I Like France But...

I like France. When some within my country insisted upon calling French Fries "Freedom Fries" during the runup to the Iraq War, I gladly walked up to the counter and insisted upon being served French Fries. No "Freedom Fries" for me, thank you very much.

However when the French insist upon sticking their heads up their ass, I am going to insist upon telling them it stinks up there.

(See here) a Haaretz piece written by Amos Harel and Eli Ashkenazi that reports on recent statements by French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy.

"In the region there is of course such a country as Iran - a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and plays a stabilizing role in the region," he told a news conference.

Now I only get to read excerpts from the statement. Perhaps I would not be so condemnatory if the French Foreign Minister had attempted to say that Iran "could" serve as a stabilizing force. However to describe current actions by the Iranian government as ALREADY serving as a stabilizing force is bullshit.

We are trying to get to a peace agreement after all. Is France going to be realistic or is France going to sign on with the enemy? Within Israel exists a moderate government that is still willing to withdraw from the West Bank in the pursuit of peace. The boundaries of the withdrawal is still open to negotiation, however this Israeli government is willing to acknowledge some type of withdrawal is necessary, unlike their adversaries who continue to insist the "Zionist entity" must be destroyed and all the Jews driven into the sea.

Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel. Iran actively supports Hezbollah. Now we see where France actively praises Iran for her actions.

OK, I now think I can logically come to the conclusion that France is starting to become a force which throws her weight behind forces that contribute towards instability. I will not descend into the obvious and sometimes humorous criticisms of "all things French". However I will not worship at the altar of French opinion. When the French opinion falters into error, I am going to speak against it.

Iranian efforts do not aid the struggle for peace in the Middle East. If France chooses to praise Iran for her efforts, then France too must be identified with those who seek to thwart a just resolution of the Middle East conflict.

Now I ask, what motivates France? Does France seek a just settlement or does some other goal motivate her?

I am at least going to demand that France stop trying to hide behind the moralistic shield of "humanity" while she scurries to further national advantage in an orgy of self interest.

The Sad Shape of Baseball

Sob. I mourn the demise of the World Series as baseball's pre-eminent baseball spectacle.

Anymore, the National League is starting to look like a farm system for the American League. As the trade deadline approaches, all the talent is going from the talent starved National League to the already talent rich American League.

Cases in point:

1: Carlos Lee goes to the Rangers. At least the Brewers got some prospects in return. However from the Brewers track record, even if some of the promising talent develops into major league material, they are just going to once again trade the talent away. A few years back Milwaukee was moved from the American League to the National League. In light of current developments, this move was fitting. However an even more honest move would have been to move Milwaukee to the Triple A farm system.

2: The rumored trade of Bobby Adreu to the Yankees (or the Red Sox) for damn near nothing in a salary dump by the Phillies. Reportedly the Yankees would not even have to surrender what little talent they have in their farm system in exchange. If the Phillies want to salary dump, why not dump the salary to a National League team that will be willing to take on the salary and offer some prospects in return? Oh, that's right. The Phillies only have to compete in the National League, and if all their real talent is traded to the new "Major League" (which used to only be called the American League and shared the label Major League with the National League) it will be easier for them to compete in the new "Minor League" they are helping to form.

Now I am a St Louis Cardinal fan. I am still hoping Cardinal GM Walt Jocketty can pull off one of his miracle deals that would allow my team to reach and even be competitive in the World Series. Perhaps he can still pull off a trade/trades that will give the Cardinals a potent bat to back up Albert Pujols and some much needed pitching help to assist Chris Carpenter. Perhaps Walt can still land Alfonso Soriano, although most trade rumors report he is going to end up in the American League as well. As for pitching (and here I am really dreaming) perhaps some way could be come up with that would convince The Rocket to play for a real contender in his senior years? As much as The Rocket has defied age thus far, eventually his body is going to give out on him. Why not go out with a blast instead of with a whimper?

Thus far, all the real talent is headed for the American League. The real World Champion is going to be decided in the American League playoffs and the World Series is going to become a boring post climatic exercise that will only serve as a stage for the National League champion to showcase their farm team talent to the American League.

Gay genetics

I have been thinking about the arguments about gay genetics again. Specifically, are gays really "born that way" without choice, or is it possible that there is an element of choice or the influence of environment after conception?

I try to remain open to the arguments. Personally, I tend to discount the gay gene theory, and would put forth that if homosexuality is not a choice, the explanation must be in environment. Now when I describe environment, I include the environment the fetus is exposed to in utero. My considerations do not exclude the environment after the child is born, this environment should also be included.

Why do I dismiss that a gay gene exists? Well other then in obvious cases where, for example, a male child is forced to develop without normal levels of testosterone, little evidence exists that the child is preordained from conception into forced homosexuality without choice.

Let us examine one of the strongest arguments put forth by gay gene proponents as to the validity of their beliefs. In approximately 50% of the occasions where one identical twin is homosexual, the other twin is as well. This rate exceeds the rate of homosexuality when compared to the general population. There is the proof, they claim.

Got that? Homosexuality in both identical twins only occurs half the time. But these guys (or gals) have identical genes. If a gay gene is the explanation for homosexuality, then certainly this rate should approach 100%. Without a near 100% similar outcome, there must be some other explanation.

Even if studies of identical twins separated at birth (which would eliminate methods of rearing a child from environmental causation) yielded similar results, we would still be facing a less then 100% identical outcome.

Something after the conceived single cell entity split into two entities causes half of identical twins, where one is homosexual, to develop into opposing sexual indentaties.

Perhaps the explanation is environment, which includes the environment within the uterus. Certainly both fetuses will not receive exactly the same nourishment from their placentas within the womb nor with any certainty will both be exposed to exactly the same hormonal levels. Perhaps one receives a higher dose of certain hormones as it develops in the womb?

Or perhaps there does exist some element of choice in the matter? Perhaps a gene exists that does allow choice when it comes to sexual identity? Flip a coin, and over time half the time you will experience heads and half the time you will experience tales. When the identical twin is faced with sexual identity where his sibling is homosexual, half the time he "chooses" homosexuality and half the time he "chooses" heterosexuality.

The strongest argument put forth by the "gay gene" crowd actually shoots them in the foot. Perhaps some environmental explanation can explain the discrepancy, and this environment includes the environment within the womb. Or perhaps their evidence points towards an element of choice exists.

I am saying no gay gene exists, except in obvious cases such as when a male is born with genes that causes him to develop without testicles.

Perhaps, still, they are "born that way". Perhaps, in utero, they developed within an environment that left them with no choice other then to be gay. Or perhaps, despite this environment, despite their genes, there still was some element of choice. And no matter how loudly they scream this is not the case, some element of choice still exists. They could exist in society quite happily if they "chose" to be heterosexual. This just is not the choice they made, and they want to force society to accept what they have chosen.

The Price For an Israeli

What is the cause for the (in my opinion) unreasonable demands made by Hamas and Hezbollah in regards to prisoner exchanges?

Why does Hamas insist that hundreds of Palestinians must be released for one Israeli soldier or in the case of Hezbollah perhaps thousands?

Let us examine recent history. What was Hezbollah able to accomplish during negotiations for an exchange with the Ariel Sharon government?

Ariel Sharon, reputed hardliner, nick-named "the Bulldozer", agreed to release hundreds of Palestinians (I think the number was something like 760) in exchange for 4 Israelis. Of the four, three were deceased and Israel would only receive their remains. The fourth was an alleged crook who, after his release by Hezbollah, would be subjected to trial and possibly prison time by the Israeli government.

At the time, in discussions with some Israelis, I tried to scream this was a mistake. That Sharon was thus setting the price for an Israeli, even the bones of Israeli, at too high a price. What was to prevent, I asked, Palestinians from sneaking into Israeli cemeteries and start digging up bones for future exchange?

To understand why this exchange happened, you need to understand a little about the most devout Jews. I am not particularly familiar with all the underlying religious dictates, but I know enough to know that Israelis really, really think a "proper Jewish burial" is necessary. Most societies honor the remains of, particularly, their warriors but also the remains of society in general. The US for example goes to great expense to recover the remains of the MIA (Missing In Action) from the Vietnam War and to then discover the identity of the remains after they are recovered. However in Israel, they go a step further.

In Israel, Ultra-Orthodox volunteers hurry to the scene of suicide bombings to scour the site for the most minute remnants of victims that might have been spread into the surrounding area by the blast. Even the tiniest bit of a Jewish victim must be recovered for proper interment. No washing the gore down the nearest sewer opening with a fire hose in Israel, at least not until it all has been examined by the volunteers!

Now Hamas and Hezbollah know this as well. What is frightening is that even if those captured are executed, their value does not diminish by much. Israel will still be motivated to recover the remains, and the price Israel will be willing to pay for such recovery is, in my opinion, unreasonable.

The price for an Israeli was set in the past. Israel, acting through Ariel Sharon, set the price.

Middle East Warcrimes?

Warcrimes, that is how some describe Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Israel has the right to defend herself, but no nation is allowed to engage in warcrimes.

Interesting. OK, just how should Israel defend herself? Should the Israeli military march into Lebanon with popguns or something?

I wish to explore recent history a little bit and how it impacts the debate internal to Israel. I will acknowledge that within Israel there exists some that I would describe as right wing extremists. It is not only within Hamas and Hezbollah where there are extremists, however sometimes the arguments put forth by the Israeli right do have some merit.

International pressure was put on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and Israel did so. Israel's withdrawal was completed in May 2000. Did peace break out?

Let us examine one example of the arguments put forth by the Israeli right. (See here) an article by David Bedein that appears at the Israel Insider website. Mr Bedein gives a short history of the conditions on Israel's northern border.

In the four years since the IDF unilaterally redeployed its troops from Lebanon, the following attacks on Israel took place from the north: 34 attacks with mortar shells and anti-tank missiles into northern Israel; 7 shooting attacks with light arms fire into northern Israel; 8 roadside bombs that were planted in northern Israel; 127 times when anti-aircraft missiles were fired into northern Israel; 5 Katyusha rocket attacks into northern Israel; 10 infiltrations into northern Israel; 11 soldiers killed in northern Israel, while three IDF troops were kidnapped and murdered; 50 soldiers were wounded in northern Israel; 14 civilians were killed in northern Israel.

Now note that Mr Bedein is arguing against the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (also frequently referred to as Judea and Samaria within Israel). He points to the aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as being an example of what will be the results of any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

Please note that Mr Bedein's article is a little dated. It was reprinted from an earlier appearance on Israel Insider in March 2005, apparently in an effort by the Israel Insider publisher to say "See, we told you so!" If the article were written today, I would imagine the author would also point to what has been happening after the Gaza withdrawal as being another example of what Israel can expect after any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

Some within the international community loudly proclaim that Israel has been going too far in Lebanon and Gaza. They seem to be stating, "Israel has the right to defend herself, just not quite so vigorously, please." These same voices will also then expect Israel to withdraw from the West Bank (hopefully after negotiations) because "Justice demands it."

Well I too hope for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. I too would prefer that this withdrawal be after a negotiated settlement if this negotiated settlement includes the elected representatives of the Palestinian side (Hamas) giving up on their formal, official policy of driving all Jews into the sea.

However I am wondering if Ehud Olmert will now be able to pull such an outcome off. Will he be able to muster the internal support from the Israeli public necessary to do so? Without majority public support he will be prevented from doing so. Right now, the Israeli right is being empowered in their arguments. They can appeal to Israeli moderates (the center) with the argument that what is going on today in Lebanon and Gaza is what tomorrow holds for Israel from the West Bank after any Israeli withdrawal. "See how the international community condemns us as we try to defend ourselves today from rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon. After our withdrawal from Judea and Samaria ALL of Israel will be within range of rocket attacks and just as we are condemned for our actions in Lebanon and Gaza, so will we be condemned if we take action against rocket attacks and suicide bombings coming from Judea and Samaria."

Now if I were an Israeli moderate enduring daily rocket barrages, I would find such an argument appealing. Perhaps I could be convinced that international support will be there if Israel has to defend herself if rockets are launched from the West Bank. But just then how will the international community define the "right to defend herself"? Well the definition of that right is today being written in Lebanon and Gaza. I seek to assure the moderate, wavering center within Israel that if she goes through with withdrawing from Judea and Samaria, that the "right of self defense" will be robust if the need for this right should arise.

I support a just settlement of the Middle East conflict. However justice is a two way street and it is not wrong for the Israeli side to demand their fair share of it.

Freedom of Speech Expiring in Canada

(See here) an article that appears at WorldNetDaily that reports on the squelching of freedom of speech at a Canadian institution of higher learning. Please note that the Professor is not being sanctioned for communicating a threat, but only for 1) publicizing on his website a couple letters he wrote to his former Anglican bishop and 2) stating in a private Email his opinion that homosexuality is unnatural.

Certainly any effort by the professor to threaten violence or to discriminate against any of his students because they are gay or who happen to hold a pro-homosexual viewpoint would be worthy of action by his employer. However he is being fined for only holding an opinion and communicating that opinion without communicating any threats. What is going to happen next up there in Canada? Will we see the introduction of some version of the thought police?

I would imagine the university administration feels they are defending "tolerance". However the reality of the situation is that they are proving just how intolerant they are. The administration should be more "tolerant" of those who disagree with them, at least as long as those in disagreement only involve themselves in public discourse.

I sure am glad I do not live in Canada. What our northern neighbors need is a Canadian version of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Israeli Bombing of UN Position

(See here) a New York Sun article that reports on the Israeli attack upon the UN observers in Lebanon.

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased
observer wrote.

Mr MacKenzie stated:

What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it.

There does appear to be some controversy over whether or not Hezbollah fighters were in the immediate vicinity on the day the base was hit by Israeli warplanes. However, at a minimum, it does appear that UN Secretary General Annan's hasty pronouncement that the attacks were "deliberate", prior to an investigation, might have been ill advised.

As Mr Mackenzie stated:

We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position "for tactical necessity" not being targeted...

Anencephalic Infants and Stem Cell Research

Anencephalic infants and stem cell research.

I am going to examine whether an Anencephalic infant is really a person.

An Anencephalic infant does not possess a brain other then a brainstem which allows development of a human body without the development of the cortex. Is such a "being" more worthy of protection then my pet dog (or a swine slated for slaughter) that possesses a cortex, albeit not a human cortex?

Is a hunk of "human" meat that does not possess a mind more worthy of protection then a chimpanzee that possesses a mind albeit not a human mind?

We can experiment on the chimpanzee because, while it possesses a mind, it is not a human mind. But the Anencephalic human does not even possess a mind, but for some reason it is against ethics to experiment with this hunk of meat that possesses no self awareness (unlike the unfortunate chimpanzee who we experiment on).

We all struggle with what to do about stem cell research. We are in the infant stages in regards to possibilities and as regards to ethics. My own viewpoint is that we should experiment upon ourselves if at all possible instead of experimenting on other lifeforms that possess minds, even if these minds are not humans.

Thus I put forth the furtherance of ethics by experimenting upon "ourselves" using the genes of an Anencephalic human being. Any human born absent a Cortex does not possess a mind. It is preferable for us to conduct our drug experiments on a "human" that does not possess a mind to conducting an experiment on a chimpanzee, or even a lab rat, that does possess a mind, even if that "mind" is not human. It is preferable to experiment on a human carcass that is alive and absent a mind to experimenting on a chimpanzee that possesses a mind that, while not human, is still present.

This brings me to stem cell research. I have become aware that "technical difficulties" have arisen in therapeutic cloning attempts to generate organs for needy recipients. What these "technical difficulties" were was not identified, however I can imagine. How does one seek to generate a kidney for a recipient without generating all the other biological functions necessary to allow the organ to grow? Unfortunately, thus far therapeutic cloning that allows such development also allows for the development of another cortex and thus another mind that must be somewhere along the line be destroyed to save the other human mind.

But what about gene splicing? If the genes responsible for an anencephalic infant could be identified, they could be spliced into the donors DNA so no "mind" will result.

Here is the problem as I see it. When eggheads attempt to experiment with embryonic stem cells, they have not found a way to program these stem cells to produce anything but a whole human being. If genes from an anencephalic human are spliced into the stem cells they experimenting with, this worry will be removed. If their experiment goes awry, and they are forced to "kill" the results of their experiment, they will not be killing a human mind. They would be ending that which would never have had a mind anyway.

I support stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. However the introduction of anencephalic genes into the research is key to my continuing support.

Torn by the Middle East Warfare

I am going to fess up. I am torn by the current warfare being conducted in the Middle East. Which side has the moral upper hand? Is Hezbollah and Hamas justified in striking out to liberate the occupied territories or is Israel justified in striking out to defend their citizens?

This is a complicated question. If you listen to either side, they will lead you towards their conclusions. But you then need to go and listen to the other side. Both sides have legitimate complaints and on both sides the arguments have merit.

If you allow either side to explore history, both sides will lead you towards examples of the inhumanity of the other side. Both sides are guilty.

I choose to judge this issue not on what has happened in the distant past but what has gone on in recent history. Those of us who desire peace have been working towards obtaining peace. What have been the most recent actions and just who must shoulder the blame for the recent breakdown and backslide?

I am going to point at the Palestinians. Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Palestinian People did not use this withdrawal as an opportunity to make Gaza flourish and provide an example of what would happen in the West Bank if Israel withdrew from there as well. Instead, Gaza was used as a launching pad for Qassam rockets into Israel.

When Israel responded to the Qassam attacks with artillery barrages, this was unacceptable to the freely elected Palestinian government. They decried all the innocents that were killed in the artillery barrages while not taking any steps of their own to prevent the Qassam barrages that prompted the artillery barrages. In fact, as artillery barrages were used to respond to Qassam attacks from "wide open spaces" those launching the Qassam attacks just moved the launching pads closer to Palestinian civilian population centers. The "brave Palestinian warriors" sought to hide behind the skirts of the "innocent" Palestinian civilians.

When the blast on the Gaza beach occurred Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. The cause of the blast is still undetermined. But even if the blast was due to an errant Israeli artillery shell, it was not cause for Hamas withdrawal from the cease fire. After all, Hamas expected Israel to honor the cease fire even when Qassam rockets were indiscriminately being rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel was expected to honor the cease fire even while Hamas did nothing to end the Qassam barrages.

Israel responded to the Qassam rocket barrages with proportional reactions. Islamic Jihad refused to honor the cease fire and was primarily responsible for the Qassam barrages, so Islamic Jihad leaders were the targets of missile attacks.

But then the explosion on the beach killed a Palestinian family and Hamas withdrew from the cease fire. Improved rockets with longer range were employed to reach further into Israel. It is important to recognize that these weapons have little military value. They are by no means a pinpoint accurate weapon. They are fired off in a general direction and the general direction that they are fired towards is target rich areas such as Israeli civilian population centers. The civilians are the targets of these weapons.

Many people hide behind "proportional response" due to the overwhelming Israeli military advantage. But let us explore this. A cut and chiseled giant of a man and 5 foot 7 inch 130 lb weakling (I am describing myself) walk into a bar. After a few beers, the weakling takes offense at something the giant stated and punches him in the nose. The giant responds by picking up the weakling and throwing him to the ground. The fight should be over.

But nope, the weakling is full of Budweiser courage. He jumps up and goes for the giants eyes seeking to claw them out. At this time, would not the giant be justified in pummeling the weakling? The weakling did not pick himself up and retreat while spouting a shower of insults, he actively went for the giants eyes. Must the giant allow his eyes to be clawed out in order to not be judged the big bully or is he allowed to defend himself?

This is where I sit. I notice that the Israeli population voted in a government that I would describe as being at least slightly moderate. In response (or perhaps for other reasons) the Palestinian People voted in an extremist government. I am willing to call an extremist an extremist no matter which side of the conflict they reside.

I want to see a just resolution of the conflict. But if the Palestinians walk into a bar and pick a fight, just how concerned should I be when they get carried out on a stretcher? They picked the fight with the giant after all.