motto: “Lying lips save sinking ships.”

(1969)

America’s freedom-fighters are unlike any others, preferring to fight for other people’s freedom, rather than their own.

(1970)

(Courtesy of the Sphinx.) Patriotism is born in a trailer park, and dies in upward mobility.

(1971)

To A Regular Leader, Society Is His Milieu; To A Genius Leader, It Is His Métier.

(1972)

The Dry Wall of China. First there was the Great Wall of China, and now this?!

(My comment on the substandard quality of some Chinese exports to the United States, which include the infamous toxic dry wall which makes homeowners using it sick.)

(1973)

How often we admire couples who have stayed together for decades, without realizing that the only reason they have stayed together is that they have just hated the thought of dividing the property.

(1974)

The greatest patriot is an exceptional person who is capable of identifying himself with his unexceptional fellow countrymen more than with the members of his own international exceptional club, species una sumus, transcending all national borders.

(1975)

Actuality is unfulfilled potentiality, except in a genius, whose each single spark in actuality is already a complete fulfillment of potentiality, and each extra one is a generous bonus for the benefit of humanity.

(1976)

One of the million things America and Russia have in common, separating them from the rest of the world: for both of them World War II started in 1941.

(1977)

The Green Revolution is humanity’s revolt against the free market rule, keeping it on performance-enhancing drugs, to the only-recently realized great detriment to its physical survival.

(1978)

My quasi-Marxian (but by no means pseudo-Marxian) term reflecting a new evolving reality in the politico-economic condition of America: Pauperization of the Bourgeoisie.

(1979)

Borrowed opinion is cheap, and a passionate expression of it is nothing but a salesman’s pitch to bump up the price.

(1980)

(Courtesy of the Sphinx, mind you! So, think about the hidden message here!)

The best makeup artists in the world are the morticians…

(1981)

Checks and Balances sounds like some serious money talk. No wonder politics and economics are so intimately related in America!

(1982)

There is a better friend than a friend in need. It is one who can (wholeheartedly and unconditionally) experience your moment of happiness like it were his (or her) own.

(1983)

Patriotism is putting your nation’s interest above your own. In times of war these interests become indistinguishable. But how many are capable of this in times of peace?

(1984)

Some American politician’s toothless posturing against Russia can be best characterized as All Hate, No Cattle.

(1985)

All is vanity that we cannot leave behind us on our departure from this world, or else, take with us to the next.

(1986)

There is no objectivity in a security blanket…

(1987)

Objectivity means giving our subjective freshly cooked pastry a chance to cool down before we thrust our teeth into it.

(1988)

Talking is like driving: the more of it you do, the higher is the chance of an accident.

(1989)

“Fact” is something which we honestly believe to be true at the given time.

(1990)

All facts are made of pure subjectivity dressed up as pure objectivity.

(1991)

Secret kept is priceless; secret revealed is worthless.

(1992)

Vivat to the woman who reaches the age, when it is more flattering to add extra years, than to subtract them.

(1993)

Bumps in the road put a spring in the step.

(1994)

How come that it has not dawned on Washington yet that Bernie Madoff and his ilk are more dangerous to this country than Osama Bin Laden?!

(1995)

Too often being right is the exact opposite of being “on the money” …

(1996)

A riddle of the polyglot Sphinx: Opinionated people must have been raised among the gnomes.

(1997)

Does life begin at birth or at conception? This can be debated, but what is clear is that the act of creation happens at the conception, and not at the birth.

(1998)

Gestation and evolution are rational developments, but creation and conception are supremely irrational.

(1999)

“Facts are stubborn things,” except that many things which are known as “facts,” are not.

(19-100)

Mysticism is an infusion of irrationality into an otherwise rational philosophical contemplation.

(19-101)

One way of looking at it, objectivity is a multiplicity of subjectivities.

(19-102)

Hypocrisy is the hylos of politics.

(19-103)

My jocular name for Iran’s nuclear program: Enrichment of Iranium.

(19-104)

The modern paradox of American capitalism: To own means to owe!

(19-105)

Some people are selling their soul to the devil for enough money, they think, to be able to buy it back later on.

(19-106)

It is not wealth itself, but its existence alongside with poverty that introduces the anti-capitalist moral dimension into the picture.

(19-107)

A Riddle: The optimist says, “There is no such thing as an unwinnable game,” and as a result, loses the unlosable one.

(19-108)

“October Surprise” is letting skeletons out of American political closets for Halloween.

(19-109)

Error is often the name of the truth before her time has come.

(19-110)

The biggest difference between science and philosophy is that whereas scientific thought becomes quickly outdated, philosophical ideas are timeless, and are just as contemporary after three millennia as the best of what we can come up with today.

(19-111)

Everything has a cause. Even the most random event has a cause, whose name is chance.

(19-112)

The only advice the rich should give to the poor is cash, preferably, anonymous.

(19-113)

A gentle reminder: Speech for hire is not free speech.

(19-114)

1989 was the Year of the Horse in Europe… The Trojan Horse.

(19-115)

Who was Christ’s chief accountant? No, not Matthew, the repentant professional money changer. It was Judas Iscariot! This gives us an extra insight on the Scriptures’ censorious attitude to money.

(19-116)

If you wish to learn something about the herd, learn from the shepherds, not from the sheep.

(19-117)

The recent introduction of the Medal “For Victory In The Cold War” in the United States ought to be dubbed: “Mission Accomplished”! (Just as “accomplished” as the other Mission Accomplished!)

(19-118)

Looking at the political life in America, I wonder how oftentimes the fiercest enemies of socialism are exactly the ones in greatest need of it.

(19-119)

If knowledge were available, who would need the faith?

(19-120)

”Failure is not an Option.” (An erstwhile slogan of the Bush Administration)---- Pep talk for the kamikaze!

(19-121)

All philosophy is necessarily monotheistic, and so is authentic religion. Even atheism is monotheistic. Polytheism is not a religion, but a mythology.

(19-122)

Buy them or bomb them: How foreign is American foreign policy?



MIDTERM ELECTION 2010

This has been the Midterm Election 2010, and it has been dramatic… theatrically dramatic!--- A sweeping change has come again to America, a sweeping change in numbers and new faces…


Alas, I did not care much about this election. In fact, I did not even vote in this election, and not because I did not want to make a difference, but just because I had nothing to vote for. It was only two years ago that another sweeping change happened. All three powerhouses of Washington: the White House, the House and the Senate were taken over by the same set of hands, the Democrats, and a lot of promises were made at the time. Had there not been so much enthusiasm and inebriating “hope” in the air, we might have been able not only to ask this simple basic question: “Hey, guys and gals, nice talk about change, so what are you going to do about it?”--- but also to refuse to take no answer for an answer.

You fooled me twice before (both GOP and Dem), shame on you. But fool me yet again, shame on me! This time around, I was all along looking for substance, not change. After all, the Democrats over the last 2 years had already proved their incompetence. So, what about their challengers? It was only having followed their campaign progress with some attentiveness that I found that they had nothing to offer, either. So, what was the point of it all?

America is the richest country in the world. Her GDP is estimated at fifteen trillion dollars. But, at the same time, her national debt is now close to fourteen trillion and quickly growing and by some accounts may have already surpassed the GDP. Simple arithmetic, but some mind-boggling politics, as nobody, old or new, has been able to come up with a coherent plan of how to deal with the impending catastrophe… Change?! What change?!!!

…I am sure that there are literally thousands of younger and older Americans today who can offer solutions that could probably make a difference. I am even sure that there are a few in the US Congress too who know how this difference could be made. But their mouths are sealed, and their hands are tied by Party discipline. (We are talking about both Parties, of course.)

And what about the gentlemen and ladies of the once all-powerful press? Why are they so seriously engaged in the absurdity of discussing an election that does not really matter? I am convinced that, had they honestly believed that any one of them as an individual could make a difference, some of them would have stood up with a far more stinging comment than the bravest of them have dared so far. But they must have weighed the pros and the cons of daring, feeling that they might find themselves rather lonely in the dashingly gallant hypothetical effort (whereas their hefty paychecks are by no means hypothetical, but quite real to them, and to their families), and in their own ‘elections’ inside their heads, they must have voted again for comfortable reality against self destructive wishful thinking. Fiat vita, pereat veritas!

And so, I listened to the meaningless noise of the election coverage on television, thinking: but for how long can this blissful ignorance of reality be sustained? America is currently living off the genius of her hallowed fathers and forefathers, off the sweat, dedication and sacrifice of the earlier generations, all those who made this country prosperous and great. The current generation has effectively succumbed to the greedy Madoffs, lining their pockets with money, and to another kind of thieves who steal allegedly on behalf of the common good, by spending what they do not have, and printing funny money whenever they find the nation’s coffers empty. So what’s the difference between an enterprising conman working for himself and these Washington money printers allegedly working on behalf of us the people? A thief is a thief!

I wish I had been voting today. But that should have been a different election, not just about changing a few political numbers and a few political faces in Washington and elsewhere, but about the real questions and the real answers. Everything else is hypocrisy and self-delusion.

President Obama, Israel, And Staff.

September 23, 2010. UN, Sukkoth, and once again President Obama has been set up by his staff... If he was not, then why were the seats of the Israeli Delegation empty, as Mr. Obama was addressing the 65th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations?! The Israelis at least have an explanation: today is Sukkoth, which is a public holiday in Israel. But what is the excuse of Mr. Obama’s staff? They ought to have been prepared for such a “pre-ordained” contingency and done something well in advance to avoid this egregious appearance of impropriety. After all, in politics, appearances assume the role of substance, and, as we know, a picture is worth more than ten thousand declarations to the contrary.