One World, Many Peaces

Why Obama's Got it Right (and so Wrong) on Afghanistan Troop Levels

Ninety two days-- that's how long it took Obama to make his mind up (on international television nonetheless) about his next move in Afghanistan. That's not only bad peace-seeking, that's bad warfare.

 

Let's put this into perspective: if Eisenhower had taken ninety two days to decide where and how many troops would land on D-Day, the opportunity to turn the tables on the Nazis would have passed the Allies by. So what has the waiting game led to now? NOTHING. Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign, except the delay. The question then becomes is this the right or wrong move?

I was there when he gave his famous Senatorial speech in Chicago after returning from Iraq, in which he claimed that the Iraq war was "unnecessary" and the Afghan one a "necessary evil" (his gist, my words). I agreed with him them, and I agree with him now. There are terrorists in the region who are a threat not only to America, but to the world at large, and they must be brought to justice before they attack again, or worse yet continue multiplying.

 

Since they do not seem to want to negotiate for safe passage and fair trial (not that it's been pushed hard), the only other option to keep the world safe is to capture them. I do not go as far as to say kill because everyone, especially enemies, are more valuable alive than dead. And since what decrepit NATO is doing is making things worse not better, a full-force assault seems the quickest and least pain-inducing way to proceed to a swift and victorious ending.

That said, any Commander-in-Chief who publicly pontificates upon his options as if they were a public relations ploy loses more than a little respect in the eyes of his soldiers and voters. If he needed the time, so be it, lots is done in secret by government; but every day he waited, soldiers and civilians have died. Playing out major war decisions  like a soap opera while he globetrots to woo China, tries to pass healthcare bill and attempts to reverse the course of this depression-in-denial is wrong, no matter how right his course of action is.

With the rise in U.S. troop levels, the Afghan war has become no less of a U.S. war that is Iraq, despite the internationalist pretences in either case. What Obama should spend the next ninety-two days doing is figuring out how to turn the failing current event that is NATO into the future armed forces of the United Nations, as previously suggested on One World, Many Peaces.

Getting the World on the Same Wavelength, Literally

Being "on the same wavelength" has just gone from a dated cliché to the cutting edge of brain science. For the first time, neuroscientists have identified specific energy waves emitted during thought processing, as well as a "switch" that lets brains select which waves to focus on and which to filter out. Think of it like a biological radio tuner to which others can be attuned. So can (and should) the world be put on the same wavelength?

You can literally be on the same wavelength as someone if your metaphoric receptors and emitters are on the same channels. Brains work on what are called gamma waves, which control vital functions such focus and concentration. So yes, with the right operant conditioning and conditions, you and that special stranger can actually "click." Now, imagine if it were possible to put everyone around the world on the same wavelength. Would this be Borg-like mind control, or more like Vulcan mind melding?

Still too Big Brother-ish for you? Well, how about just getting two enemies trying to kill each other on a daily basis on the same wavelength for starters: say, Israelis and Palestinians, or the members of two inner city gangs. Although the scientists at the Kavli Institute for Systems Neuroscience and Centre for the Biology of Memory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) have only just published their findings in Nature, they are current events creating a future in which interests can be biochemically aligned, and all the opportunities and threats that entails.

Making (Non)Sense of Obama's Half-Brother's "Surprise" Surfacing in China

Make no mistake about it, Obama's visit not only marks America's belated acknowledgement of China as a world power, perhaps the world power unless India catches up (a debatable point), but also that the two countries are showing early, hopeful signs that they realize that their interests are and must continue to be aligned enough to cooperate. The topics they discussed-- climate change, the global economy, Asian and Middle Eastern security risks-- are no doubt very important to them and world, but perhaps not as important as the very meeting itself. Now Obama's half-brother (he does have a name, it's Mark Ndesandjo) is another story.

As plastered all over global media, Obama's half-brother not coincidentally launched his new semiautobiographical novel during the first Presidential visit in China. The sad part is he actually got as much or more press in China and the U.S. than the President, whose talk to students was broadcast only one relatively small channel, but not Hu Jintao, who without doubt set more of the tone and agenda of the historic meeting than in any such previous bilateral encounter.

I don't particularly mind him mooching of his brother's fame, I would encourage all siblings to do the same. What strikes me as severely strange is that he has been hibernating in China with his Han wife and has only surfaced now. This implies a premeditate move on both his and the President's part, again nothing wrong-- except that there has hardly been a peep about the whole thing in the media until now. So unless my faith in journalistic snooping is misplaced, Obama's awesome campaign machine has turned into a monster of information control, which makes (non)sense of his half-brother's surfacing, and his meeting with Hu Jintao: who knows what will surface in the future based on current events...

Jews Killing Non-Jews is Kosher, Asserts Prominent Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira

This is one among many realities that we wish would be too bad to be true. Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the prominent right-wing spiritual leader in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has openly condoned Jews killing any non-Jews, including children and babies, who pose a threat to Israel. In his new book, the warmongering Rabbi asserts: "If a gentile endangers the existence of Israel, it is allowed to kill him. Also if he is completely not to blame for the situation that has been created." He might have well said that a genocide of non-Jews (no doubt referring primarily to Arabs) along Holocaust lines is kosher too.

 

But Rabbi Yitzhak Maniac does not stop there. Just breaking any of the Commandments put forth by Moses is grounds for holy murder. (I guess he just missed the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" part.) He goes on to write that "Children should not be exempt from this fate. There is a reasonable explanation for killing infants if it is clear that they will grow up to hurt us, and in this situation, the strike should be directed at them.” Seriously? This kind of moral delusions justifying infanticide aren't even worth a retort. What they are worth is a direct, unequivocal condemnation by the Israeli state and all international bodies, from the United Nations to Amnesty International to the Red Cross and beyond. And Rabbi Maniac should be put behind bars and never allowed to speak or write, ever, unless he recants. Doing so would be less an act of censorship than a service to humanity.

The scariest part of all is that Rabbi Maniac isn't the driver of this overtly racist, malevolent and violent religious beliefs, according to the Israel Herald. He is just the leading mouthpiece of the radical Jews who are settling in the West Bank, where he runs a school in Yitzhar, one of the territory’s most hardline settlements, near Nablus. The popular regional newspaper Maariv has reviewed the Rabbi's book, but it will not be sold in major bookstores yet, "only" online and in person. By replicating the purported (and falsified) logic of Islamic terrorism Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira is knowingly creating a retaliatory cycle of violence beyond the "eye for an eye" doctrine of the Torah. If this current event is allowed to develop, there will be no future for non-Jews and Jews alike.

Three Places Where World War Three May Start, And Soon

Where is a Third World War most likely to be sparked? For at least a decade before World War One began, those most concerned knew that the ongoing arms race was leading to disaster, as did those who sat on the sidelines and watched Germany and Japan build up to World War Two. World policy wonks have taken a long sigh of relief after the Cold War ended some twenty years ago yesterday, but in so doing have been all too lax at identifying-- and diffusing-- actual "hotspots" that are likely to trigger a global conflict on the scale of the World Wars, or bigger if you consider the nuclear capabilities of the countries involved. Here are three possibilities.

Between India, China and Pakistan in the Kashmir Region: Tensions between India and China have flared so high in recent weeks because of China's industrial expansion into the Kashmir region that states in the area have pledged to expand the ASEAN organization into a wider, EU-like bloc to stem it. In the past year alone, China's military expenditures have quintupled those of any other country (including the U.S.), and Pakistan's internal militant and terrorist troubles make it a ticking time bomb. All three, India, China and Pakistan, have nuclear arsenals at their disposal.

Between Israel and Iran: The recent fiasco over an Iranian ship allegedly carrying arms to anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon almost made me wet my pants, and if it didn't to you then you aren't fully aware what was and is at stake. Israel is a known nuclear power without admittance, and as we all know Iran wants to be, which could very well mean it is in the same boat as Israel but with a better public relations smokescreen. With Israel's continued expansionist policy, and the Arab League states all too quiet for all too long now, something is just not right. If Hillary Clinton and company can't do something now (and the signs already aren't good), the region's near-term future looks dim.

Between North and South Korea: Just today, a North Korean and a South Korean war ship on the western sea border exchanged fire, with the North Korean ship being badly damaged. Probably without coincidence, the exchange of fire coincides with President Obama's decisions to send a special envoy to North Korea to talk about it's nuclear arsenal. To stress the point, North Korea has been in serious internal trouble (from famine to a military-first economy) since the mid-1990s, really comparable in isolation and desolation only to post-World War One Germany. As we know, that led to the rise of the democratically elected Nazi regime, and World War Two.

Any armed conflict on a considerable scale in any of these hotspots is likely to draw in allies and enemies, as was the case in both previous World Wars. The global economic weakness still well underway regardless of overly optimistic reports to the contrary is the powder keg waiting to explode, as it was for WWII. My sincerest wish, as it should be for us all, is that the individuals and groups involved in each of these situations will realize that as a current event, the future of our world is in their hands. And, if they don't, someone should take their situation out of their hands. 

Who's Protecting the World's Endangered Languages (All 7000)? These Guys

 

When an insect only seven people have ever seen goes extinct in a place you need a government grant to get to, more than just environmentalists feel a part of our world has gone forever. Understandably so. But what about when a language once used by thousands is down to its last speaker, and the universe of relations and ideas that language conveys will not survive them? Who protests, who runs worldwide campaigns or passes legislation against hazardous, toxic notions like "official languages" and "world languages" that creep onto and kill ways of understanding what it means to be human? A group of fifty linguists meeting at the first-ever Endangered Languages Information and Infrastructure Workshop, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, realize the tragedy but aren't superheroes.

In the last 500 years, half of the world's languages have become extinct. What is new is the accelerated rate of language extinction today. Linguists predict that in the next 100 years nearly 90 percent of the world's 7,000 languages will become extinct, with a best case scenario at only 35 to 50 percent surviving (Krauss,1992). "When we lose, say, 50 percent of languages, we're losing 50 percent of human cognitive ability," says linguist Lyle Campbell.  "Linguistics is a study of human cognition, what makes the mind tick, click, and work. It's our responsibility as linguists to do what we can." Unfortunately for Campbell and his colleagues, words difficult to pronounce just aren't as cute and cuddly as panda bears and Hollywood superstars have yet to milk endangered languages for their publicity value. Try asking a panda whether or not there is life after death. Unfortunately, while hundreds of groups protect species for biodiversity, none protect endangered languages for logodiversity.

The admirable work of these linguistics overlooks one major possibility based on a historical actuality: that as languages die, new ones can and are created not in their place, but in the space they leave behind. "A language is not just words and grammar; it is a web of history that binds all the people who once spoke the language, all the things they did together, all the knowledge they imparted to their descendants," says Anthony Aristar, professor of linguistics at Eastern Michigan University, in Science Daily. There is also such a thing as the languages of the future, beyond but also in between the lingua francas that are most likely to survive: English, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic. The languages of the future, whatever they may look or sound like, will be made from those of the present, which is why the study of multilingualism is at least as important as current event that can literally speak to the future.

Two Major Intellectuals, Levi-Strauss and Ayala, Die; What the World Has Gained

"Loss" is a word commonly heard when someone dies, as in "a loss to us" or "the world's loss." But what about what we and the world have gained because someone has lived? This may be the more inspiring and pragmatic question to ask of everyone, but especially in noting the passing of two of the great 20th century intellectuals today as centenarians: Claude Levis-Strauss at 100, the French anthropologist and a founder of the widely influential structuralist school of critical analysis; and Francisco Ayala at 103, the paradigmatic anti-fascists sociologist and novelist. The following is less of a tribute than a well-deserved acknowledgment.

Trained as a philosopher in France, Claude Levi-Strauss taught in Brazil from 1935 and came to prominence with his landmark Tristes Tropiques (trans. A World on the Wane), which has since become a classic. In it he proposed that so-called "primitive" mythologies are structurally analyzable in the same way as "civilized" ones, calling into question two centuries of "progressive" thinking. The work had a profound influence not only in anthropology, but also in sociology, philosophy, political science, history and literary criticism, among other fields. He became a member France's prestigious Academie, which rushed to pay homage to him today. Just recently, Levi-Strauss expressed contempt at dying in a world he "does not love," and remarked that the purpose of structuralism was a "search for unsuspected harmonies" by drawing parallels and analogies between otherwise unrelated thought and social systems.  The next-generation of French intellectuals (including Jaques Derrida and Michel Foucault) are often called post-structuralists because they focused on changes in structures over time, in deference.

The Spanish intellectual Francisco Ayala coincidentally followed a similar trajectory as Levi-Strauss, spendinghis early career in South America before return to his home country, where accolades eventually followed. After receiving his doctorate in law from Madrid University in 1930, he went on a lecture tour in Argentina, when the fascist Franco took power back in Spain (1936). In Buenos Aires, he taught sociology and founded the literary journal Reality, where the works of Jorge Luis Borges were first published, among other literati. After moving to Puerto Rico in 1950, he taught at several premier university in the U.S. (including Princeton and the University of Chicago) before returning to Spain in 1975, the year Franco died. His key works include The Usurpers and The Lamb's Head, each of which critically examines the relations between individual consciences, social consciousness and the state. He was awarded the prestigious Cervantes Award in 1991 and the Prince of Asturias Award in 1998.

While it is safe to say that Levi-Strauss' influence on Western intellectual history is more pronounced than that of Ayala, the latter was a catalytic figure in Latin American literature and thought as well as the epitome of anti-fascist writers in exile. It is also safe to say that the worldwide intellectual landscape of the 21st century, of which I and we are all a part, would not be what it is without them. In death as in life, Levi-Strauss and Ayala are turning point current events that have brought us to a better understanding of the past and present so as to create a better future.