Monday, December 31, 2007

Before there was gay marriage ...

... there was Rudolph and his shiny red nose.*

I'm supposed to start commenting on ... politics ... I guess ... ugh. Right now, the primary voters are in their final swoons. The Ron Paul silliness seems to have peaked but not disappeared - yet (via Megan McArdle's must-read blog). The Obama swoon hasn't maxed out yet. But pretty soon, they're gonna have to get serious and settle down with Responsible Girls and Fellas, so let them have their final weeks of free love. We'll wait til we're married. But read the always-sensible advice from Peggy Noonan too.

Happy new year!
---
* It's scary what you can find on Wikipedia - some people, it seems, have far too much free time on their hands :)

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 30, 2007

A horrifying milestone

PRE-POSTSCRIPT: It's another Middle East sick-humor moment - but it's real: Pakis flee to the relative safety of Afghanistan (via Instapundit). It's also a measure of how rapidly the situation is evolving.
---
There's not much to add to what's been said about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. She wanted to return to Pakistan and, with Musharraf weakening in the last couple years, agreed with Rice and the State Department to a strange "arranged marriage" with the Pakistani government. While there's a lot of tongue-clucking about Bush's policy being dead, the reality is the opposite: it was the old policy of giving Musharraf a blank check that is now not only dead, but dead and buried. Bhutto's assassination was carried out by al Qa'eda-Taliban operatives, extremist groups that owe their existence to Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) service and Saudi money and ideology. These groups do not and have never had widespread support from Pakistanis, and the government's main repressive actions have been directed against liberal and secular movements, not against the extremists.

What Rice and others in the administration realized a couple years ago was that giving Musharraf a blank check after 9/11, when Pakistan decided to at least officially side with the US, was good short-term strategy, but bad in the long run. As with many of these apparently clever "realist" strategies, we're now living in the long run. The era of "he's our bastard" realpolitik is over.

The future of fighting these extremist movements lies with allying ourselves to and strengthening Muslim governments that have greater legitimacy. They don't necessarily have to be electoral democracies. They can also be conservative monarchies, if they are open to reform. Relying on rulers with narrow bases of support is a deadend.

For Pakistan itself, the problem isn't just radical Islam, because in the Islamic world, religion isn't just a belief system as we think of it. Radical Islam comes with a political program (the caliphate fantasy versus nation-states) and social forces (the world of village clans and tribes versus the urban, the middle class, and the liberal). The resurgence of purist Islam is a result of the failure of "modernization," itself a relic of European colonialism. All of these older forms of Westernization had a narrow basis and limited appeal. Without a broader popular demand for better government, the rebarbarization of former European colonies is a real possibility. And because we live in a smaller and smaller world, we will not be able to run away from the consequences.

Mark Steyn put it well:
Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan had a mad recklessness about it which give today's events a horrible inevitability ....

Since her last spell in power [in the 1990s], Pakistan has changed, profoundly. Its sovereignty is meaningless in increasingly significant chunks of its territory, and, within the portions Musharraf is just about holding together, to an ever more radicalized generation of young Muslim men Miss Bhutto was entirely unacceptable as the leader of their nation .... Miss Bhutto could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death. Earlier this year, I had an argument with an old (infidel) boyfriend of Benazir's, who swatted my concerns aside with the sweeping claim that "the whole of the western world" was behind her. On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee ....

When you invent an artificial country, you better be sure that your artificial identity will stick. Pakistan today is not what the British and Jinnah had in mind, nor Ayub Khan, nor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, nor General Zia, nor Nawaz Sharif. Instead, across 60 years, their failures incubated an identity that would have seemed utterly deranged to even the more excitable Punjabi Muslims of the early 1940s. As ... noted earlier, according to one recent poll, 46% of Pakistanis support Osama bin Laden.

What should be easy to agree [upon] is that Pakistan is getting worse. Even those who thought at the time that its creation was one of the most unnecessary mistakes in British imperial policy wouldn't have predicted that a mere half-century later it would be a coup-prone nuclear basket-case exporting both its tribal marriage customs and irredentist jihadism to the heart of the western world. Fifty years ago, Pakistanis emigrating to England and Canada brought with them an essentially Britannic education and a moderate Sufi Islam that was not a barrier to integration. Today they bring a narrow madrassah education and [Wahhabi- or Salafi-inspired] Deobandi Islam, which is deeply hostile to assimilation. In other words, what a "Pakistani" is[,] is profoundly different. I liked Benazir Bhutto very much, but she represented Pakistan's past, and her murder is a horrible confirmation of that fact.
I'm sure Steyn would love to be wrong about Pakistan, but there's a good chance he isn't.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Signing off for the holidays

This is Binah, taking a holiday break for the next couple weeks. Enjoy it all while you can, and stay warm and dry. Drive safely, and make it into the new year in one piece :)

Friday, December 14, 2007

Another cool astronomy site

Time for a break ....

Here's another cool Web site, this time astronomy, and it really is cool. And you'll actually learn something from it. Patience :)

Labels:

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Power and powerlessness in Jewish history

Chanukah is a holiday that can get one to thinking, about the Jews of antiquity, about Jewish survival - and about Jewish power or, for much of history, lack of it.

We haven't - still - gone far enough in analyzing the malignant mental disorder of antisemitism - how some Jews pick it up from antisemites; how it's not a mental illness in the strict sense, but a willful, obsessive irrationality; why Jews need political power, and why Jews have been so bad at it, to the point of often not being able to protect themselves.

The operational source of political antisemitism in the Western world today is the far left, which acts in part from its own destructive fantasies and in part as a conduit for radical Islamic ideas (repackaging them somewhat along the way). Mainstream liberals and the traditional Jewish organizations have been, first asleep, then confused, and finally, late in grasping the nature of these developments and responding to them. Some are still in a hypnotic semi-sleep. OTOH, things today are not as bad as in the 1930s: we have a state, allies, and a number of legitimate avenues of influence in democratic countries. It's also better understood, at least to an extent, how much of a danger political antisemitism poses to everyone else; so everyone else pays more attention.

Worship of powerlessness, the result of centuries of exile, is the key to understanding Jewish political weakness. Self-hatred is not the problem with most Jews; the problem is the embarrassment over having power, some power, any power. Many Jews consciously or unconsciously rationalize powerlessness as a higher morality, sharing with the ultraorthodox the belief that power is bad, at least for Jews. Among the religious, this tendency is wrapped up with messianic hope; among liberals and leftists, with utopianism and the belief that power is bad for everyone.

And all wrongly look within for the solution to the riddle of antisemitism, not realizing that antisemitism is really a gentile problem and not a Jewish problem at all. Antisemitism is a classic warning sign that something is wrong in the larger non-Jewish society, not the Jews. It is this hatred that is absorbed and transformed into self-hatred. In reluctantly and unwillingly modernizing societies, Jews are often targeted as symbols of modernity and forced into being the ultimate voodoo doll.

An essential antidote to this condition is Ruth Wisse's new Jews and Power. In it, she concisely puts down on paper the pathology and its solution. Her book is remarkable in its perspective, and short enough to read in one long sitting. Without so much as a by-your-leave, she turns Jewish history around - right-side up, so to speak - and takes having power as normal and powerlessness as abnormal. In Wisse's view, it was the Jews-as-tolerated-separated minority, the classical Old World Diaspora, that was the great experiment, not Zionism. It worked for a long time, but eventually failed: in one sense, with the rise of modern liberal political systems, liquidated peacefully; in another sense, destroyed, or murdered, really. Its success and eventual failure were closely bound up with the flourishing and ultimate fall of the great aristocratic-theocratic empires that controlled much of the Old World between antiquity and modern times.

Power is an expression of self-interest, which sometimes seems like a taboo concept in the Jewish world. Why is self-interest bad? Isn't it "right-wing," and doesn't it lead to war? Isn't it better if the Jews are always ready to sacrifice themselves? Not at all. Peace is certainly in one's interests - if it's real peace, not fake diplomatic-media nonsense. Even Israel's peace with Egypt and Jordan, limited as it is, is a good thing. Announcing to the world that one is always on call to sacrifice oneself makes war and conflict more, not less, likely.*

Once we get disentangled from the contortions of self-hatred and unearned guilt, we can keep clarity on the Israel issue by just remembering to keep it out of the colonialism box and keep it in the box marked, national self-determination, where it belongs. Power is essential for human and social life within civilization. But at the same time, power is limited and able to accomplish only certain things. In this vein, we should also stay clear of the neoconservative fallacy as well: having lacked power for so long, it was inevitable that some Jews, instead of viewing power as evil, would come to view it as magic.

POSTSCRIPT: If you don't think Jews need power any more, think again.
---
* The novelist Ayn Rand used to say, in connection with this, that "it's earlier than you think." When someone asked her, isn't everyone selfish, she replied, in effect, if only. Obviously, Rand's conception of self and selfishness differs greatly from the common use of these terms.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, December 10, 2007

Galison on science and objectivity

Virginia Postrel, of Dynamist Blog and former editor of Reason, comments on an interesting new book, Objectivity, by Harvard philosopher of science Peter Galison and co-author Lorraine Daston of Berlin's Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. The book explains the different connotations of objectivity by examining its history in science and philosophy.

Our modern notion of objectivity presupposes the modern division of subject and object, which itself is the latest transformation of the older body-soul dualism. Post-medieval science has seen three different meanings to the term "objectivity":
  • "Truth-to-nature" (representing an underlying type or species of, say, a plant)
  • "Mechanical objectivity" (all-seeing, all-knowing)
  • "Trained judgment" (finding patterns and "family resemblances" in samples)
The oldest form, from the time of Galileo and Newton in the seventeenth century and the century following, mainly encompassed the first type, with a little of the third. Our concept of objectivity today is distorted by the intervening mid- to late-nineteenth century form, which was mainly the second. Being "mechanical" meant "no wandering attention," "no falling asleep," "ever-attentive," etc., the machine equivalent of a god. The trouble is that this conception of objectivity is not human. It sets up a false ideal, the starting point for something called "scientism," which inverts the relationship between rational-thought-in-general and scientific method. The best-known type of scientism is positivism - the "just-the-facts" school of philosophy. This mistake is one of the causes of our present division of the Two Cultures and the collapse of the humanities since the 1960s. It gave rise to the Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment, in turn the basis of the reactionary and utopian movements of modern times.

The hopeless naiveté of this approach was known before the rise of the false nineteenth century ideal. The trouble started with Descartes' mind-machine dualism, his universal skepticism, and Kant's attempted solution. Kant postulated "real objectivity" as the "thing-in-itself" free of space, time, mind, and the conditioning of the senses - by definition unattainable and meaningless. A generation later, Hegel had a better solution, because he grasped the key condition implicit in the Enlightenment ideal of "disinterestedness": objectivity is a relationship between subject and object and not about one or the other separately.* Unfortunately, both Hegel and Kant were poor stylistic examples and often very hard to understand. A major opportunity was missed to catch the division of art, philosophy, and science before it became what it is now, apparently irreparable.

In the last century, a more social conception on objectivity, "trained judgment," has replaced the nineteenth century's ascetic and sacrificial conception. While it's fine as far as it goes, it doesn't go far enough. Taking it seriously leads back to number one. Students today typically never get to it, except by accident. But it's wrong to view objectivity as a given finished product. The point made by Hegel and the early Pragmatist philosophers (like Charles Peirce) is that objectivity is the endpoint of a process, even a struggle. Considered in its fuller sense, objectivity is a process. And it's not about you or it; it's about you and it.

POSTSCRIPT: And Virginia Postrel is back! She is struggling with breast cancer - head over to her Web site and wish her well!

And consider her comments on journalistic objectivity: think of a better formulation of "objectivity" than the "mechanical C-SPAN camera" metaphor.
---
* This process is Hegel's famous "dialectic," but not the cookie cutter presented to generations of students or its misappropriation and misuse later promoted by Marxism.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 07, 2007

Armenians, Turks, Israelis, and Jews: A final word

Someone left a lengthy comment on my first posting on Ottoman Turkey and the Armenian genocide, and I responded in the comments section. The larger issues raised by this history are worth returning to, briefly. I've reposed my response below, slightly edited. Apparently, this reader didn't read my second posting, which would have clarified some things he missed.

My response explains the wrongness of the such views and alludes to the reasons why people hold them. Denial of the bare facts is rare today; instead, there's a lot of dancing around the facts and refusal to label them honestly. Rationalizations based on the Ottoman-Russian war are equally flimsy and irrelevant; they fall into the same scapegoating that the Young Turks themselves engaged in at the time. Their "Armenian problem" preceded the outbreak of war in 1914 by decades. But my response also gets deeper into historical detail than most readers will want; and even greater detail is available in the works of Fromkin, Power, and Florence, among other places. Up here, let me just cut to the chase and answer the question of why this sad history is important today.

There are some broad issues of critical importance that the Armenian genocide and the collapse of the Ottoman empire touch on and illuminate: the incompatibility of empire and modernity; the crisis that every modernizing empire has faced with the rise of chauvinistic and racist movements (like pan-Turkism), often confused with nationalism. Countries with strong Christian-liberal-enlightenment traditions were able to keep these forces at bay or marginalize them - plus they had the alternative of liberal and democratic nationalism, a powerful basis for rejecting racist and class-warfare ideologies. Eurasia's great empires could not; while they all went through liberalizing and reformist phases in the 18th and 19th centuries, these forces were shallow and short-lived, expressed as brief episodes of "enlightened despotism." Both czarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey entered their final, post-liberal phases in the late 19th century, while Germany and Austria-Hungary didn't feel the full impact of such trends until after 1918. The whole subject - empire, nations, modernity, self-rule versus autocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and theocracy - deserves and will get a posting of its own. I'll just say again: Ataturk, the founder of the modern republic of Turkey, understood these points very well, better than rationalizers of the Young Turks and Ottomans do today. All of the Ottoman minorities - even those, like the Jews, who did well for much of the empire's history - came around to this view by 1918. The Armenian genocide of 1915-17 played a large role in their change of view.

For us today, there is a weirder irony. Contrary to what Libby says, few Armenians (at least none that I know) "wallow" in this history. (There's no business here like Shoah business :) This is a far more crucial issue precisely for modern Turkey itself, a basic question that touches on just how modern it is, and how ready it is to join Europe. It's an unavoidable bridge the Turks will have to cross if they are to join. Imagine if Germany were still having fundamental difficulties facing the Nazi period. Obviously, Jews would be outraged. But forget about that for the moment: What would Germany's neighbors think? Would NATO or the EU have ever have been possible, or the Cold War come to an end, with such a fundamental and ominous question mark hanging in the air? This issue is not about Armenians, Jews, or Israel: it's about Turkey.



This is my response to the commenter at the first posting.

[snip]

What you're doing is what a lot of Ottoman-Young Turk apologists do, which is to essentially admit the Armenian massacre of World War One, then rationalize by playing with words, teasing readers with a seductive historical amnesia, or tell Jews in particular that they did well under the Ottomans or that modern Turkey is a good ally of Israel. I didn't compare the Armenian genocide directly to the Holocaust. In certain respects - its Teutonic thoroughness, the irrational paranoia of antisemitism - the Holocaust was unique. But by that standard, the Holocaust would be the only genocide in the book, and that's certainly not right either. I also don't want to stoop to genocide card-trading: you know, I'll swap your Holocaust for two genocides and 20 pogroms, hold the mustard.

As I wrote, the most damning evidence on the genocide was precisely the reaction of the German, Austrian, and American ambassadors, allied to Turkey or neutral. All three diplomatic missions quickly concluded in 1915 that the Young Turks (Enver and Talaat) were trying to exterminate the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. Enver and Djemal admitted as much to the Germans. That's genocide, period.

Nor was there any military reason for extermination. While apologists try to claim the Ottoman Armenians were rebelling, there's no evidence of such rebellion. The real reason was that Turkey's offensive against Russia in the winter of 1915 was a disastrous failure, and the Young Turks needed someone to blame. The Armenians had already been such targets in the past, and they were near the Russo-Turkish border. So they were convenient scapegoats for [terrible bungling]. Outside the universe of rationalizers and apologists (like Toynbee), historians and observers at the time understood that the Young Turks' program in 1915-17 was continuous with past Ottoman behavior toward their Christian minority subjects - it was NOT about winning the war with Russia. If wiping out the Armenians was so critical to the Turkish war effort, why did the German and Austrian ambassadors protest it? After all, they had a large stake in Turkish success against Russia.

Nor is it true that the Christian minorities "flourished" under the Ottomans, at least not in the Empire's last century. Much of it was in steep long-term decline in any case. But the Ottomans' contradictory efforts to liberalize and modernize their empire, while still keeping the dhimmis in some kind of subordinate status, created an impossible situation, one that could only be resolved in one of three ways: convert all Ottoman subjects into equal citizens (which ran against Islamic law and Turkish dominance), relinquish Turkish rule over the dhimmis (which is what ended up happening), or genocide. This problem was not unique to the Ottomans. Next door, the Russian empire went through a similar cycle, during the same period, and for similar reasons: liberalization and reform earlier in the 19th century, followed by violent reaction (pogroms etc.) aimed at preserving the older imperial-feudal-theocratic structure before it disintegrated. These governments in part created this dilemma by their earlier efforts at reform. The Ottoman Christian subjects suffered in the last couple generations before the war because either granting them full rights or accepting their growing demands for independence would mean the end of the Ottoman empire as traditionally constituted. Once the Ottoman authorities accepted this, they began (in the 1890s, a decade after the pogroms started in Russia) a series of anti-Christian massacres. Something similar happened in German-speaking lands, but not until after 1918. Until then, Germany and Austro-Hungary retained many liberal features.

The reason Jews did so well for so long under the Ottomans was that, being small in number and having no state or political power, they were not a threat. While Enver and Talaat were anti-Christian, they were not anti-Jewish. But the Jews just came late to nationalism, and the Ottomans didn't get the chance before 1918 to persecute them on a large scale. BTW, Djemal did understand this; while not anti-Christian, he did start persecution of Jews during the war. By 1918, almost all the Jews in the empire wanted an Allied victory - among other things, they had seen what happened to the Armenians. [The Jews of Palestine also suffered greatly under wartime Young Turk rule.]

Finally, I don't want to sound as if I'm being mindlessly anti-Turkish. I've been to Turkey and find a lot to admire about it. Ataturk was a great man, for his military brilliance and his political acumen. Everyone chatters about his master stroke of making Turkey a secular republic, abolishing the caliphate/sultanate. (The Sultan was already a prisoner of his own government in any case, before the war.) What people should admire at least as much is that Kemal also understood that Turkey could not become a modern republic unless it abandoned its rule over non-Turkish and non-Muslim subjects. Unlike the Young Turk triumvirate, Ataturk was a great military commander, one with real victories under his belt - and no need to commit genocide to achieve them.

It's more clear in my second posting, but I'll spell it out: why does the modern Turkish republic feel the need to rationalize for what the collapsing Ottoman Empire did? After all, modern Germany is constituted by a very different political regime from the Nazis or even the Kaisers (not that I want to equate the two). This is what baffles a lot of foreign observers otherwise sympathetic toward, and admiring of, modern Turkey.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 06, 2007

The truth about cats and dogs

Translated and excepted from the original.

Dog Diary

8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite!
9:30 am - A car ride! My favorite!
9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favorite!
10:30 am - Got rubbed and petted! My favorite!
11:00 am - Went to the vet. Bummer.
12:00 pm - Lunch! My favorite!
1:00 pm - Played in the yard! My favorite!
5:00 pm - Milk bones! My favorite!
7:00 pm - Got to play ball! My favorite!
8:00 pm - Wow! Watched TV with people! My favorite!
11:00 pm - Sleeping on the bed! My favorite!

Cat Diary

Day 983 of my captivity.

My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets.

Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength. The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape.

In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.

Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates what I am capable of. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Bastards!

There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of "allergies." I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage.

Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow - but at the top of the stairs.

I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released - and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded.

The bird has got to be an informant. I observe him communicate with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe - for now.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

The age of babble

For an example of what once-respected institutions - in this case, National Geographic - have twisted themselves into so they can play media whores, read this about the Gospel of Judas.

This non-canonical gospel was made famous in last year's media-sensational, PC-tinged, and seriously flawed mistranslation of the original Coptic/Greek text from the 3rd century Gnostics of Egypt.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Chanukah sameach

Tonight is the first night of Chanukah.

Mostly, we tend to think of Chanukah as an obvious and positive holiday. But it's a subtle holiday too, sometimes a little too subtle for some people.

It's the second century BCE, in Judea and Jerusalem, around 167. Since the demise of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, the Judeans (Jews) had lived peacefully and alternating under Alexander's military successors, the Egyptian Ptolomies (who ruled from Alexandria, in Egypt) and the Syrian Seleucids (who ruled from Damascus), dividers of his empire after his death. In that year, a crazy new Syrian Greek ruler named Antiochos IV Epiphanes decided that he was a god and demanded that his subjects worship him. This was a not-unknown expression of mental illness among the Hellenistic rulers, from inbred families, who reigned between Alexander and the arrival of the Romans.* It's not clear if all his subjects complied, but we know of one group who refused.

The Hashmonai'im (Hasmoneans), a Jewish priestly family, revolted against Antiochos and waged a guerrilla war of several years before recapturing Jerusalem and restoring the Temple (chanukat ha-Bayit) that had been defiled by the Greek idols and pig sacrifices earlier forced on the priests. But it's not historically right to overinterpret this moment, although from it have come some hoary myths that never die. It's disturbing to see someone as smart as Christopher Hitchens (a self-styled atheist who is Jewish on his mother's side) repeat them.

It's not true that Jews rejected all that Greek stuff when they defeated the Seleucids, or that their struggle was one of "Hebraism versus Hellenism." The pre-exilic Israelites had already had centuries of sustained, pre-Alexander contact with the Greeks, first from the islands (the Kittim), then later from Asia Minor (the Yavanim).** After Alexander's spreading of urban Greek culture in the late fourth century BCE, Jews had become significantly Hellenized in many ways. In fact, they were Hellenized before, and they were Hellenized after, the 167 revolt. What they were rejecting was religious coercion, as well as reasserting their political independence. The former has had far more and much better impact in the long run than the latter, which just installed the Hasmoneans and later Herod. The Hasmoneans became so Hellenized that they started calling themselves things like Alexander and Jason, which have remained Jewish names ever since. One of the first rabbis listed in the Mishnaic tractate Pirkei Avot has the utterly Greek name of Antigonos, male form of Antigone - as in the daughter of Oedipus and protagonist of the famous play by Sophocles.

And the notion of the Jews, at least that late in antiquity, being "primitive" or "tribal" is preposterous. The Israelites had once been tribal - a thousand years earlier, in the late Bronze Age, when they conquered Canaan. But by the time Alexander arrived in 332 BCE, the Jews had been through tribal federation, centralized monarchy, exile, and the destruction of clan distinctions. By the Roman period, there was little left of tribalism, apart from the caste distinctions of the priests (Levites and Kohanim). By late antiquity, the Jews became predominantly urban, probably the first people in history to be so.

Of course, these Hellenized Jews were observant and didn't participate in the Hellenized pagan religions of the gentile peoples around them. But Greek culture nonetheless permeated everyday life in Alexander's empire (later the eastern Roman Empire). Greek words (like synagogos, sanhedrin or synhedrion, qolar, kan-kan or can, epikomon or dessert, karpas or parsley, kalonymos = kalos nymos or good name, etc.) run to the many thousands in rabbinic Hebrew. We know of many Greek-speaking Jewish authors from that period, although the works of only two - Josephus and Philo - survive more or less intact, mainly because Christians preserved them, for their own reasons.

I am thinking of adding a large naked statue of Zeus to my living room, but that's beside the point :)

It would be silly to deny the influences, in both directions, and the religion of those Hellenized Jews, while different from ours in some respects, in no way contradicted their functioning in a predominantly Greek world, even under later Roman rule. How far they were aware of the Greek high culture is unclear. They knew about Homer and the dramatists; how much they knew about the Greek philosophical schools (the Platonists, the Aristotelians or Peripatetics, the Stoics, and the Epicureans) is less clear. The word Apikoros (Epikoros - Latinized, Epicurus) survives as an epithet for a skeptic or religious scoffer.

Rabbinic Judaism as we know it today comes mainly from Babylonia (Mesopotamia), where Aramaic-speaking Jews lived semi-autonomously under the Zoroastrian Persians. Even there, Hellenistic influences were significant. But those Jews did not have the intimate contact with Greek culture that the Roman-ruled Jews had. The rabbis were impressed most by the beauty and flexibility of the Greek language. Alluding to the Septuagint (the first complete translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, done in the third century BCE), they recalled the blessing† to "beautify Yephet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."

The rabbis also had a subtle point to the way they bequeathed Chanukah to us. They deliberately de-emphasized the military and political aspects of the Hasmonean victory, as these proved ephemeral: within a few years, the Hasmoneans had usurped the priesthood and become quite corrupt. It was the religious significance they emphasized instead, as if to say, this is what's really important, the recovery and rededication of the Temple. The military victory was just a means to that end. After the two great Jewish revolts against Rome in the first and second centuries, the rabbis were in no mood to stoke more messianic hopes and military heroics in any case.

Chag sameach!

POSTSCRIPT: Sources?! You want sources, we got sources :)

~ Pseudo-biblical: The Scroll of Antiochus: widely read by Jewish congregations at Chanukah until modern times. It's in Aramaic, which points to composition in Eretz Israel or Babylonia in late antiquity; it is probably based on earlier sources, either Aramaic or Greek. The scroll's nature and provenance have been controversial since it first appeared in the 8th century.

~ Rabbinic: Megillat Ta'anit, a list of days when Jews are supposed to fast and not fast. It's part of the Mishnah, which was originally composed, memorized, and recited orally. Composed in Hebrew some time between the arrival of the Romans in 37 BCE and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, it's also sometimes called Megillat Hashmonai'im and is mostly about matters related to the Hasmoneans.

~ Apocrypha: The two Books of the Maccabees (the nom de guerre of the Hasmoneans), composed in Hebrew and Greek in the late second century BCE. They were rejected for the Jewish canon, but are recognized in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Bibles as "deuterocanonical"; i.e., not in the Hebrew canon, but added by Christians at a lower level of authority. The first (probably the earlier) is straightforwardly historical, while the second has a stronger pious tinge but tells a more complex story.

There are some later books under the same name, but with much less authenticity and importance.

~ Josephus: The first-century Jewish commander who defected to the Romans during the Jewish war (66-73 CE) and wrote four extant works in Greek, including Antiquities of the Jews and The War of the Jews.

~ Aramaic, Greek, and Latin: These were major languages of the Persian, eastern Roman, and western Roman empires, respectively. Aramaic is a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew. Because rabbinic literature was composed mainly in Eretz Israel and Babylonia, it's in a mix of the two Semitic languages. Aramaic is still spoken by a few Christians in Lebanon and Iraq.
---
* The Romans themselves had a number of such mentally ill rulers, the most famous being Caligula (ruled 37-41 CE), who also demanded that his subjects worship him as a god. He made the mistake of insulting the Roman Senate by elevating his horse to Senator, and a conspiracy of republican-minded Senators assassinated him.

** There's no distinctive Hebrew word for the Greeks of mainland European Greece, like the Athenians (Attica), the Spartans, or the Thracians. Kitti is cognate to Kition (modern Larnaca), the capital of Cyprus; Yavan (pronounce it Yawan), to Iowon, archaic for Ionia (Asia Minor).

† Genesis 9:27. A Hebrew pun: "beautify" is yaf't, sometimes translated as "enlarge."

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 03, 2007

A truly awful idea

As if to confirm the mentally unbalanced nature of the "global warming" craze, along comes the recent movement pushing for geoengineering, large-scale modification of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, all to prevent a pseudo-crisis.

It's hard to decide what's the worst thing about this movement. Is it the hubris of would-be geoengineers in the face of how much we don't know about the Earth's aerohydrosphere? Is it their apparent failure to have learned anything from the experience of weather forecasters in the last 40 years in wrestling with chaos and the long-term unpredictable nature of the weather?

Certainly, the ideas being proposed range from fringe to completely daft. The usual goal, modifying the flow of light into and heat out of the Earth's atmosphere, is not the problem. The atmosphere's heat flow is not too complicated, considered in a general way, although its detailed evolution is impossible to predict. The real problem is the unknown effects that geoengineering schemes would have on the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans. This chemistry is far more complex and unfathomable than the heat flow.

At this point, the only geoengineering proposals that should even be entertained are either space-based experiments, with self-contained consequences, or augment what's already mitigating carbon dioxide levels: planting trees, or perhaps small experiments with enhancing oceanic absorption of CO2.

Even restricting ourselves to already-known mechanisms involves some risks. To the argument that we can stop geoengineering if it begins to go amiss, consider entropy, irreversibility (the Second Law), and the large qualitative changes the Earth's climate occasionally undergoes (like the Ice Ages). It's like starting to roll down a hill, with no way of getting back to your starting point. Bifurcation happens :)

Geoengineering - on the scales being debated now - is crackpot lunacy.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Ferris saves

Really, he does :)

Ferris Saves is a Web archive of all those fun-filled teens and twenties movies of the 1980s and 90s. While the site has not seen much activity recently, it's a treasure trove of reviews and links of all those greats of yesterday, starting with John Hughes and his immortal creation, and Saint Molly too.

Labels: ,