Bradley's Blog

Moving To Wordpress

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:45:00 +0000

I've finally found the time and the motivation to get this blog moved to Wordpress, so if you notice some funkiness over the next few days, that's why. Also, if you don't see any posts from me for a couple of weeks, then you may need to update your RSS feed, though I'll try to find a way to make my current Feedburner feed move to Wordpress with me.

Deir Yassin and the Flight of the Palestinians

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:33:00 +0000

This is a paper I wrote for an undergraduate history course called Modern Middle East. I was taking a very involved course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict at the same time, so my papers for the Modern Middle East class focused on Palestine and Israel as well. The paper was given 15/15 points. I'd like to have written more, but it was only supposed to be 5 pages. If I'd had more time (or a requirement for more pages!) I'd probably have written more about how the Arabs and Jews both deliberately exaggerated to the events at Deir Yassin to their own advantage, and detriment.

Image via Palestine Solidarity Project

In 1917, Britain conquered Jerusalem and ruled the region through a military administration. In 1920, the San Remo Conference awarded Britain the mandate of Palestine, which was sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922.[1] By 1947, the British had grown weary of the sectarian violence between the Zionist Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine and as part of an overall downsizing of their colonial holdings after the economic stresses of World War II turned over the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations, which decided, in UN General Assembly Resolution 181, to solve the problem by separating the parties through land partition.[2]

The 29 November 1947 UN partition plan would have granted 55% of the land (much of it desert) to the Jews and 40% to the Arabs, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem falling under international control. The Jews accepted the plan, reasoning that it would provide them a foundation from which to build a Jewish state. The Palestinians, on the other hand, rejected the partition and launched a three day general strike followed by a wave of anti-Jewish terrorism in the cities and on the roads.[3]

As British Mandatory rule drew to a close in early 1948, the conflict between immigrant Jews and native Arab Palestinians erupted into an open civil war. On May 14^th, 1948, the day before the Mandate ended, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, changed the nature of the conflict by declaring the establishment of a Jewish state. The fighting between Jews and Arabs stopped being a sectarian struggle and evolved into a national struggle, not just between the new Israelis and the Palestinians, but between the newly formed Israel and the surrounding Arab states, who joined in the fighting. The war in 1947 - 1948 later became known as the War of Liberation to Israelis and as al-Nakba (“Disaster,” or “Catastrophe” in English) to the Palestinians and Arabs in the Middle East.[4] The Arabs were soundly defeated, leaving the Israeli state in control of more land than originally granted to it by UN Resolution 181, which the Arabs rejected under the assumption that the combined powers of the Arab armies could defeat the Jews.[5]

The conflict was a total defeat for the Palestinians. They not only lost control of a majority portion of the Palestinian Mandate territory, but they also failed to establish political independence. Only the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (with larger boundaries than today) remained outside of Israeli control, but they were claimed by other countries who had participated in the war against Israel: Egypt and Jordan. After the 1948 war, Jordan retained control over the resource-rich West Bank and East Jerusalem while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.

Perhaps the worst blow to the Palestinians, however, was being driven from the land and being prevented from returning. During the fighting, Palestinians fled their homes in droves in advance of or during combat between the Jews and Arabs, or to evade Arab militias who abused villagers. A total of approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced by the 1948 war in Palestine, and the issue showed up time and again in peace talks in the form of demands for the right-of-return of refugees.[6] Today, the number of refugees has ballooned to approximately five million as new generations of Palestinians are born in refugee camps and inherit the refugee status of their parents.[7]

Many factors contributed to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, including expulsion orders, such as those signed by Yitzhak Rabin (later a Prime Minister of Israel) that ejected the Arab population from Lydda;[8] voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes to other countries to avoid loss of capital during the fighting;[9] the flight of Palestinian leadership;[10] and as a result of Israeli actions during the implementation of “Plan Dalet” (also known as Plan D). Plan Dalet would later become known as a very controversial strategic operation which aimed at:

gaining control over the territory assigned to the Jewish state and defending its borders, as well as the blocs of Jewish settlement and such Jewish population as were outside those borders, against regular, para-regular, and guerrilla forces operating from bases outside or inside the nascent Jewish State.[11]

To its critics, especially those in Arab states, the plan called for nothing short of the ethnic cleansing of the land allotted to Israel in the 1947 United Nations General Assembly’s Resolution 181, which partitioned the land of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.[12]

Plan Dalet wasn’t necessarily a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestinians en masse. It was governed by military considerations and, given the nature of the war and the admixture of populations in Palestine, securing the interior of the Jewish state from ‘external’ threats required the depopulation and destruction of villages that housed hostile militias and irregulars.[13] It was also common for roving irregular forces from other Arab states to impose on villages by demanding housing, since they were there fighting for their interests, supposedly.[14] The people of Deir Yassin had decided to remain neutral in the conflict, refusing entry to outsiders, and worked out a system of signals with the nearby Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul to alert them that roving militias and irregulars were in the area. Deir Yassin hoped that by cooperating, their town would be spared the hardships of war.[15] They would, however, be disappointed.

A widely implemented tactic by the Arabs was to cut off supply lines between the Jewish coast and Jewish population centers inside the country, like Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc. Opening up these supply lines became a priority.[16] At David Ben-Gurion’s insistence, a force of 1500 Jewish troops was mobilized to take part in Operation Nachshon. No longer would the Jews passively protect their convoys with guards; they would instead conquer and hold the routes themselves, as well as the heights surrounding them.[17] It was during Operation Nachshon that the Deir Yassin massacre occurred. The operational order of 3 or 4 April states that “all the Arab villages along the [Khulda-Jerusalem] axis were to be treated as enemy assembly or jump-off bases” and according to Plan Dalet, villages so defined, if offering resistance, should be depopulated (through forced migration) and destroyed.[18]

It’s not clear why, but the Haganah command allowed two Jewish militant extremist groups to participate in Operation Nachshon, perhaps because of the importance of securing the routes and the need for able bodied fighters. Irgun Zevai Leumi (Irgun) and Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, aka the “Stern Gang”) were widely regarded as terrorists by British mandatory authorities and the Israeli defense establishment itself.[19] For example, in 1946 the Irgun, acting under the direction of Menachem Begin, who would in 1977 become the Prime Minister of Israel under the Likud Party, ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel, which housed the British Mandate headquarters. The final casualty list included ninety-one British, Arab, and Jewish dead.[20]

The result of the Irgun and Lehi’s participation in Nachshon was a massacre of civilians. Despite Deir Yassin’s non-belligerency agreement with neighboring Givat Shaul, Irgun and Lehi forces entered the town to occupy it and met with unexpectedly strong resistance from residents who probably felt betrayed by their Jewish neighbors. During the fighting, Irgun and Lehi forces blew up several houses and gunned down families in the streets. They also rounded up groups of unarmed residents of both sexes and murdered them en masse. Some residents were paraded through the streets of Jerusalem before being taken back to Deir Yassin to be murdered.[21] A Haganah Intelligence Service report states that “whole families – women, old people, children – were killed.”[22] The following day the author of the report added: “[Lehi] members tell of the barbaric behavior of the [Irgun] toward the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the [Irgun] men raped a number of Arab girls and murdered them afterward (we don’t know if this is true).”[23]

Regardless of whether or not it was true, reports like the one above and the stories told by the survivors rapidly spread throughout the region, becoming headline news. Altogether, about 100 – 120 villagers died that day, but the event became amplified through gossip and the media to such a degree that it became extremely influential in affecting the flight of the Palestinian population.[24] When trying to justify their actions after the fact, the Irgun cited the fear and panic the act caused and its beneficial impact on the Israeli war effort.[25]

The massacre and the way it was emphasized and possibly exaggerated in the media strengthened the resolve of Arab leaders to aid the embattled Palestinians and defeat the Jews. It also caused problems for the Jewish forces when criticized by the Western media, but the most important aspect of the massacre was the role it played in increasing flight from the Palestinian villages.[26] In Beit Iksa, fear caused the start of an immediate evacuation. The same occurred in al-Maliha and the residents of Fajja, near Petah Tikvah, Mansura, and near Ramle quickly called their Jewish neighbors and promised to not fight. In Haifa and surrounding villages, Palestinians heard rumors of Jewish atrocities at Deir Yassin and took flight. In the village of Saris, Arabs offered the attacking Haganah no resistance whatsoever, for fear of sharing Deir Yassin’s fate. [27] The fear of another Jewish massacre of civilians had an impact on the behavior of Palestinian villagers across the territory.

The British noted that whether or not all of those atrocities actually took place, the Haganah and the Jews had certainly profited from it and Jewish political leaders determined that the Deir Yassin massacre was one of two pivotal events in the exodus of Palestine’s Arabs, the other being the fall of Arab Haifa.[28] The psychological impact of the massacre may not have been the main cause of the Palestinian refugee crisis, but it certainly increased the number of people affected, making resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict that much more difficult for generations to come.

[1] David Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, p. 95.
[2] Ibid., p. 134.
[3] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 13.
[4] Ibid., p. 145.
[5] Tom Segev, One Palestine: Complete, p. 496.
[6] Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, p. 7.
[7] “Palestine refugees”, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
[8] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 429.
[9] Ibid., p. 67.
[10] The Pittsburgh Press, “British Halt Jerusalem Battle,” 1948.
[11] Quoted in David Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, p. 137.
[12] David Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, p. 137.
[13] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 164.
[14] Ibid., p. 123; p. 114.
[15] Ibid., pp. 90 – 91.
[16] Ibid., p. 66.
[17] Ibid., p. 233.
[18] Ibid.
[19] The Glasgow Herald, “Irgun Accept Ultimatum,” 22 September 1948; The Pittsburgh Press, “Two Palestine Hostages Dead, British Told,” 30 July 1947; St. Petersburg Times, “Jews Arrest Stern Gang Terrorists,” 19 September 1948; St. Petersburg Times, “French Uncover Plot To Bomb London,” 8 September 1947.
[20] David Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, p. 129 & 259; The Glasgow Herald, “Irgun Message Admits Guilt in Death Blast,” 24 July 1946.
[21] Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p 237.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 238.
[24] Ibid., p. 238.
[25] Ibid., p. 239.
[26] The Indian Express, “Arab States Out To Undo Jewish State: Azzam Pasha Outlines New Policy,” 21 May 1948.
[27] Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 240.
[28] Ibid.

Bibliography

"Arab States Out To Undo Jewish State." The Indian Express 21 May 1948: 5. Web Archive. 18 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RMA-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZUwMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5834,4780106&dq=deir+yassin&hl=en>.

"British Halt Jerusalem Battle: Fresh Troops Pour into City To Keep Peace." The Pittsburgh Press 3 May 1948: 1. Web Archive. 8 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lTwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K00EAAAAIBAJ&dq=arab%20flight&pg=3196%2C857594>.

"Irgun Accept Ultimatum." The Glasgow Herald 22 Sep 1948: 5. Web Archive. 17 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UGlAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gpgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2332,1281077&dq=irgun&hl=en>.

"Irgun Message Admits Guilt In Death Blast: Communique Purported From Underground Claims Warning Went Unheeded." The Montreal Gazette 24 Jul 1946: 1. Web Archive. 17 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ri4rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NZkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4367,3490066&dq=irgun&hl=en>.

"Jews Arrest Stern Gang Terrorists." St. Petersburg Times 19 Sep 1948: 1. Web Archive. 17 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BAxPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EE8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2817,5751128&dq=stern+gang&hl=en>.

Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. New York: Beacon Press, 2007. Kindle edition.

Lesch, David W. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

McGhee, George Crews. On The Frontline in the Cold War: An Ambassador Reports. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. Google eBook.

Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

"Palestine refugees." n.d. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. Web. 17 May 2012. <http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86>.

Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2001. Print.

"Two Palestine Hostages Dead, British Told: Sergeants Hanged, Underground Claims." The Pittsburgh Press 30 Jul 1947: 1. Web Archive. 17 May 2012. <http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4FkbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1485,4246329&dq=irgun&hl=en>.

Biblical Analysis: Let Us Walk in the Light of the Lord

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:52:00 +0000

The following is a paper written for an undergraduate Jewish studies course titled, "The History of God," which was intended to present God in a historical manner, using the Bible as the main source document and the Documentary Hypothesis as the main tool for interpreting its contents. The paper addresses Isaiah 2:2-5 to 6:22.

The professor left the following comment on the paper:

You show there are real forces beneath this passage - that it's helping hearers find a way out of their problems. Bravo... You see the fact that religion and doctrines address people where they hurt.

There were a few minor criticisms, but I've corrected the most glaring one before publishing it online. Also, despite the criticisms, the professor felt the paper was, overall, on the mark and marked it with an A/A-. I'm not sure about how he rates things. He usually left two grades on papers like that.

The Prophet Isaiah (Image from Wikipedia)

Isaiah 2:2-5 is a complex message that describes Judah and Jerusalem's future according to Isaiah. It presents a utopian view that sits in stark contrast to Isaiah 1, where Jerusalem is compared to a booth in a cucumber field, surrounded and isolated, or as an unfaithful whore, found in the previous chapter.[1] It looks even more out of place compared to the contents of Isaiah 3, which describes the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. However, the message being delivered has a purpose and fits an established framework.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, Isaiah 1-39 was written by an individual referred to as Isaiah 1 in approximately 720 BCE. Isaiah 40-55 are attributed to a second author, and 56-66 are attributed to a third author.[2] These authors all wrote at different times and wrote for different purposes. Isaiah 1's purpose was to explain the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians, to fit it into an established framework that the people would recognize and understand, and then to give hope to the southern kingdom of Judah, that they could be preserved if they mended their ways.

Isaiah 2:2-3 describes the existence of Jerusalem in the future, when it has become a cultural center. Verse 2 establishes that Jerusalem will exist in the latter days and that all nations will flow to it. This was probably a very important message for the people to hear and be reminded of after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians. The defeat of Israel not only called into question their political independence but the religious foundations of their society as well. According to Nathan, three-hundred and thirty years before in approximately 1050 BCE, God had promised to maintain the political solvency of David's kingdom forever, telling him (through Nathan), quite literally, “Your throne shall be established forever.”[3] So, when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom, Isaiah had to find a way to explain it, justify it, and then give hope that it did not mean the end of their way of life.

The only way to justify God’s apparent failure to uphold His end of the covenant was to say that He actually had not failed; the Israelites and Judeans failed God. Isaiah reasoned that God must have failed to protect the northern kingdom because the Israelites had turned their backs on God, or at the least, it was a plausible solution to the problem of explaining the breach of the covenant. He applies this logic by introducing a new concept, that sacrifice is not enough, and God never really wanted sacrifices in the first place. God tells the people He will not listen to them because their hands are full of blood. He tells them that instead of sacrificing, they should have been doing good, seeking justice, correcting oppression, upholding justice and pleading the widow’s cause.[4]

The point of this break with tradition is to shift people’s focus from the Temple rituals to practicing religion in their everyday lives. This idea is reinforced in Isaiah 2:3, where Isaiah prophecies that people will flock to Jerusalem in the future, not for its food or the climate, but for the law. “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord... that he may teach us his ways...For out of Zion shall go the law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”[5] This was not his attempt to stop the Temple rituals, but it was his way of laying the seeds of future faith, when the inevitable happened and the temple was destroyed.

Isaiah 2:4 further reinforces the Davidic Covenant and simultaneously acts to reassure the people that all will be well. It introduces the idea of God being bigger than just Jerusalem. He’s so big that He “judge[s] between nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples…”[6] This verse takes God out of the Temple. It separates Him from ritual and puts Him above the affairs of nations. It not only expands His powers, but it frees Him and his followers from religious destruction if the Temple is destroyed. The second half of Isaiah 2:4 describes people of the nations around Israel turning their weapons into agricultural instruments. They “shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”[7] When confronted with the utter destruction of the northern kingdom, it must have been welcome news to hear that in the future, there would be no war, and, hence, no threat to Judah’s existence.

Isaiah 2:5 is a call to action. It asks the house of Jacob to come and walk in the light of the Lord. The ensuing diatribe in 2:6-22 against the materialism and idolatry of the descendants of Jacob, presumably in the southern kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem, which have yet to be conquered, is probably intended to give the original recipients a road map for change that will allow them to avoid the same fate as their northern neighbors. Isaiah 2:6-22 basically tells them what they’re doing wrong, with 2:5 being the lead-in, warning them to steer clear of the following things that are against God’s will.

Isaiah 2:2-5 is a reminder to a people facing an imminent danger that threatens their way of life. It is a way out, a way to avoid the fate that befell the northern kingdom, and it is part of a message that explains why God did not uphold the covenant given to David, thereby saving the religion from destruction. By reaffirming the Davidic covenant and justifying the destruction of the northern kingdom, Isaiah reaffirms God’s dedication to David’s people and their well-being. Isaiah 2:2-5 is also an important turning point in the religion, bringing God out of the temple and into personal life.

[1] Isaiah 1:8 and 1:21. All references to Bible passages are from the English Standard Version.
[2] Arthur Patzia and Anthony Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies….
[3] 2 Samuel 7:16.
[4] Isaiah 1:11-17.
[5] Isaiah 2:3.
[6] Isaiah 2:4.
[7] Ibid.

Works Cited

Patzia, Arthur G. and Anthony J. Petrotta. Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies: Over 300 Terms Clearly & Concisely Defined. InterVarsity Press, 2002. Google eBook.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Amazon Digital Services: Crossway, 2011. Kindle eBook.

Unity, Support and Power: Failure of Palestinian Nationhood

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:42:00 +0000

Note: This is a paper that was written for a Modern Middle East undergraduate history course. The paper was supposed to be five pages long, but I went a little overboard. Even so, I don't think I even came close to fully covering the topic, not that I really could in a semester, or in one short research paper. Nonetheless, this paper received an A.

At the end of World War I, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the entire Middle East was in a state of flux. What used to be a single sovereign entity was carved up into modern nation states by the victorious European powers. At a conference in San Remo in 1920 Britain and France, according to an arrangement known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), drew the borders for four new states: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. In 1922, Palestine was further divided into Palestine and Transjordan. These new countries were legitimized as mandates of the League of Nations, states that would be protectorates of European powers and eventually gain independence. Thus, Britain retained control of Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan and France retained control of Syria and Lebanon, directly and indirectly.[1]

Over the following decades, each of the mandate states threw off the shackles of colonialism and won independence, with the exception of Palestine. The pursuit of national independence for Palestinians has been impeded by a series of complications, starting with the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

His Majesty’s Government [of England] view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[2]

The Balfour Declaration is a letter that was issued by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community. British government officials believed that the Jewish ‘vote’ needed to be won to ensure victory in World War I. If the British didn’t secure Jewish backing, the Germans would “buy them” and use them to influence Russia into signing a separate peace treaty with Germany, allowing the Germans to focus on the western front.[3] The Balfour Declaration was a response both to the fear of the supposed power of world Jewry and the sympathetic nature of some British government officials to the Zionist cause.[4] Zionist leaders did their best to encourage these feelings, resulting in the inclusion of the wording of the Balfour Declaration in the League of Nations sanctioned British mandate for Palestine in 1922.[5]

Contrary to the popular idea that Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land, the area was well populated. At the beginning of the Zionist influx into the Palestine Mandate area, there were approximately 450,000 Arab and 20,000 (Arab) Jewish residents.[6] Direct British rule and British efforts to fulfill the obligations of the Balfour declaration combined with the influx of European Jews created a volatile situation that retarded the national development of Palestine. Instead of developing modern governing institutions like other newly formed Middle Eastern nations, Palestine’s residents spent the mandate period in conflict and constant competition between British, Jewish and Arab interests.

The major conflict between the two groups was based on the meaning of the Balfour Declaration. The Zionist interpretation of the Balfour Declaration was that it intended the creation of a Jewish state that, as Chaim Weizmann (Chair of the Zionist Commission and later first president of Israel) said, would be as Jewish as England is English.[7] Critics of the Zionists interpreted the Balfour Declaration’s goal as the creation of a Jewish cultural center inside an independent Arab state. The ambiguity was introduced into the document to give the British room for diplomatic maneuvering, but in the end, all it did was complicate their position in Palestine. They were never able to resolve the contradiction inherent in their promise.[8]

The confusion in policy created by the Balfour Declaration led one senior British official to say, just prior to leaving the country, that Britain had “nothing but fluctuations of policy, hesitations…no policy at all.”[9] The British alternately supported Jewish development of a national home and Arab national aspirations in a precarious balancing act intended to maintain the status quo. This remained true until their withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, twenty five years later. When the last British High Commissioner departed Haifa, there was no formal transfer of powers to a new local government because there was no government in Palestine. When the mandate ended, the Jews and Arabs were left to struggle for supremacy.[10]

The internal struggle for power in the years and months leading up to the end of the British mandate for Palestine and the subsequent war that started on May 15^th, 1948 with the end of British mandatory rule between Jewish and Arab irregular forces from the surrounding nations saw the birth of the state of Israel and the failure of the Palestinians to establish a nation. The reason for the success of the Jews over the Arabs boils down to three key differences: unity, external support and military power. The Jews entered Palestine with a unified goal, if not a unified ideology. They enjoyed wide support from Jewish and Christian communities around the world, as well as the backing from Britain guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration. They also took advantage of their ties to Europe to advance their military prowess, which proved decisive in the 1947-1948 conflict with the Arabs, also known as the first Arab-Israeli War. The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, were completely unprepared for the task ahead of them.

During the early years of the mandate, the Arab notables felt it was only natural that they should govern the land they had lived on for centuries.[11] They were convinced that at some point the British would come to their senses and stop supporting the Jews. In the meantime, the Arab notables in Palestine did what they could to maintain their social status, including working with the British mandate authorities, who supplied them with positions of authority.[12] For example, the British created the office of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and assigned al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni to the role. Later the British created the Supreme Muslim council, which Husayni headed.

The reliance of Arab leadership on the British caused them to mostly work with, rather than against, the mandate government, which also meant that they were indirectly supporting the Zionist occupation of what they considered to be Arab land. The Arab notables attempted to negotiate with the British privately while condemning British support of Zionism publicly, all the while working to ensure there would be no disruptive mass political demonstrations that could destabilize their social and political positions.[13] The need to stay on good terms with the British undermined the authority of the Arab notables in the eyes of the public.[14] Further complicating the Arab political atmosphere in Palestine was the constant rivalry between the two prominent families in the region: the Husaynis and the Nashashibis. Their attempts to create rival power bases in Palestine prevented Arab unity. The inter-Arab rivalries and reliance on the British, together with the need to suppress popular movements to maintain their positions, caused the Palestinians to never be capable of forming a unified front, which effectively neutered the Palestinian political body and Palestinian aspirations of nationhood. It would be fair to say that the goals of the Arab leadership (to maintain their positions) did not match the goals of the Palestinians, but due to the Ottoman top-down power structure, the average Palestinian had no way to directly influence the decision making process until later in the mandatory period, when guerilla leaders like al-Qassim began to rally popular support.

Compounding the problem was the lack of any meaningful external support for the Palestinian Arabs. To start with, none of the Arab political institutions formed in mandate Palestine were recognized by any international authority, not even by the Arab states, who took it upon themselves to speak for the Palestinian Arabs.[15] But, their motives weren’t entirely pure either. Throughout the mandate period, the surrounding Arab states had, despite repeated requests, failed to supply the Palestinian Arabs with arms, food, or any financial support. The Arab states each had different agendas in terms of what they wanted to accomplish in Palestine, but the rights of the Palestinians themselves probably ranked very low on their list of priorities. Most of the surrounding states were solely interested in land grabs to increase the power of their respective states in terms of inter-Arab regional politics.[16]

By the time hostilities broke out in Palestine after the November 1947 announcement of the UN Partition Plan, the Arabs felt a distinct sense of abandonment. They had no effective leadership and they had been isolated by the surrounding Arab states. According to Rashid Khalidi,

The Palestinians entered the fighting which followed the passage of the UN Partition Resolution with a deeply divided leadership, exceedingly limited finances, no centrally organized military forces or centralized administrative organs, and no reliable allies.[17]

According to a Haganah Intelligence Service – Arab Division executive, the average Palestinian had come to the conclusion that they could not hold their own against the Jews.[18] HIS – AD further reported that most of the Arab public would be willing to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan and lacked a desire to engage in a war with the Jews because of a lack of weapons and internal organization.[19] Many were unwilling to fight because if they died, there would be no compensation for their widows and/or orphans.[20] In many cases, the roving militia bands from the surrounding Arab countries intimidated and exploited the local population, further lowering morale.[21] Because the surrounding states refused to fund or arm the Palestinians, they were forced to rely on external militias which often preyed on them and reduced their own ability to resist Jewish military forces. In addition, due to disorganization and a lack of communication with forces from other Arab states, they were ineffective against the highly organized Jewish Haganah.

The Zionists, in contrast, presented a much more unified front. There were differences of opinion over specifics, but the overall goal was clear: creation of a national home for Jews and, as anti-Jewish violence escalated, self-preservation. The Jews had multiple advantages over the Palestinians. The Balfour Declaration, which so hindered the Palestinians’ political efforts, was a boon to the Jews. It’s inclusion in the League of Nations mandate for Palestine immediately gave the Jews international recognition, elevating the Jewish Agency offices around the world to the status of virtual embassies for an as yet uncreated state.[22]

The Palestinian Arabs couldn’t actively cooperate with the British mandate government because to do so would legitimize the mandate, which established the Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Jews had no such restrictions. Because of close cooperation with the British, the Jews were able to build para-government institutions that rivaled those of recognized states before the mandate period ended. They developed labor unions, a democratically elected political body, political parties, education systems and, most importantly, a well-trained and organized military.[23] They worked closely with the British to develop Jewish defense forces during the Palestinian Arab revolts in 1936-1939 and some Jews had served in British units during World War I and World War II.[24] Additionally, the Jews had access to external finances from world Jewry, especially American Jews.[25]

The Jewish objective was the fulfillment of a two thousand year old dream: the creation of a Jewish state to replace the one they lost to the Romans. The Arab objective was to prevent it from happening and create an Arab Palestinian state. There was no middle ground between these two positions. Two states cannot exist in the same territory. The conundrum the British created for themselves prevented them from moving in one solid direction and assisting in the foundation of a new state in Palestine. The struggle was left to the two parties involved, with open hostilities breaking out between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in 1947 and escalating into a conflict between the newly established Israeli state and the surrounding Arab states in 1948. In that struggle, the Palestinians failed to succeed in achieving nationhood due to a lack of unity in their leadership, the failure to develop a capable military, and because of the clear advantage the Jews had in support from external states and communities.

[1] Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, p.539.
[2] David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 85.
[3] Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p. 38.
[4] Ibid., p. 5 & p. 33.
[5] David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 95.
[6] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 40.
[7] David W. Lesch, The Arab Israeli Conflict, p. 95.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p. 9.
[10] David W. Lesch, The Arab Israeli Conflict, pp. 138-139.
[11] Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, p. 80.
[12] David W. Lesch, The Arab Israeli Conflict, p. 97.
[13] Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, p. 78.
[14] Ibid., pp. 77-78.
[15] Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, p. 167 & David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 136.
[16] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, pp. 34-35.
[17] David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 135-136.
[18] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 86.
[19] Ibid., p. 87.
[20] Ibid., p. 112.
[21] Ibid., p. 114.
[22] David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, pp. 166-167.
[23] Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, p. 557.
[24] Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p. 430, p. 452 & David W. Lesch, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 99.
[25] Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 34.

Works Cited

Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. New York: Beacon Press, 2007. Kindle edition.

Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies. 2nd. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Lesch, David W. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2001. Print.

Boka Bon Chon & Wafels and dinges

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:17:00 +0000

I just can't get enough of those damn fried chicken wings and drumsticks! I don't know how they make them, but they come out so crispy and delicious that I don't mind that the spicy ones are burning my face off. I just keep eating them! They also come in soy & garlic flavor, which is great.

I've been gradually getting my wife around to all of the places I want to show her here in NYC that I already know about and Boka Bon Chon finally came up on the list. We were in the mood for something Asian and we were in the neighborhood, so we went on in.

Besides the wings, which are an absolute must if you ever go to this place, we got the kimchi bi bim bob and an order of beef bul go gi. The servings are generous. Maybe we were hungry, or it was just particularly good yesterday but we cleaned our plates and stripped the bones.

Then we saw a food truck. A bright yellow food truck with a delicious scent coming from it. It turned out to be "Wafels and dinges," which sells different types of waffles with a variety of toppings, including one called a "WMD" and, gross as it sounds to me, waffles with bacon or pulled pork.

We were feeling the food we'd just eaten, so we got one and shared it. It was incredibly good! I'm looking forward to the next excuse we can find to eat at this food truck again. =)

For a Sunday afternoon, this was a great meal. I love NYC.

Occupy Union Square?

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:37:00 +0000

Yesterday I went to Petco at Union Square to pick up two 20 pound boxes of cat litter while they were on sale. Carrying that cat litter was a pain in the ass because I couldn't get a cab and had to take the bus, but that's another story.

On the way to Petco, I noticed a lot of people standing around the 14th street side of Union Square with signs. I'm not surprised. It seems like there's a protest there at least once a month or more. There was a protest there over the Trayvon Martin incident, for example.

I can only assume this group is protesting police brutality, but I didn't stop to ask for specifics. There was something about the way most of the people looked, the way they carried themselves, that screamed low class and potentially dangerous. One guy looked homeless and the girl in the purple tube top (just to the right of the pink tree on the left of the photo) kept pulling her top up and down, like she was moments from stripping naked to add flavor to the protest. I wondered if they were drunk or on drugs. I know it's not good to just throw a judgment out there based on how people look, but on the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, you should look serious.

The group of people protesting wasn't actually that large. It's hard to tell from the photos where the protesters end and the normal Union Square crowd begins, but they mostly seemed to be huddled into one corner near that pagoda subway entrance.

There were police hanging around and I had things to do so I just minded my own business and kept going. The reason I wonder if these people are trying to 'occupy' Union Square is because I saw them there again today, including the guy that looks homeless. He had a ruck sack with what looked like a yoga mat. Maybe he slept on it? Also, a few of them seemed to have luggage with them (right side in above photo). The police were still there today too.

My Curry Experiment

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:47:00 +0000

A couple of years ago, when I was living in Singapore, I got over my fears of being poisoned by "the enemy" and tried some Indian Muslim food at a hawker center in Pasir Ris. Indian food basically means curry. There's a lot of different types, but all the curry I had was delicious! I finally got tired of reminiscing about how great the curry was and my wife and I decided to try our hand at making curry ourselves.

After a little trial and error we finally got it down right, using a recipe from a local Indian spice store as a guide. It was a lot of fun and it's great to know that we can throw together some curry whenever we want. It's amazing how many different types and how great a quantity of spices go into one meal.

I wonder how the first Europeans felt when they got to India and tried the local food? I mean, obviously they loved it, or the spice trade wouldn't be what it is today, but what I'm getting at is, were they surprised? Shocked? Amazed? Or did they not like it at first and then it grew on them? I suppose I'll research that when I have time, but for now, I'll just enjoy the goodness that India's spices create.

The Tower of Babel

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:44:00 +0000

The following is a paper I wrote for a Jewish Studies class I'm taking called "History of God." The point of the paper was to examine a set of verses from the Old Testament from a historical perspective, discussing what the verses reveal about the people it describes, or that wrote it. This paper relies heavily on the Documentary Hypothesis theory and the concept of Spiral Dynamics as put forth by Ken Wilber.

For clarity, the paper was graded by George KC Forman and received an A-, as well as some notations about grammar and style corrections (which haven't been made here). The professor's notes on the last page are:

So close! Ask yourself, what was happening in J's Day? What's his point. Yes, free will. But to what end? Kingdom has arisen; we now have cities and power in Levant. So free will is in service of Solomon's reign. How might story fit with that people's needs and worries? Why free will? Why portray the many languages? I'd given this story answers the need for cooperation, under aegis and king. Unite, it says, to gain power, etc. But good work. Where is this doc. hypoth. book? Sounds great! A-

Essay:

The story of the Tower of Babel, found in the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is fascinating and complicated and is open to many levels of interpretation, especially since it is a story that was probably not original when it was added to the Bible. What does it mean that the people were attempting to build a tower “that reaches into the sky”?[1] And what does God’s response indicate about the nature of the relationship between man and the divine? What can we learn about the needs and wants of that society by analyzing these verses?

The story of the division of human language isn’t unique to the Bible, but that in itself isn’t remarkable. Something as mystifying as why all men don’t speak the same language is a problem that people from various cultures would have tried to solve the best way they knew how: attributing it to an act of the divine, leaving modern readers with a variety of similar myths. Obvious parallels exist in the stories of the Enuma Elish, the building of Babylon’s ziggurat, and a Sumerian story that tells of a time when all people spoke the same language. The closest parallel is a Sumerian epic titled “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.”[2] It starts out describing a time when man had no rival and everyone spoke the same language, but:

Enki…the leader of the gods
Changed the speech in their mouths
Brought contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.[3]

Whether J came up with the story of the Tower of Babel or borrowed the tradition, its inclusion in the religious tradition of the Hebrews is still significant. It indicates clearly that people identified with the story and felt that it reflected their own relationship with God.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the stories of the Pentateuch were not written by one author, but rather four authors and then collated into a single work by a series of redactors. These sources are J (Jawhist/Yawhist; approx. 950 BCE), E (Elohist; approx. 850 BCE), D (Deutoronomist; approx. 600 BCE), P (Priestly source; approx. 500 BCE) and R (the Redactors / Editors). Developed by Biblical scholars in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, the Documentary Hypothesis uses linguistic cues and source criticism to try to explain the apparent contradictions and repetitions in the Pentateuch. The story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is generally attributed to the Jawhist source, making it one of the earliest written stories of the Bible, despite its placement. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, J’s writing focuses on the interaction between God and man’s free will.[4]

Understanding how J writes can be helpful when examining the Tower of Babel story as presented in the Bible and for determining what it might mean about the people it describes. One interpretation is that it’s an origin story for the existence of different languages and cultures in the world. The beginning of the story says, “At one time all the people of the world spoke the same language and used the same words.”[5] By the end of the story, God has confused their languages and caused them to be scattered all over the world. However, this story conflicts with an earlier account that says (emphasis added):

⁴The descendants of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim. ⁵Their descendants became the seafaring peoples that spread out to various lands, each identified by its own language, clan, and national identity.[6]

The earlier account already describes the creation of multiple languages and cultures, directly contradicting the later Tower of Babel account. Also, Genesis 11:1-2 implies that all of the people in the world traveled together in one group, which contradicts the earlier account of Cain and Abel. When Cain was banished, God put a mark on his head so no one else would kill him and he went to the land of Nod.[7] This implies that there were people in Nod already that Cain had to be fearful of and that people weren’t traveling together in one group.

This is where it helps to understand the Documentary Hypothesis, which explains that the account in Genesis 10 was added much later, by P (the Priestly source). However, it doesn’t explain the contradiction in the Cain and Abel story, which is also attributed to J.[8] Because the two stories by J are contradictory, the Tower of Babel story must have been included for a symbolic reason, rather than to record factual events in the sense that a history book records factual events. It wasn’t the content itself that was important. It was the message it carried. Approaching the Tower of Babel story from this perspective lends support to the idea that it was borrowed from another culture’s religious tradition. The tower mentioned in the story is probably borrowed from the ziggurat dedicated to Marduk in Babylon called Etemenanki. The plot of the story is probably borrowed from earlier stories, like the Sumerian epic mentioned earlier.[9] So, how can this story tell us anything about the Hebrews?

For the story to be included in the oral and later written tradition of the religion means that the people identified with it strongly. While it’s not possible to apply the details of the people in the story to the Hebrews exactly, it’s possible to analyze the text and draw conclusions about the relationship between man and God, as they saw it. Understanding that the story is symbolic and knowing that one of J’s common themes is the struggle between man’s free will and God, it’s also reasonable to believe that this story is about man’s exercise of free will and the limits of man’s authority over the world.

The Tower of Babel story is about power. Genesis 11:2 describes a tribal, migratory people passing through the Fertile Crescent into Mesopotamia and arriving at a place suitable for settling. Upon arriving, their first thought is to establish themselves in the region through a show of power. They decide to build up a city and a tower that will reach into the heavens. Because they are united, they are able to make quick progress in reaching their goal. However, God has another plan for mankind and takes an active role in the world to push man onto the path He’s chosen for them.

The dialogue attributed to God in Genesis 11:6 gives Him a very anthropomorphic, active and human personality. God appears to be either afraid of what man might accomplish or jealous that man is able to create something monumental, which is a type of action that should be reserved for Him. To stop man from completing the tower, and thereby demonstrating his power of the world, God goes down and “confuse[s] the people with different languages…[so] they won’t be able to understand each other.”[10] After their languages are confused, the people have no choice but to abandon the project. They migrate away from the Tower of Babel, probably sorted into language groups.

It is hard to look at this story and find a way to paint God in a positive light, other than to say that perhaps this was part of a larger design, such as ensuring the fulfillment of his earlier command to Adam and Eve to go forth and populate the Earth. Adam and Eve’s descendants could not accomplish that task if they all stayed in one city. However, I think the key phrase from this passage is in verse 6: “The people are united…. Nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!” The author of the story perhaps believed that man could achieve anything he put his mind to through unity with his fellow men, with only an act of God being able to stop him. Communal action to support and increase the power of the group is a very tribal action. The inclusion of this story in the religious tradition of the Hebrews could have greatly reinforced the importance of group solidarity, as well as the concept of not transgressing what is sacred at the same time.

The story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible is one version of a larger body of stories that attempt to explain or describe the division of the human race into language and culture groups. The story is not unique to Genesis, but the unique adaptation of the story helps to reveal how the ancient Hebrews may have thought of God, and what they thought of man in relation to that power. It is clear that when this story was introduced into the religious tradition, God was a much more active and anthropomorphic being than He is today. Most importantly, the story describes man’s potential in the world, his ability to do the unbelievable through group solidarity and effort. Where man’s power ends and God’s begins is a boundary that is constantly being redefined, even in the modern age over issues of cloning, for example, but it’s also an ancient argument that has been expressed in one of the earliest portions of the Bible and will continue to be expressed and redefined by generations to come.

[1] Genesis 11:4.
[2] Jim Rovira, “Babel in Biblia.”
[3] Ibid.
[4] William Lyons, “Teaching the Documentary Hypothesis to Skeptical Students,” p. 134.
[5] Genesis 11:1.
[6] Ibid., 10:4-5.
[7] Ibid., 4:14-16
[8] Timothy R. Carmody, Reading the Bible, p. 40.
[9] Jona Lendering, “Etemenanki (The tower of Babel).”
[10] Genesis 11:7.

Works Cited

Carmody, Timothy R. Reading the Bible: A Study Guide. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2004. Web.

Lendering, Jona. "Etemenanki (The tower of Babel)." n.d. Livius: Articles on Ancient History. Web. 09 March 2012. <http://www.livius.org/es-ez/etemenanki/etemenanki.html>.

life Application Study Bible: Personal Size Edition. 2nd. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2004. Print.

Lyons, William L. "Teaching the Documentary Hypothesis to Skeptical Students." Roncace, Mark and Patrick Gray. Teaching the Bible: Practical Strategies for Classroom Instruction. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. 133-134. Web.

Rovira, Jim. "Babel in Biblia: The Tower in Ancient Literature." July 1998. Babel. Web. 09 March 2012. <http://www.towerofbabel.com/sections/tome/babelinbiblia/>.

Ghandhi & Terrorism: Tackling the “Mad Idea”

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:09:00 +0000

With globalization being so popular an idea these days, we often seem to forget that nations do have sovereignty over their own territory. That sovereignty comes with the ability to live in ways that don't necessarily agree with our own values, expectations or religion and to create law systems that have a foundation on something other than a mirror of our (US) constitution. One example that comes to mind right away is the shocked reaction that everyone had when Egyptians decided they wanted to replace Mubarak's tyranny with a government based on Islamic values.

I mention sovereignty because it seems to me that most of the world's problems come from unrealistic expectations that ones' own way is not only the best way, but the only way. If anyone doesn't want our way, we use it as an excuse to force it on them for their own good while exploiting them for economic gain. In India, that behavior led to a revolution that, thankfully, wound up being more peaceful than it would have been due to the hard work of a man named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma. In the Middle East, Western meddling planted the seeds that would eventually grow into global terrorism on a grand scale.

Tying Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent non-cooperation into modern day problems with terrorism was the focus of a class I took over Winter Session. It was 3 weeks of class, 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, that culminated in an oral presentation and a 10 page paper after having read 3 books on Gandhi's philosophy and 1 on the rise of religious terrorism. It was difficult, but educational. Looking at the paper now, I wish I'd had more time to directly compare Gandhi's goals with bin Laden's goals, and to compare their use of religion as a tool to achieve an end. Instead, I tried to explain the mentality of religious violence and how meeting that violence with more violence only perpetuates the cycle and, even worse, justifies and empowers the terrorist ideology of hatred. In a way, meeting violence with violence is cooperating with the terrorists, and after you read this you might have a better understanding of why.

[Sources and footnotes are listed at the bottom.]

The Gandhi memorial statue in Union Square, Manhattan, New York City

On August 15, 1947, India acquired independence from the British Empire. The country’s road to freedom was paved not with violence, but with Satyagraha, a method of non-violent non-cooperation employed and promulgated by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Indian Mahatma (Great Soul) who expanded on this unique style of civil disobedience in South Africa.[1] The word Satyagraha is a Sanskrit composite formed from satya and agraha. Satya implies love and agraha firmness, which is synonymous with force in terms of the force born of “Truth and Love or Non-Violence…”[2] Gandhi didn’t claim to have invented Satyagraha. Rather, he just named it. Gandhi was certain of the existence of Satyagraha prior to his use of it by the very fact that the world still lived on, despite the constant warfare. He cited Satyagraha as the force that amiably dissolves the quarrels of millions of families daily and emphasized that the only reason it’s not mentioned in history books is because history itself is a record of the disruptions of Satyagraha, or ahimsa, which is the natural course of nature.[3]

Mahatma Gandhi successfully used Satyagraha to fight for Indian rights in South Africa. He used it again to win independence from the British Empire for India. Dr. Martin Luther King adapted Gandhi’s ideology to his own movement and successfully fought for equal rights for African Americans. Without using weapons, Gandhi’s Satyagraha has been proven to work. So, does that mean it has applications for today’s modern war on terrorism? And how would we go about making the changes necessary to effectively employ this force against the ‘enemy’ and bring about a peaceful resolution of conflicts?

Gandhi with a spinning wheel in India.

Gandhi said, “…if we are Satyagrahis and offer Satyagraha, believing ourselves to be strong…we grow stronger and stronger every day.”[4] Satyagraha is an ideology of empowerment that places emphasis on maintaining the moral high ground through “self-help, self-sacrifice and faith in God…”[5] Naturally, this is something one must do oneself for it to work properly, which is why Gandhi said that Satyagraha is for self-help and declined the assistance of foreigners in fighting for India’s freedom, except insomuch as he wanted their attention and sympathy.

Gandhi believed that the process of Satyagraha could only happen if one maintained a total absence of violence, both in one’s actions and one’s thoughts. For Gandhi, a “struggle could be forceful…but it could not be violent,” so willing self-sacrifice played a key role in achieving one’s goal.[6] Through non-violent self-sacrifice a movement gains both public sympathy and the admiration and respect of the aggressor, eventually inducing a change of heart and an amiable resolution to conflicts.

Most importantly, by not using violence, Satyagraha creates solutions that break the cycle of violence. Gandhi said, “A non-co-operationist strives to compel attention and set an example not by his violence but by his unobtrusive humility.”[7] The moment violence is used the means become corrupted, which invariably leads to a corrupted end. Gandhi used this argument to counter the call for violent revolution against the British in India. He said that “by using similar means we can get only the same thing that [the British] got” and compared gaining morally pure rule through violence to planting weeds to grow roses.[8]

A violent response escalates the level of violence used. Gandhi believed that winning independence through violence would leave India just as bad off as it already was, because it would mean that violent people would be assuming control of the country.[9] He did agree that he would rather have bad home rule rather than suffer under a foreign master, but Gandhi’s goal was to achieve a free India that could initiate a new government with clean hands.[10] To do this, Gandhi believed that India had to break with modern secular Western society. He described the materialism of Western civilization as a sickness.[11] Britain’s industrialization, and all industrialization, relies on the exploitation of other countries. Engaging in industrialization would pollute India and India would become no better than the former masters’ whose yoke she had thrown off.[12]

1993 World Trade Center Bombers (via FBI site)

According to Mark Juergensmeyer, the advent of modern Western society has devalued religious belief, replacing theology with secular morality and the Church with the nation state. Social identity has shifted from religious affiliation to national citizenship. Some religious activists believe that “secular society and modern nationalism can [not] provide the moral fiber that unites national communities or the ideological strength to sustain states buffeted by ethical, economic, and military failures.”[13] In an interview with Mahmud Abouhalima, convicted of participating in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Mark Juergensmeyer asked him what it was that secular America was missing that caused it to not understand him and others like him. Abouhalima answered, “the soul of religion.”[14] He went on to compare secular life to an ink pen that was missing its ink. He said, “An ink pen, a pen worth two thousand dollars, gold and everything in it, it’s useless if there’s no ink in it. That’s the thing that gives life…”[15]

Western societies may see secularization as a positive process, a freeing of the population from archaic dogmas, but people like Abouhalima and even Gandhi were adamantly opposed to separating religion from life.[16] Without religion, Abouhalima would have no meaning in his life, and Gandhi would not have had the strength to free India. Thinking in those terms, any encroachment of Western society in the modern Middle East may be viewed by the locals as not only unbeneficial but harmful, and potentially as an attack on fundamental values and religion itself, which for Muslims constitutes a large portion of their everyday life and culture.[17] Gandhi believed that all change has to come from within to be lasting. It cannot be forced upon people, and attempting to use violence through sanctions that cause hardships or through rhetoric and demonizing will have no effect but to draw sympathy to the victimized, even if their cause is wrong.[18]

In today’s War on Terror, responding to terrorism with acts of violence empowers the terrorists by cooperating with their ideology of hatred, by affirming that the secular West is indeed evil and intent on destroying the religion and culture of the average person. Mark Juergensmeyer wrote that “many secular political leaders have described [the War on Terror] as a war that must be won—not only to avenge savage acts as the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center, but also to allow civilization as the modern West has known it to survive.”[19] In a war between civilizations where the existence of each civilization’s future is at stake, only one can remain at the end of the conflict. The sort of rhetoric being used to promote the War on Terror is one of absolutes and only further justifies the teachings of terrorists: that the US must be defeated for Islam and Islamic culture to survive. The immediate response after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City was to launch a retaliatory attack, but has that attack actually solved anything? Did we not in fact validate the terrorists’ ideology of hatred by destroying the lives of the innocent along with the accused through long-term warfare?

Madanlal Dhingra

In 1909, Madanlal Dhingra, an Indian student in England, assassinated Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, a political aide to Lord George Hamilton, the Secretary of State for India. According to Sankar Ghose, “Winston Churchill regarded Dhingra’s last words “as the finest made in the name of patriotism…”[20] Gandhi had a completely different opinion of Dhingra: “It is not merely wine or bhang that makes one drunk, a mad idea can also do so… Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was blind. He gave his body in a wrong way, its ultimate result can only be mischevious.”[21] Gandhi, a man so religious that his last words after being shot by an assassin were “Hē Ram (Oh God),”[22] was absolutely opposed to violence in any form, for any objective, which makes it all the more surprising that terrorism today is most often tied to extreme religious views. In his own way, Gandhi was an extremist, but he was an extremist who used and advocated extremes of peace and love to achieve what he considered just ends. Today’s religious extremists are not so different from Gandhi, in that they go to extremes to ensure that their views are made known. In fact, Osama bin Laden’s goals were not that different from Gandhi’s.

In 1991, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, prompting a coalition force of Middle Eastern and Western nations (including the United States) to engage in military operations in defense of Kuwait. Military operations began on January 16^th, 1991 with air and missile attacks on targets in both Kuwait and Iraq. After an unavoidable ground war, Iraqi forces were put into full retreat. On February 27^th, 43 days later, President Bush declared a suspension of offensive combat. During the war, Saudi Arabia was used as a launching point for allied offensives against Iraq.[23] After the war ended, the US presence in Saudi Arabia remained, further outraging some religious conservatives that consider Saudi Arabia to be the holiest of Islamic lands, being home to both Mecca, where the Ka’aba resides, and Medina where the Prophet Muhammad established the first Muslim community. The Ka’aba is the center of the Muslim world. Muslims believe that the Ka’aba was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. One of the five pillars of Islam is pilgrimage to Mecca, to circumambulate the Ka’aba.[24]

Osama bin Laden

Among those angered by the continued presence of US troops on Saudi soil was Osama bin Laden, head of the Al Qaeda network. On August 3^rd, 1995, he issued a message called “an Open Letter to King Fahd,” outlining grievances against the Saudi monarchy, notably calling for a guerilla campaign to drive U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia. In July 10, 1996, a British newspaper (The Independent) quoted bin Laden as saying that Saudi Arabia had become an American colony. He also stated that the real enemy of the Saudi people is America. In August of 1996, bin Laden issued a document known as the “Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.” The two holy mosques he references are Mecca’s Ka’aba in Saudi Arabia, where US troops were stationed, and Al Aqsa in Jerusalem. Osama bin Laden considered Israel to be a US puppet regime, so fault for occupying Jerusalem was transferred to the United States. In a CNN interview in 1997, bin Laden began to solidify his message with demands that may sound familiar to anyone familiar with India’s struggle for independence from the British Empire. He said:

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation…. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries…. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country.[25]

Almost a year later, he goes on to make the following demands:

For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it… in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.[26]

Osama bin Laden and Mahatma Gandhi both had similar goals. Both felt oppressed by foreign powers who meddled in local affairs, to the detriment of the native populations, and in both cases as a result of something Gandhi warned of: the need to exploit other countries to support the industrialization of modern Western culture.

The implied conflict for the survival of civilizations and the perceived attack on religion causes some religious activists to use violence to try to bring attention to their stated goals. From Gandhi’s teachings, we know that he could have in no way supported the terrorism of today to attain independence from foreign oppression, but it is reasonable to believe that he would have empathized with Osama bin Laden’s goal.[27] When Gandhi condemned Dhingra, the Indian student who assassinated Sir Curzon Wyllie, he didn’t condemn his goal; he instead called him a patriot and condemned the means he used. This is where terrorists like Osama bin Laden differ from Gandhi, in the means they use to reach their ends. The results of the two methods have been drastically different. Where India gained the sympathy of the world and won her independence through Satyagraha, Osama bin Laden’s use of violence has escalated out of control. Osama bin Laden himself has met a foul end and the Middle East has not been freed of foreign influence.

Gandhi believed that violence created a cycle, saying “Who lives by the sword must perish by the sword, and if the Asiatic peoples take up the sword, they in their turn will succumb to a more powerful adversary.”[28] That teaching is just as applicable today as it was during his fight with the British. In 1998, when the US launched retaliatory missile strikes on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, the attack “provoked a new round of terrorist bombing plots.”[29] The attacks also increased bin Laden’s image as an underdog and damaged the United States’ international reputation. In July of 2002, an Israeli plane bombed the home of Hamas leader Sheik Salah Shehada, wounding 140 people and killing 11 people, 7 of which were children. Another Hamas leader, Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, responded by opening up targeting of terrorist attacks to all Israelis, including women and children.[30] Violent actions only led to an escalation of the level of violence employed by each side. The only way to ‘win’ is by breaking the chain of violence. An example is the 1998 Omagh bombing by a fringe element called the “Real IRA”. The bombing occurred during peace talks that would stop the violence in Northern Ireland. Rather than retaliate with more acts of violence, the guilty parties were arrested and tried using the existing legal system.[31]

So, what is the solution for stopping violence in the Middle East today? Rather than dealing with the symptoms of terrorism, the violent actions, the US should instead tackle the source of the problem. Colin Powell, United States Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005 understood this and “spoke about the necessity of dealing with the social and economic grievances that fueled the anti-American disaffection in the Middle East and elsewhere as a way of undercutting al Qaeda support.”[32] Colin Powell was expressing an idea that Gandhi emphasized himself, in regards to responding to terrorism. Gandhi described Dhingra, the Indian student who assassinated Sir Curzon Wyllie as being like a drunkard, caught in a “mad idea.” It’s that mad idea that we need to tackle: the belief in the Middle East that the United States is incapable of good and morally unambiguous behavior.

The first step is to stop responding to violence with violence. Violent action only succeeds in causing the conflict to escalate. That’s not to say that nothing should be done in the face of violent terrorist attacks. Even Gandhi didn’t believe in inaction.[33] Gandhi believed that no one had a complete view of the truth and the very existence of a conflict was the proof. He believed that every conflict was an “encounter between differing “angles of vision” illuminating the same truth.”[34] The key, then, is to take the moral high ground and understand that a response of violence will be satisfying in the short term, but will yield no real results.

The second step to solving the problem would be to address the problem of public opinion of the United States in the Islamic countries. After many years of duplicitous behavior on the part of the United States, finding a way to positively engage the Islamic community may be difficult without inciting suspicion and distrust, so it would be a gradual progress, in much the same way that Satyagraha was a gradual progress. The first efforts would have to be in areas that are politically and religiously neutral, such as providing medical care, basic literacy education in English and Arabic, building homes for the homeless, and acting in advisory capacities for social programs that would address other needs of the country. It’s a small step, but small steps add up and 30 years of providing education to the poor will mean more to them than bombing their fields to smoke out suspected terrorists. Additionally, we could take the biggest step towards having a friendly relationship with Islamic countries by respecting their sovereignty and allowing the people to determine their own futures through their own elected governments. Additionally, we could remove the US troop presence from Islamic countries and allow the people to fight for and affect their own social reforms. That would mean more to them than having the reforms handed to them with the help of Westerners. As Gandhi said, lasting change has to come from within.

One of Gandhi’s favorite quotes from Tolstoy sums up this policy best:

…if we would but get off the backs of our neighbours the world would be quite all right without any further help from us. And if we can only serve our immediate neighbors by ceasing to prey upon them, the circle of unities thus grouped in the right fashion will ever grow in circumference till at last it is conterminous with that of the whole world.[35]

[1] M.K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), Chapter 1, p. 3.
[2] Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Chapter 6, p. 77.
[3] Ibid., p. 79.
[4] Ibid., p. 78.
[5] Ibid., p. 81.
[6] Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism,” p. 4.
[7] M.K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), Chapter 15, p. 59.
[8] Ibid., Chapter 4, p. 10.
[9] Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism,” p. 4.
[10] Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Chapter 7, p. 102.
[11] Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism,” p. 4.
[12] Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Chapter 22, p. 249.
[13] Ibid., Terror in the Mind of God, Chapter 11, p. 229.
[14] Ibid., Chapter 4, p. 70.
[15] Ibid.
[16] M.K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), Chapter 171, pp. 364-365.
[17] “Introduction to Islam”, describes Islam as a comprehensive way of life.
[18] Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Chapter 18, p. 220.
[19] Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror In The Mind of God, Chapter 11, p. 233.
[20] Sankar Ghose, Mahatma Gandhi, Chapter 10, p. 98.
[21] Ibid.
[22] “Gandhi’s last words not ‘Hey Ram’: book”.
[23] “1991 Gulf War chronology”.
[24] Rosemary Pennington, “What Is The Ka’aba?”.
[25] Osama bin Laden, “Osama bin Laden v. the U.S.”.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Chapter 10, pp. 132-134.
[28] Ibid., Chapter 5, p. 71.
[29] Barbara Elias, “1998 Missile Strikes on Bin Laden May Have Backfired”.
[30] James Bennet, “A Hamas Chieftain Dies When Israelis Attack His Home”.
[31] Henry McDonald, “Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing”.
[32] Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, Chapter 11, p. 234.
[33] Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism,” p. 4.
[34] Ibid., p. 3.
[35] M.K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), Chapter 46, p. 112.

Works Cited

"1991 Gulf War chronology." 3 September 1996. USA Today World. Web. 22 January 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm>.

Bennet, James. "A Hamas Chieftain Dies When Israelis Attack His Home." 23 July 2002. The New York Times: World. Web. 23 January 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/world/a-hamas-chieftain-dies-when-israelis-attack-his-home.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>.

bin Laden, Osama. "Osama Bin Laden V. The U.S.: Edicts And Statements." n.d. PBS Frontline. Web. 17 January 2012.

Elias, Barbara. "1998 Missile Strikes on Bin Laden May Have Backfired." 20 August 2008. The George Washington University: The National Security Archive. Web. 22 January 2012.

Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Dover Publications, 2001. Print.

Gandhi, Mahatma. The Essential Gandhi. New York: Vintage Spiritual Classics, 2002. Print.

"Gandhi's last words not 'Hey Ram':book." 29 January 2008. hindustantimes: news. Web. 22 January 2012. <http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/Gandhi-s-last-words-not-Hey-Ram-book/Article1-272598.aspx>.

Ghose, Sankar. Mahatma Gandhi. Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1991. Print.

"Introduction to Islam." 2000. islam.com. Web. 22 January 2012. <http://www.islam.com/introislam.htm>.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. "Gandhi vs. Terrorism." 2007. Mark Juergensmeyer: Global Studies, UCSB. Web. 16 January 2012. <http://www.juergensmeyer.com/?q=node/7>.

—. Terror in the Mind of God. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Print.

McDonald, Henry. "Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing." 8 June 2009. The Guardian. Web. 23 January 2012.

Pennington, Rosemary. "What Is The Ka'aba?" 22 October 2008. MuslimVoices.org. Web. 22 January 2012. <http://muslimvoices.org/kaaba/>.

Guatemalan Woman Attempts to Secure US Anchor Baby

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:19:00 +0000

I just saw a report on ABC about a woman who claims that the US government stole her child. She entered the country illegally, which is a felony and an insult to the national sovereignty of this country, and when she was caught, she was deemed to be an unfit mother for smuggling her child across international boundaries. In his 2008 decision, terminating Encarnacion's parental rights, Circuit Court Judge David C. Dally wrote that the biological mother's "lifestyle, that of smuggling herself into a country illegally and committing crimes in this country is not a lifestyle that can provide stability for a child...A child cannot be educated in this way, always in hiding or on the run."

Her son was taken away from her and has been adopted out to a family that has had him for 5 years. Now this illegal immigrant, Encarnacion Bail Romero, is trying to get her son back. She's trying to play the 'broken family' card to get sympathy from the American public. She's trying to get us to overlook the fact that she's a convicted felon who disregarded the sovereignty of our nation by ignoring our legal immigration procedures. She wants to use our own court system against us.

This excerpt from the article sums up my opinion fairly well:

"When parents break the law, they undertake a certain amount of risk that there are going to be consequences," said Daniel Stein of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"Anyone can feel for the torment that this poor woman is going through, recognizing that she doesn't have the educational and the language capabilities to fully defend and vindicate her rights," said Stein.

"Nevertheless, she knew she came to this country illegally, she knew she broke the law," he told ABC News.

This illegal immigrant will get no sympathy from me. If she didn't want her family to be broken, she shouldn't have broken federal laws. We have borders for a reason. We have immigration procedures for a reason. It's too late. The ship has already sailed. If this kid (formerly called Carlos and now named Jamison) has been adopted out and with a new family for 5 years, she should let the boy enjoy his life, because she would be a stranger to him. What she wants to do would totally destroy this kid's life, because he would be emotionally scarred forever. I can't imagine why she would imagine that fighting for custody of the kid would be in his best interest, since he doesn't even know her and doesn't speak Spanish (the biological mother speaks no English), unless of course she's looking for an anchor that she can use to stay in the United States herself.

Original Story on ABC: "Adoption Battle Over 5-Year Old Boy Pits Missouri Couple Vs. Illegal Immigrant"

Just Another Day in New York City

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:33:00 +0000

Just another day in New York City's Astor Place, right?

Wait? Is that a guy with a bra on his head?

Why yes, yes it is.

This guy slowly took off his clothing while doing a very unusual dance that resembled a combination of a swimming, robot, and peek-a-boo dance. I'm not sure why he needed to have a bra on his head to do it, but nothing about the whole routine made sense anyway. He had a little guitar looking instrument with him, but never played it. I only watched for about a minute, before going about my business.

As entertaining as this is, it's a shame that he's on the street and isn't receiving the mental care that he really needs. Given how much we pay in taxes every year, you'd think the government would be able to take care of the people in our society who really need it. No one can tell me that they think this guy is just playing and should get a job, or that he isn't suffering while we make light of his situation. I really wish our government did more for people like him.

Citibank Protects Big Business First, Bank Customer Second

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:04:00 +0000

Today, I opened up my Citibank account online to do a transfer and I noticed I had a message. I opened it up and saw that it was a message telling me that Citibank had recently discovered that my debit card had been compromised and they had put a block on my card, for my own protection.

My immediate response was suspicion and confusion, because I had just used my card to purchase an Amazon Instant Video rental and the message was dated yesterday. If my card was blocked, how was I able to make a purchase with it?

I didn't trust the message. I wasn't sure (and really I'm still not sure because I forgot to ask) if those messages only come from bank employees, or if they can be spoofed somehow. I used the Live Chat feature to connect with an online representative who immediately told me to call a phone number, which I thought was a little silly. What's the point of having a Live Chat if you can't get anything done through it? Maybe it's just for asking basic questions.

Anyway, the first guy I talked to asked me questions about my account, which was normal. Then he started asking questions that seemed a little unnecessary. When he asked me for the security code on the back of my debit card, I started questioning the whole phone call and wondering if I'd accidentally gone to a fishing site and screwed myself. So, I politely declined to answer any more questions, hung up, double checked everything and called back using their regular number.

The second time I called, the guy that answered had a thick Indian accent, which, oddly enough was completely reassuring. I was in familiar territory again.

Jokes aside, the guy basically told me I needed a new card and arranged to have it shipped overnight to the nearest branch. That's cool. I get that.

The thing about the whole process that upsets me is why it happened. More specifically, the fact that I don't know why it happened! When I asked the first guy I talked to for details, to explain to me why my card was blocked, he said that a retailer had alerted Citibank that they might have been compromised and it immediately flags any Citibank cards that might have been used not only at that retailer, but anywhere in that area. That could have been a diversion though, because when I asked specifically who was compromised, he refused to tell me the name of the company. When I asked him why, he said it was to protect the business.

Now, I'm not opposed to forgiving a business that might have had their online storefront hacked, or accepting that once in a while a brick & mortar might have had a bad employee. I appreciate the fact that the business took the time to notify the bank. However, I feel that as a customer I should have the right to know what business it was, so that I can make my own decision about whether or not I feel comfortable shopping there again.

It's my money. It's my card. It's my discretion. The bank shouldn't protect businesses. It should protect its consumers by letting them know that it may be unsafe to shop at certain stores.

I can guess that the reason Citibank won't release that information is because they have an agreement with businesses that if they guarantee anonymity, the businesses will guarantee reporting of potential fraud or theft of credit card information.

So, I don't know that I can really blame Citibank. The only entity I can blame is Congress, because if my theory is right, then the fault lies with a lack of appropriate legislation to require reporting and require informing customers of where their account information was compromised.

It should be the customer first, all the time. I shouldn't have to keep getting my account compromised until I can guess which company is at fault based on my shopping history. Having my debit card locked is a big issue. What if it were a day when automatic payments for bills were supposed to be withdrawn? Those would have all been declined, and I would have been up shit creek, and Citibank would have apologized but said they did it for my own good. As it is, I'm almost going to miss a good sale on a camera bag I need. Thankfully, they ship the new card overnight (which means Saturday, since it's late in the evening already).

Well, at least there's no debit card fee yet. I wonder how Hitler would react to this?

Gong Xi Fa Cai! NYC Chinatown 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:59:00 +0000

For the first time since I was a kid, I was able to check out the Chinese New Year celebration in New York City. It didn't quite live up to my memory, but I have a feeling that we missed the best part of it. There was already confetti all over the ground. Next year we'll have to go check things out earlier in the day. I must have gotten bad information about the start times of the events.

We wandered around Chinatown for a while but didn't see much. At first, we only found one lonely dragon dancer.

Then, we passed through the Roosevelt Park area. There were some booths set up selling Chinese New Year decorations. There was also a stage where performers were singing traditional Chinese songs. I don't understand Mandarin, so I have no idea what the songs meant, but it sounded pleasant.

We were about to leave Chinatown when we stumbled onto Mott Street. It seems as though that's where all the fun was. The place was packed with crowds of people shooting off tubes of confetti and generally having a good time.

Pretty sure this little girl, her brother (I assume) and her mother were from Singapore,
judging by the accent, which was interesting, having lived there.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure we missed most of the festivities due to bad information, but it was still a lot of fun to go down to Chinatown and look around for a few hours. We managed to get in some shopping while we were there too!

For more pictures, click here.

Hawkers: Southeast Asian Food in New York City

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:06:00 +0000

Hawkers, located between 2nd and 3rd Avenues on 14th Street in Manhattan, is a restaurant that serves Southeast Asian food. I've passed by this place almost every day for over a year, but I've never gone in because I assumed it was just a bar, and judging from the layout, serving alcohol is its primary function.

The restaurant seating is laid out as one long bar that covers the center of the space from front to back. It's simple, but functional. The layout maximizes space, but sacrifices comfort. The seats aren't exactly something you'd want to spend a lot of time sitting on, so don't plan on spending a lot of time enjoying your meal.

The food itself is excellent.

The satay tasted authentic. The peanut dip was a little off from what I remember, though it could just be a difference between recipes. The only satay I have to compare this to was satay my wife and I ate in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I'd go back to Hawkers just for this, if nothing else. It's simple, but satisfyingly tasty.

The green curry was really, really spicy and completely awesome!

The popiah was ok, but not something I'd order again.

My wife cleaned her plate, so I guess the grilled eggplant "lunchbox" must have been delicious!

The bill for what you see in the photos (including a gratuity they helpfully add to your bill for you) added up to about 74 dollars. That's a little on the high side for me for a two person meal, though it was quite a bit of food. In fact, it was too much food for two people. The only reason we went with this option was because of a Groupon deal. When we go back, we're going to stick to the lunch menu, or whatever they have for smaller portions.

The last two things I'd like to mention about this place is that its empty in the photos because we went early on a Monday afternoon, and the service was really great. The girl that served us is from Thailand and we chatted with her about our trip to Phuket, Thailand in 2008 I think it was.

NYPD Overkill: More Police than Protesters

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:21:00 +0000

What ever happened to the Occupy movement? Reports about the activities of the group used to be on television on a daily basis. Did people lose interest after the eviction from Zuccoti Park? Was that the end of the high drama that could keep viewers coming back to tune in to the news reports?

Or did the Occupy movement kill itself off? The Occupy movement's most touted feature could also have led to its own downfall. Without a single leader to unify the movement and the ideology, the movement was just a static mob occupying nothing but time and space, but presenting no social change or even a unified list of demands that I ever remember hearing about.

Without a leader, everything was voted on by the entire group. That sounds good in theory, but fails in implementation, which is why the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy (which is what they were implementing in Zuccoti Park). A quick search of the web shows a recent Wall Street Journal article that talks about the Occupy movement and their current financial woes. It also mentions that issues are being decided by a General Assembly now, so maybe problems associated with a lack of leadership became apparent even to them. Or, maybe the problem was that when large sums of money started being handled, it required some sort of leadership and accountability.

Either way, when I think about all of the important movements in history, there have always been figureheads for movements, charismatic leaders that drew attention and promoted the desires of the masses. South Africa and India had Gandhi. The Civil Rights movement had MLK. Who does the Occupy movement have that can present a unified ideology and a unified front, that can actually form a coherent ideology and set of demands to place before the US government and the people? It's fine to have a lot of issues under one roof, but without some set of concrete plans or desires, the whole movement begins to feel like a waste of time, and no one likes having their time wasted.

Soap boxing aside, I happened to run into a group of protesters on Monday at Union Square. The group seemed tiny compared to what I remember seeing on the news and the only thing that really made the moment memorable was the absurd ratio of police officers to protesters. In fact, I think there might have been more police present than there were protesters. Perhaps it wasn't without reason, since there was some commotion that caused a lot of them to run into the crowd before they even crossed the street into Union Square, but I can't help but feel that more than anything, the police presence was exaggerated and a waste of tax payer money.

The black car is an undercover vehicle that had lights flashing. It wasn't the only one in the area.

Taken through a window on the 2nd floor of the Union Square Best Buy.

Maybe they expected more people to be there? It's always better to be over-prepared than under-prepared, but ... they even had half a dozen of those little Interceptors lined up waiting, as well as additional units stationed around the park...

Samskara: How To Bury An Un-Brahminical Brahmin

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:58:00 +0000

The following is a book review I had to write for a history course titled, "Traditional Civilizations of India." The book is fictional, but deals with issues that helped to explain and give a starting point for research into the Vedic religion of India. Essentially, a very un-religious person dies in a very religious village, and no one knows quite what to do with him. The book focuses on the conflict between religious obligations and temptation and how to navigate between the two to do what's right. In the end, it leads to a spiritual awakening for the main character, going out into the world and seeing first-hand how the people actually live, which is somewhat reminiscent of what happened to Siddhārtha Gautama, the Buddha. I have no idea what my grade was for this paper, because it was turned in on the last day of class, but my final grade for the course was an A+.

“Alive, Naranappa was an enemy; dead, a preventer of meals; as a corpse, a problem, a nuisance” (Murthy 3). The central issue of the book Samskara, by U. R. Anantha Murthy, revolves around the death of a Brahmin who broke all the rules and flaunted it. In Durvasapura, a village of supposedly orthodox Brahmin, Naranappa stood out as the exact opposite of everything a Brahmin should be. He was wild, partied, socialized and had sexual encounters with people outside of his caste, destroyed holy relics and ate sacred fish. In other words, he broke every taboo associated with being a Brahman. His behavior while alive seriously complicated the means of disposing of his body after death for all those around him. The fact that he died from plague and his corpse was a health hazard to the rest of the group seems to have gone completely unnoticed in this story. The focus, instead, is on the spiritual ramifications of dealing with Naranappa’s remains. Who is responsible for performing the rites, and should the rites be performed at all?

According to the leader of the Durvasapura Brahmin, Praneshacharya, the “Crest-Jewel of Vedic Learning,” a deceased Brahmin’s funeral rites should be performed by a relative or, in the absence of a relative, any Brahmin will do (Murthy 5-6). This would seem to solve the problem, since Naranappa has living relatives in the village. Unfortunately, he managed to alienate them all before dying. Naranappa and Garuda shared a common ancestor, but Garuda had quarreled with Naranappa’s father over ownership of an orchard. When Naranappa’s father died, Garuda attempted to gain possession of the orchard by receiving a ruling in his favor from a guru. Naranappa ignored the ruling and, according to Garuda, they swore they’d have nothing to do with each other for many generations after that. Lakshmana, Naranappa’s other relative, is married to the sister of Naranappa’s deceased wife. Lakshmana argues that Naranappa’s abandonment of the woman, and her subsequent insanity and death are things that he just cannot condone (Murthy 7). So, there are no relatives willing to perform the funeral rites. This causes the responsibility to shift to the Brahmin community as a whole.

Rather than create an easy opportunity to get Naranappa’s funeral rites done, this does nothing to solve the problem. Naranappa’s behavior has caused him to become polluted in the eyes of the Brahmin. Having anything to do with him would cause them to become polluted and lower their social and spiritual standing in society. According to Jonathan Haidt:

Hinduism very explicitly places all creatures onto a vertical dimension, running from the gods above, to the demons below. People rise and fall on this vertical dimension based on the degree to which they behave like gods or demons in this life.[1]

For high caste Hindus, proper behavior is regulated by The Laws of Manu. It tells them how to avoid becoming polluted and part of avoiding pollution is avoiding people who are lower on the vertical dimension, those who are impure. This is made evident at the very beginning of Samskara, when Praneshacharya mentally debates whether or not to answer the door for Chandri, since even speaking to her would pollute him and he’d have to wash again before dinner (Murthy 2). If speaking to someone from a lesser caste causes pollution, then certainly handling the dead body of a Brahmin who spit in the eye of Brahminism would be excessively polluting.

The Brahmin in Durvasapura are aware of the risks of pollution involved with performing funeral rites for Naranappa, and rather than take on that burden, they are intent on finding a way to avoid it, even at the cost of slightly tarnishing their Brahminism. Obviously, performing the funeral rites would be the greater evil, and the more polluting option. With that in mind, one of the Brahmin, Dasa, proposes that they ask the Bramin of Parijatapura to perform the funeral rites, on the grounds that they were friends with Naranappa and shared meals together (Murthy 12-13). This is important, because a person wouldn’t eat meals with someone that they consider polluting. Unfortunately for the Durvasapura Brahmin, the Parijatapura Brahmin understand the precariousness of their social standing and are unwilling to perform the rites. Praneshacharya says that “friendship is as strong a bond as blood,” but obviously the fear of pollution is the stronger force in society (Murthy 13).

With Naranappa’s body still lying unattended and no one volunteering to take responsibility for the funeral rites, the question of his status as a Brahmin is raised, perhaps in the hopes of pushing him off onto a lower caste. If Naranappa were declared to not be a Brahman, then it wouldn’t be required that a Brahmin perform his rites. Naranappa managed to break all the rules. He drank liquor, ate meat, socialized with Muslims, engaged in sexual relations with low caste women and destroyed sacred objects and animals. He completely threw out the concept of purity and pollution and even made remarks like, “If I were still a Brahmin…,” that indicate he clearly considered himself to be outside of the Brahmin caste (Murthy 23). But, was it enough to remove him from the caste system in the eyes of the greater Indian community? There is some social mobility in the caste system, in moving from one to the other, but is it possible to be removed from the Brahmin caste posthumously? According to Praneshacharya:

…he may have rejected brahminhood, but brahminhood never left him. No one ever excommunicated him officially. He didn’t die an outcaste; so he remains a brahmin in his death. Only another brahmin has any right to touch his body. (Murthy 9)

So, this brings things back around to the original problem. Naranappa died a Brahmin and must be given rites as a Brahmin, but because he’s extremely polluted, no one wants to perform them.

Despite the fact that Praneshacharya is a Crest-Jewel of Vedic Learning, he is unable to come to a conclusion regarding the disposal of Naranappa’s body, which is all the while rotting and literally polluting the entire agrahara with plague and a horrible stench. Without debating the reasons for Praneshacharya’s inability to make a decision, there are several options that were available to him, most of which he was aware of, and all of which he should have been aware of.

The first solution is one that is introduced at the beginning of the story, when the Brahmin first gather to discuss the funeral rites. Praneshacharya says:

Garuda said: an oath stands between him and Naranappa. Yet the Books of Law have ways of absolving such oaths—you can perform a rite of absolution, give away a cow, make a pilgrimage. But this is an expensive matter and I’ve no right to ask anyone to spend his money. (Murthy 9)

Immediately after saying this, Chandri offered up the gold that Naranappa had given her to pay for the expenses of the funeral rites. Why did Praneshacharya not state that the gold should be used to absolve the oath, as well as perform the rite? It would have remedied the situation immediately, and since the gold was freely given for that express purpose, then there was no harm in it, only inconvenience to Garuda. Would it have been polluting? Perhaps, but on the other hand, if Praneshacharya had given the advice, then Garuda could have rested easy in the knowledge that the best learned person in the community had told him it was right.

Another option available to Praneshacharya would have been to take the gold and perform the rites himself. As the head of the community, Praneshacharya is ultimately responsible for the well-being of all the agrahara’s inhabitants. To leave a rotting corpse lying unattended, spreading disease, while people bicker over fine points of doctrine is wholly irresponsible. Despite the pollution, he should have made the sacrifice for the greater good of the community. To balance out the pollution of performing the rites, he would have restored the normal flow of life in the agrahara, including the worship. Surely that counts as good. Additionally, he could have donated the rest of the gold to a temple.

Outside the context of the story, the translator indicates in the afterword that as a Crest-Jewel of Vedic Learning the answer to the problem should have been obvious to Praneshacharya. The translator says that the answer to the problem is found in a text called the Dharmasindhu. He says that “certain simple ritual modifications and offerings would have solved the problem, as the guru of Dharmasthala clearly suggests” (Murthy 145). In the story, Chandri’s gold made the funds that would likely be necessary for such ritual modifications available to Praneshacharya. Why didn’t he know about the Dharmasindhu? Well, the most likely answer is that Samskara wouldn’t have made for a very good story if he had known how to solve the problem before it began. Besides, the real conflict of Samskara isn’t so much about the inability to find a solution to performing the funeral rites for Naranappa as it is about a conflict between traditional religion and modern life, but that is not the topic of this essay.

In the sort of situation presented by the story, some amount of pollution was unavoidable. Praneshacharya should have realized this right from the start, and instead of trying to find a perfect way to solve the problem, he should instead have been looking for the least polluting solution. Resolving the problem would have saved the agrahara from the stench and complete disruption of their lives. It’s hard to believe that none of the villagers knew the danger of having a plague-killed corpse sitting in their village. Removing the body would have likely saved the lives of some of the brahmin as well. Taken together with providing the brahmin a way to resume their prayers, the pollution caused by performing the funeral rites would likely have been balanced out, whether the person that performed them was Praneshacharya or another brahmin.

[1] J. Haidt’s work is on a single web page. As such, no page numbers are available.

Works Cited

Haidt, Jonathan. "Elevation and the positive psychology of morality." 10 May 2001. University of Virginia: Faculty. Web. 13 November 2011.

Murthy, U.R. Anantha. Samskara: A Rite for a Dead Man. New York City: Oxford University Press, 1979. Print.

Veselka: Ukrainian Soulfood

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:54:00 +0000

In 2008, one of the last things I did before leaving the United States and moving to Asia was to have lunch with family at Veselka's in the East Village.

View Larger Map

I don't remember too much about the visit, except that the pierogis were awesome. They were so awesome, that I lamented the fact that pierogis weren't available (at least that I ever saw) during my stay in Asia. Maybe they were. Maybe they were hiding on a menu in an overpriced boutique restaurant in an upscale mall somewhere. Who knows? Either way, I kept telling my wife about how good they are, pierogis I mean, and I was excited to take her to Veselka's so she could experience them for herself.

Needless to say, she was a bit overwhelmed. When we got there, she just sat at the table, looking at her phone. I asked her if she was going to choose what she wanted to eat, and she said, "Oh? I thought we were having pierogis?" I told her, "Of course we are, but you have to pick which kind of pierogis you want." Then she got excited! There are plain potato, cheese, meat, spinach & cheese, sauerkraut & mushroom, sweet potato, and arugula and goat cheese. There's also the "boiled" or "fried" option to think about. Veselka's offers two pierogi plates: the big plate (7 pierogis) and the small plate (4 pierogis). We both went with the big plate. Might as well get what we went there for, right? My wife tried one of each and with the exception of the sweet potato pierogi, which seemed to just not be consistent with the rest of the dish, she said they were all excellent. I picked and chose but had one of everything but the sweet potato and meat pierogis.

Matzah Ball Soup

Ukrainian Borscht

Fried Pierogis

We thought about having dessert, but after the pierogis and a bowl of soup each, we were full. The best part is that the food is good quality, but priced to not break your bank. You can take a look at the full menu by clicking here.

Also, I was happy to see that the murals on the walls in the dining area had been replaced with something more upbeat. I found two old photos I took in 2006 of the wall murals:

Somber looking aren't they?

This is definitely better:

Thanks again for the good food, Veselka's! We'll be back.

Katz's Delicatessen: Awesome Sandwiches, Well Worth It!

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:11:00 +0000

I have the vaguest recollection of eating at Katz's Delicatessen as a kid. The place has been open, in the spot, since 1888 and is frequently visited by famous people. The walls inside are covered by pictures of notable diners, like Johnny Depp for instance. Today my wife and I decided to go down there and give it a try.

Despite the hype, we were not prepared for the line we saw when we passed the end of the last block. Both facades of the restaurant were covered by the lines of people. The line going down Houston (on the right in the picture) was for take-out; the line going down Ludlow was for dine-in. Like my wife said, "Thank God for smart-phones."

The wait wasn't as bad as we thought it would be, but the line outside wasn't a line for a table. It was a line for another line. Well, really it was for the set of lines where you line up to get your sandwich. Also for the line where you line up to get a drink. On one hand, the madness and the business of the set-up adds to the excitement of eating there. On the other, it was very time consuming. I suppose there isn't a faster way to do it though. Table service would likely take even longer. My only real gripe was that there was just one guy at the soda/fries (and other extras) counter, which made that a really, really long wait to just get two cans of soda.

Complaints aside, the wait was worth it. The food is awesome and you get a huge portion. One sandwich is enough for two people, unless you're starving to death. I have half of the sandwich I ordered sitting on my table next to me, still waiting to be eaten. I had to go ask for a sheet of wax paper so I could wrap it up to bring it home. The prices aren't that bad for what we got. The sandwiches pictured above are pastrami on rye. I think they were about 15.75 apiece.

If you're visiting New York City (or if you live here and just haven't gone yet) and you're doing the food tourism thing, pizza isn't the only must-have while you're here. Definitely do stop by Katz's. It's worth the time and money. Oh, and one last thing: Dr. Brown's root beer kicks ass!

Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:22:00 +0000

After seeing the Radio City Music Hall Christmas Spectacular last Friday, my wife and I walked over to Rockefeller Center to take a look at the big Christmas tree. It's one of those iconic sights that you have to see to say you had the full Christmas tourist experience in the city. We're not tourists, but even still, it's nice to get out and do the tourist thing. It helps me appreciate the city more and take advantage of what it has to offer, before I suddenly find myself moving somewhere else. That's how it's always been for me. I keep putting things off and then before I know it, the opportunity has passed and I've moved on. That's how I wound up never seeing the Carlsbad Caverns, even though I lived in the area for two years.

Anyway, the tree was looking a little wilted, but we did wait until the it had been up for more than a month to came take a look at it. Next year, I want to take my wife around to see it when it's still fresh. She was very amused to see the ice skating rink just below the tree and had a lot of questions about it. Maybe one of these days I can teach her how to ice skate, though I'm a bit rusty myself.

The Christmas season is winding down. In just a few days it'll be the New Year. Even worse (and better), classes start again on the 3rd. It's just one class, for Winter Session, but it's 4 hours a day, 4 days a week for three weeks. It should be interesting. I just hope we can squeeze in a few more sightseeing stops before we run out of time. We still have to make it back to the Met! Hopefully we can do that this Friday, when the museum stays open later than normal. I'd like to take her to the Guggenheim and the American Museum of Natural History too, if possible.

Radio City Music Hall Christmas Spectacular 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:01:00 +0000

Last Friday my wife and I went to see the Radio City Music Hall Christmas Spectacular, starring the Rockettes. It wound up being a really great experience and it was a great way to spend the Friday before Christmas weekend.

I saw the show once before, in 2006, and I was amazed by just how much the show has improved since then. The most memorable moment for me from the previous show was the toy soldiers. I was in the Army at the time and I remember being impressed by just how precise their marching movements were. I was sitting in the first mezzanine so I had the advantage of watching the turns and wheels from above. I'd marched in more than a few parades and military ceremonies so I had personal experience for comparison and the Rockettes were definitely better at it than anyone I knew. They work harder at perfecting parade marching too, though.

This year, the toy soldier segment was just as much fun to watch, but we were sitting in the Orchestra, so the precision of the marching wasn't as readily apparent. I almost wish I'd picked mezzanine seats instead! We were able to see the finale to the toy soldier portion just fine though:

There were a lot of changes to the show. I think I remember seeing the dance with dozens of Santas in 2006, but this year there was a segment meant to imitate the Rockettes traveling through the city in a tour bus, a portion that simulated a video game and even some 3D stuff that was a lot of fun.

Overall, the show was a very fun and very memorable way for my wife to spend her first Christmas in New York City. We're looking forward to going again in a few years.

For a full album of pictures (with descriptions) from the show, click here. The album is on Google+ and won't require a sign in to view.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Trip 1

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:35:00 +0000

Man sketching a statue in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan, New York City, New York.

An over-the-shoulder picture of a man, his sketch, and his inspiration.

Last Saturday, my wife and I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We had been putting it off because we'd been busy with going out to different places every day and we were wearing ourselves out and sleeping in. It's Winter holiday from school, and she's not working yet, so we're trying to do a lot and take it easy at the same time. I'm not sure how well that's going to work out for us.

Entrance of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Anyway, Saturday seemed like a great opportunity to both catch up on sleep and still spend a good chunk of time at the museum, since it is open until 9 PM on both Friday and Saturday. We got there around 2 PM, after having a good brunch with my mom over at IHOP. The place was packed, as usual, but not as busy as the last time I was there. From what I'm seeing over the last few days of touring my wife around, the city's tourist spots are a lot emptier during the winter. For people who don't like competing with crowds, that might be something to keep in mind. It generally doesn't snow here until after Christmas. It's just cold. If I didn't live here, I could deal with the cold to avoid the crowds that are usually packing every place of interest in the city.

The areas we were able to visit (highlighted by red boxes) in 5 hours. The Met is massive! Click here for an interactive map on the Met's home page.

Anyhow, the Met is just as awesome as I remember it! We didn't get the chance to see everything in the museum, because it's just too huge a building and their collection is just too massive. Not that that's a bad thing! I'm looking forward to going back again. Where that can become problematic, though, is with the entry fee. The entry fee last Spring, when I went to the museum for some class projects was 20 dollars for an adult and 10 dollars for a student. Now it's 25 dollars for an adult. Shocking, right? The good thing about the pricing is that they're "recommended," meaning the prices can't be enforced. If you can swallow your pride you can give them 10 bucks per person and walk in. You could give them a quarter per person and still get the clip-on Met pin that guarantees your safe passage past the guards. I gave 20 for myself and my wife, total. I think it was fair, seeing as how we got there halfway through the day and would be making repeat trips throughout the year.

I have a feeling that high pricing is targeted at tourists who usually only go to the museum once on one day and then never see it again. I certainly don't think it's meant for people like the gentleman in the photos above, who come into the museum to practice sketching. I saw a lot of people doing that, young and old, and I think it's awesome, because they're in there, developing their talent in a productive way, instead of running the streets getting into trouble, or causing it.

Marble portrait bust of the co-emperor Lucius Verus, Roman, Antonine Period,
A.D. 161 - 169, on loan from the Louvre.

Like I said, we didn't get to see everything. The Met is really a two or three day affair and even then you could go back again and notice plenty that you missed. We saw some of the Roman stuff, the Greek gallery, Oceanic gallery, Native American (South/Central/North) gallery, African gallery, and Egyptian gallery. I'd spent quite a bit of time in the Greek gallery already and Egyptian art is covered in so many movies, documentaries and TV specials that I just couldn't get into it, except for the Temple of Dendur. That was really neat. The part I liked best about it was the 19th century graffiti on its walls though:

The galleries I enjoyed most were the ones that seemed to be the least populated by visitors, the African and Native American galleries. I imagine its because I've been exposed those types of art the least, but there's something powerful about the imagery as well.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to go back and see the rest of the Met, probably later this week, if we can squeeze it in. I'm particularly interested in seeing the Medieval Art gallery and the Islamic Art gallery, which just opened recently. Before leaving we quickly passed through the Met gift store and they've added Islamic art items to their selection. It seems nice.

Click here for more photos (Google+ public photo gallery).

No More Ant Colony At The Central Park Zoo

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:19:00 +0000

59th Street-Facing Entrance to the Central Park Zoo

Yesterday my wife and I went to the Central Park Zoo. Going to the zoo is something of a tradition for me. Whenever I used to come to New York City to visit family, I'd always make it a point to go see the Central Park Zoo and the American Museum of Natural History. I have photos of me as a little kid and then again as a teenager in front of the blue whale in the AMNH. I also have a fond memory of the giant ant farm in the Central Park Zoo. It inspired me to get a smaller version and keep it on my desk at home.

Ants in the Philippines, stealing cat food.

While living in Asia with my wife, I learned to hate ants. They got into everything and there was no way to kill them all or keep them out. They even did night time raids on the pet's food bowls, carrying whole pieces of cat food up the wall and out of the house through the ceiling. Still, that didn't stop me from wanting to share the excitement of a giant ant farm, and the memory of me being there as a kid, with my wife when we went to the zoo yesterday.

One of the chambers in the Central Park Zoo ant habitat. All that's left are a few corpses.

Unfortunately, we were disappointed. All that was left of the amazing, huge colony were a few dead ants. I spoke to one of the people that works there and she said the colony's queen had died and they were having trouble replacing her. She said it had something to do with the government making importation of a new queen difficult. She also said they no longer had an "ant person" and would need to hire someone.

The nasty hissing cockroaches that are living in the ant farm, since all the ants are gone.

The habitat isn't completely abandoned. While peering this way and that, looking for ants, I realized I was staring at a bunch of hissing cockroaches. Disgusting things. I hope whatever issues the zoo is having get worked out soon, because I'd much rather see the ants. I wish I'd had an opportunity to get some good photos of that colony before it died out.

The trip to the zoo wasn't all disappointment. I'll post more tomorrow.

A Central Park Wedding

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:38:00 +0000

While walking through Central Park today on the path that parallels 59th Street, we ran into a wedding ceremony by the Duck Pond. Even though it's winter and also the middle of the week, there was a surprising number of people in the park today.

As this wedding ceremony concluded and the bride and groom kissed, a few people that were watching from over the park wall, on the 59th Street sidewalk, cheered and whistled, which is why the bride looks so amused in the last photo.

View Larger Map

Scammer Smurf and Friends

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:41:00 +0000

I should have known better, but while my wife and I were out today, I managed to get us stuck in a tourist trap. We were in Times Square, waiting to meet up with family for lunch at Olive Garden and I saw a person dressed up as a Smurf, so I asked my wife if she wanted her picture taken. She thought it would be fun, so we walked over, took the photo and started to walk away when the smurf-person stopped us and held up a bag. I looked inside and saw some dollar bills, so I dropped a dollar in. I started to turn away, but then the smurf demanded not just one, but two dollars.

Later, as we were sitting inside the Olive Garden, I saw Scammer Smurf and his little friends congregating outside, scheming together and preying on tourists and other unwary pedestrians.

I think I fell for this because the last time I was in Times Square I had my photo taken with a person dressed as an M&M in front of the M&M store without being harassed for money. Like I said, though, I should have known.

I guess the moral of this story is: While in New York City, beware of cartoon characters carrying bags and posing for photos.

US Government's Illegal Torture Policies in the Middle East

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Farless) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:53:00 +0000

A friend of mine came across this documentary and passed along the link. I'm studying Middle Eastern history as my major, so he thought it would be relevant to my interests. It's 79 minutes and the audio gets steadily further and further out of sync with the video, but hey, it's free, and it's worth the information you'll glean from it.

What I saw in this video is nothing more than what I expected. I have little faith in the US government anymore. I mean, seriously. They can't fix our economy. They can't stop giving tax breaks to huge corporations. They can't take care of Americans. They can't do anything but blow up other countries to hide their own deficiencies. It also bothers me how caught up most people are in glorifying war and the military in this country. I think Americans are losing sight of what this country is supposed to be about. War isn't a destination. War was a means of achieving a free society where people have inviolable rights. All people. Not just the ones we like. War is not glorious, and just because someone is from another country, they don't lose their human rights. They're still human beings. Why would we take someone for whom we have no evidence of wrongdoing and then treat them worse than we treat serial murderers, rapists and child molesters in the US?

I can understand the situation that was created in these prisons and it's completely absurd to blame the front-line soldiers. In the military, there's a whole other culture, distinct from regular American culture, and there's a separate legal system and even a different way of thinking about things. For the most part, you do what you're told, even when things start to spiral into the absurd, because that's what you get trained to do: follow orders. When soldiers question orders, they're reprimanded, disciplined and sometimes humiliated in front of their peers. They can lose pay, rank or status. So, there's a lot of pressure to just follow orders, and I'm sure first-hand experience with public humiliation makes it easier to take the first step towards severe humiliation of prisoners whom your told have no rights and are something less than human.

So, things just get done because that's what was ordered, and because everyone else is doing it. What I'm describing is just based on what I remember from my experiences in non-combat units. I can't imagine the added pressures involved in dealing with people that you're told are enemy combatants. This whole situation seems like something Stephen King would have cooked up for a horror novel, rather than reality. In the end, though, the unit commander should be ultimately responsible for the actions of the unit, both good and bad. A common saying in the Army is that "shit rolls downhill," meaning from the top of the chain-of-command to the bottom, but it should also roll back up when something goes wrong like this.

Instead of trying to find ways to justify unwarranted violence and illegal torture, our politicians should be finding ways to stop blowing up other countries, defend our own, and fix our financial issues.