Soumission is the title of a new book by the formidable French writer Michel Houllebecq. Judging by everything I had read and heard, I thought it was a description of all the terrible things that would happen in France under a Muslim Government.
It is not. Mainly it is a devastating—devastating, I say—critique of modern French, and in many ways Western, society. For a millennium, people used to worship the Christian God. Next came patriotism as represented, in France, by the great poet Charles Péguy. By now, though, both of these ideals are stone-dead. The outcome is a society that recognizes no higher law. Nothing that is sacred and stands above the desires and caprices of individual people. One in which “emancipated” women, competing with men and in many ways behaving like them, have nothing to offer them except a good blowjob or a nice ass. In which, in other words, women are as bad, or as good, as prostitutes.
This is a world in which the family is supposed to be based on “love,” but in which a very large percentage of all marriages end in divorce. In which there are very few children—throughout the book, Houllebeck does not mention even one. In which adults leave the care of their aged parents to uneducated foreign workers with whom, in many cases, they cannot even communicate. A society which claims to be free, yet in which it is impossible for anyone to be a more than a few days away from home without being flooded by all kinds of letters from the authorities.
François, who tells the story in first person, is a lecturer at the Sorbonne. His field is French literature. Specifically the nineteenth century writer Joris Huysmans about whom, years ago, he wrote an eight-hundred page dissertation. Like thousands of others, it exists in all of four copies.
Since then, except for a few articles in a godforsaken scholarly magazine, he has done nothing. He has even managed to concentrate all his classes in one day of the week, leaving the other six free. Some of his students are inscrutable young Chinese women who both record and write down everything he says. Others are even more inscrutable young Muslim women in their burkas. None ever asks any questions. Other students still, who are doing their PhDs, ask too many senseless questions to which there is no answer. Either way, François has no idea why any of them are where they are and do what they do. After all, everyone knows that a diploma in literature leads nowhere. In fact he sees the humanities, and presumably many of the social sciences as well, as a joke. One which serves nothing and no one. Its only purpose is its own survival.
Such is the state of things when the Muslim Brotherhood Government takes over in France. Its rise is made possible by the fact that the Socialists, motivated by hatred of the right-wing National Front, voted for it. The new president is Ahmed Ben Abbes. The scion of a low-class Muslim family in France, he has worked himself up and benefitted from the country’s elite schools. In many ways he personifies the best France has to offer.
François has never been interested in politics. Why should he be? For decades now French politics, and by no means only French politics, have moved from moderate right to moderate left and back again. Nothing ever changes. Besides, François has a steady income and lives in an Ivory Tower. So do his colleagues whose specialties are as limited as his own.
He first learns that politics might be interested in him when the University is suddenly closed sine die, no reason given. He uses the opportunity to travel into the countryside, which he barely knows, in the vague hope of re-discovering the old, authentic France. He is disappointed; nothing there. He does, however, accidentally meet a female colleague, Françoise, and her husband. Since the new Government will not tolerate female teachers at the universities, she has just been fired. Now she manages her household and seems quite happy doing so.
Pump is use just generic super cialis http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1483475739_add_file_5.pdf before sex to draw blood into the penis. If the law of karma were put into play now, the spirit of Christmas would burn as levitra viagra cialis intensely bright for the mayor and his firefighters as it will be for the couple once again, but this time they have cold feet…and they prefer not to go the therapy route, so they hold tight until the day comes when one of them is served with divorce. In Brazil, farmland is in the hands of oligopolies, and each oligopoly is developing generic sample viagra its own transportation network that is not shared for maximum benefit like it is in the U.S. cialis 60mg Healing mineral water sounds strange for most Americans, but many Europeans spend healthy vacations in the thermal spring mineral spas.
The husband, Alan Tanneur, is something else. He used to work for the secret service. For being right in forecasting some violence on elections day, he and his entire team have been placed on the retired list. Now it is he who explains the new political situation to François. Ben Abbes’ purpose, Tanneur says, is much broader than just governing France and turning it into a Muslim country. He his ultimate goal is to re-institute the Roman Empire by bringing the countries east and south of the Mediterranean into the EU. Negotiations with several of them have already started and are going well.
Back in Paris, François begins to note other changes. Some forms of female dress that used to expose much of the body are no longer. To distinguish themselves from men, women have switched back from trousers to skirts. But over long stockings that cover their legs. They are no longer allowed to work outside the home, causing unemployment to disappear. The petty criminals who used to sell drugs and pick people’s pockets have vanished from the streets. Many bars have closed. The trains no longer run on time as they used to. France is governed by an economic system known as Distributism. Seeking to favor the little man, it systematically discriminates against large corporations. As a result, the country is growing steadily poorer.
Yet the University is positively swimming in money. Thanks to the Saudis who, vastly overestimating the influence of the intellectuals on French society are bankrolling it. François is invited to a party hosted by Rediger, his superior at the University, who will soon be appointed minister of education. There are no women there, only men. Perhaps that is why, instead of people of both sexes ogling each other and exchanging silly comments meant to please, the conversation is deep and fruitful. Rediger has just married a second, younger, woman. Only fifteen years old, she will meet his needs in bed. Meanwhile the first one, who older and seems to be is darling, looks after the household. After all, Islamic Law allows a man to have as many as four wives.
François has just been asked to prepare a new edition of Huysmans for the well-known publishing house, Pléiade. Rediger, who values François as a scholar, asks him to convert to Islam as he himself had recently done. Just a small step, changing nothing really, and he can have his job at the University back. With a considerable raise, what is more.
François hesitates. To resolve his doubts, he travels to a monastery where his hero Huysmans also spent some time in an attempt to re-find his faith. A faith, he now realizes, in an idiotic religion. First God created man. Next, with the aid of Satan, He made him sin; next He had his own son crucified in order to redeem him. Though the monks do their best, François finds nothing.
Back in Paris, he converts. It is an easy procedure, lasting no more than a few minutes. All that is asked of him is that he repeat the formula, “there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet” in the mosque in front of some witnesses. That, and submission to Allah’s inscrutable will.
Meanwhile the word has spread that university teachers make attractive husbands. They are not just a bunch of sexual harassers, which is how they are treated in my own old Alma Mater. And not just in my own Alma Mater either. Any of François’ young, shy female students will be honored to share her bed with him. They are not emancipated and they are not sluts. They are worth loving, and he would be able to love them. No, François has no regrets.
In view of what Western society has become, is there any reason why anyone should?
Nulla poena sine lege—no penalty without a law—is the short hand version of an aphorism ascribed to Anselm von Feuerbach, the author of the early 19th century Bavarian Penal Code. His aphorism remains the mainstay of criminal law to this very day. Retroactive punishment is an anathema. It is almost inconceivable to imagine a person indicted and sentenced for a crime that was not written in a law book somewhere, sometime before the crime was committed. Common law crimes are but extinct. Even in England, it is well accepted that the law must be known; it must be written; and it must set standards for proper behavior before the act, rather than ex post facto.
Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and a guilty mind, or mens rea as it is known in Latin. The standard of conviction in a criminal court are supposedly strict: the guilty mind must reveal intent, recklessness or apathy. Save for the most serious actions, such as killing another person, lack of thought or negligence are insufficient for a conviction.
A person’s guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Punishment is serious business, so much so that Jurists often claim that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” To ensure this ideal, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the prosecution.
However, online viagra order browse description oral treatment like Tadalista has made the ED treatment easy, effective and affordable. As they are effective, convenient and inexpensive, they have become the treatment of choice for most of the men that generic cialis online experience ED. Today, the drug helps males in their prime. medical intercession is the figure one option of many even health professionals when it comes to coping with erectile disorder. cialis tabs 20mg Men who are unable to afford the cost viagra no prescription http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/top-10-cutest-axolotl-mudkip-pics/ of surgery and implantation can simply go with this could be the reason why should one go with effective and cheap Kamagra if several other drugs are available in the market.
All three pillars crumble when it comes to rape, particularly date rapes. The law normally defines rape as “sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.” Some laws are more detailed, others less so. Some mention penises, vaginas and anuses, and others do not. In some jurisdictions, only women can be raped, in others men can be victims as well. Be that as it may, the fulcrum of all rape laws is consent, or the lack thereof.
In a court of law, the question how consent is proven must be answered. If the rape is violent, forensic evidence and common sense usually prevail. Resistance, bruises, and other marks can be used as proof for lack of consent. This simple picture is blurred when it comes to date rapes, when no physical evidence is available and all that remains are the testimonies of the defendant and his accuser. Perhaps supporting evidence and witnesses who were not privy to the act are also available, but rarely are they sufficient to prove lack of consent.
Suppose a man has sex with a woman without using force. She changes her mind after the fact. She might claim that the reasons leading to intercourse were not true expressions of her free will: the man was her boss, teacher or therapist and she felt compelled to do the deed; the man claimed he was a successful businessman when in fact he is a penniless pauper; she felt threatened even though no threat was expressed; or her mind was simply blank (normally due to being drunk). In other words, circumstances led to her loss of willing consent and the court must disregard it. She is asking the court to treat her as a child with limited responsibility, whose consent is meaningless. In point of fact, she is asking for retroactive justice: an assessment of her consent after the fact. If judges remained true to the law and its spirit, they would deny the request.
What is willing consent? Very few human actions are truly free. Circumstances always set limits to freedom; yet, when it comes to rape, courts set a high standard. A woman’s consent is not taken seriously if it falls under ‘understandable’ circumstances. These circumstances are not only objective conditions such as physical duress, treachery or extortion, but also include subjective feelings such as trauma and other mental states, or even her own actions. Experts flood the courts claiming that victims are often unaware that they had been raped. They claim that the trauma is so severe to the point that women are unsure about what had transpired, but the trauma itself could be used as evidence that rape had taken place. Once again, these experts violate the first pillar of criminal law, since what should matter in court is what happened at the scene of the crime, not the understanding of the events after the fact.
Victims are privileged. They are not held accountable for being drunk. On the contrary: the courts decided that the fact she drank alcohol means she could not give her consent, even though she had entered this state of mind willingly. Experts and activists tell us that it is never the victim’s fault. Yet, if the case were different, and a drunken person killed another, the prosecution would successfully claim that the killer entered the state of mind willingly, and that he should have taken into account that while under the influence his actions could be disastrous. Proving criminal intent would be immaterial in such a case. Defendants, therefore, are disadvantaged. They are held accountable in circumstances that victims are not. This fact is ignored because the victim should not be held to the same standard as the defendant. This is certainly true in most cases. However, in the current legal standard for rape, the actions of the accuser determine the mental state of the accused. By willingly detaching herself from her surroundings, she determines the mental state of the accused. How could he know that she is too drunk to consent? It stands to reason therefore that she should be held to the same standards as the accused.
Suppose another scenario: a man has sex with a woman, and she remains silent. She may or may not want it, but she had not given any indication either way. For all intents and purposes, the man has no guilty mind. He had no intention to rape the woman; he simply wanted to have sex and assumed the desire was mutual. He is neither reckless nor is he apathetic. Yet, courts have decided in the past that he should have actively sought her consent. In other words, the man had an ‘objective duty of care’ to ask before penetration. The fact that he did not explore the possibility she may not want sex makes him accountable. Jurists dub this low standard of mental state, or rather the lack of guilty mind, as negligence.
As noted above, save for extreme cases, negligence is insufficient for conviction in a criminal court. Rape is not governed by a negligence rule, though judges have accepted de facto negligence standards for rape convictions. Thus, rape shatters the second pillar of criminal law. No longer does a man have to be of guilty mind to be convicted of rape. In the past, one could have defined legal sexual intercourse as rape without a guilty mind. Nowadays, the courts have made it clear that even if there is no guilty mind, a conviction in a rape case is still possible if the woman has not consented. Considering that only the victim’s mind and thoughts determine her consent (rather than her actions), the thoughts and the guilty mind of the defendant are mostly irrelevant in today’s courts. In essence: the victim determines the guilty mind of the accused, even if she was willfully unaware of her surroundings and as a result was unable to give her consent willingly.
Finally, most date rapes boil down to ‘he said she said’ stories. Why should the court believe the accuser rather than the defendant? After all, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Experts often claim that no woman would lie about being raped. This assumption is false. Women like men, have incentives to lie. One should assume these incentives are present in rape cases as well. Since false accusations are difficult to disprove, a reasonable doubt is ever present. The burden of proof that she is not lying, or that he is lying should be on the shoulders of the prosecution. This is a heavy burden, one that must be lifted beyond a reasonable doubt; and reason is always filled with doubts.
Suppose for a minute that the accusation is not false. Instead, it represents different perspectives of a situation. The accused never wanted to rape the woman, but the woman understood it as rape. What should the courts do? Since the defendant stands on trial for his own actions, his understanding of the situation is judged, not the victim’s. The court must determine his state of mind and his actions, not hers. The prosecution must prove that the defendant believed she had not consented to the act, rather than deal with her beliefs and actions. Yes, in light of the correct criminal approach, her deeds might speak louder than words if she had led him to think she wanted to have sex.
One must remember that a victim has no standing in a criminal court, and as long as this is the case, judges must treat defendants in rape cases just like they would treat other suspects. Will this mean that many defendants will be acquitted because of the stringent standards of proof? Yes, but that is exactly the purpose of the law. After all in a liberal legal system, it is better to set ten guilty men free, than have one innocent suffer.
Exactly seventy years ago, on 6 August 1945, the US dropped the world’s first nuclear device on Hiroshima. Three days later it dropped the second one on Nagasaki. The total number of those who died either on the spot or later, as the result of radiation, was probably between 150,000 and 200,000. President Truman’s reasons for using the bomb have been in dispute ever since.
“Ways toward nuclear disarmament–PIR Center”
What has not been in dispute is that, ever since, the US has done everything it could to prevent other countries from obtaining the weapons it already had. Not that I blame it; any other Power in its position would have done exactly the same. The first country to which the policy was applied was Stalin’s Soviet Union. In 1941-45 Stalin had been known as “Uncle Joe.” Now, within the space of a few weeks or months, he was turned into a monster. One which, in some ways, was even worse than Adolf Hitler. Stalin was an atheist. Stalin was a Communist. Stalin was hell-bent on dominating the world. In seeking to realize that objective, he recognized no moral laws whatever. It was, all of it, in vain. Four years after Hiroshima the Soviet Union did in fact test its first bomb. And what happened? Nothing. Stalin did not invade Europe, as had been feared. Let alone unleash a third world war.
Confronted by a fait accompli, Washington switched it attention to its own allies, Britain and France. One could not, of course, accuse them of being atheists, or Communists, or non-democratic. Let alone of presenting a danger to the US, or seeking to dominate the world, or whatever. Some more benign reasons had to be invented. Some more benign reasons were invented. Such as, for example, the claim that, once the British and the French possessed their own nuclear arsenals, the Soviets might think they could attack them without necessarily involving the US, thus weakening NATO. The consequences would be terrible. Again, their efforts availed the Americans nothing, Britain tested its first bomb in 1952, France in 1960. And what happened? Nothing.
Next it was the turn of China. Its leader, Mao Zedong, was even worse than Stalin. Let alone his successors who, as détente took hold, had turned into more or less “responsible” and “calculable” actors. Mao was a revolutionary. Mao was a dictator. Mao was a Communist. Mao was a mass murderer. Had he not supported North Korea? Had he not sworn to regain Taiwan? Had he not dared call the US a paper tiger? And did not Khrushchev say that he had said that he was prepared to sacrifice three hundred million lives so as to put an end to imperialism? How could one permit such a man to put his finger on the trigger? In October 1964, he did. And what happened? Nothing.
Unlike China, Israel was a tiny country of two and a half million tucked away in the Middle East. It was also democratic. By no stretch of the imagination did it present a danger to the US or any of its allies. And yet the US under Kennedy did what it could to prevent Jerusalem from going nuclear. So much so that, by some accounts, Prime Minister Ben Gurion resigned over this very issue. This time the rationale was that an Israeli bomb would immediately lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. With Egypt, as the largest Arab country, in the lead. In fact, that did not happen. As of 2015, Egypt still does not have the bomb.
These substances generic viagra tadalafil work to enhance the psychological and physical factors of sexual function. One of these changes is atrophic gastritis, a condition in which the acid-producing glands are slowly destroyed. pop over to this page viagra 25 mg Some marketers go as far saying levitra 20 mg that this ingredient is helpful for keeping the young look of the individuals. In some levitra shop uk cases, situation becomes so grave that consulting the doctor becomes necessity.
In 1974 the Indians set off what they called a “peaceful nuclear explosion” (PNE). No sooner had they done so than America’s ambassador to New Delhi, Daniel Moynihan, went to the foreign ministry. You have, he lectured them, done a terrible thing. Not because India might use the bomb, but because it would cause the “Moghuls” in Karachi to build a bomb of their own. By that logic, incidentally, the US should have avoided building the bomb out of fear that the Soviet Union would follow.
In the event, Moynihan was right. Ten years or so later, the “Moghuls” did in fact go nuclear. In 1998 both India and Pakistan tested their bombs. And what happened? Nothing.
And then it was the turn of North Korea. Everyone knew that the people in Pyongyang were as bad as anyone could be. They had set up a terrible dictatorship. They had developed a strange doctrine, known as Juche and roughly translatable as “we ourselves.” They starved their own people. They staged some dangerous incidents along the border between them and South Korea. They had the regime’s opponents torn to pieces by dogs (though this particular accusation later turned out to be a figment of someone’s imagination). In 2006, to the accompaniment of dire warnings, they tested their first bomb. And what happened? Nothing.
The logic behind the “international,” read mainly American, attempts to prevent proliferation is clear enough. Since 1945 no country has gone to war more often, and against as many opponents scattered all over the world, as the US has. Nor has any country more readily threatened to use its nuclear weapons. After all, it had far more of them than anyone else did. Conversely, each time another country obtains the bomb the number of those the US can attack without risking nuclear escalation goes down by one.
And then it was the turn of Iran. Iran is not a democracy (as if, judging by the fact that, in the past, quite some non-democratic countries acquired the bomb, it matters). Iran is not transparent (ditto). Iran supports terrorism (ditto). Should it develop the bomb, then that bomb may fall into the hand of terrorists. Etc., etc. Note that the rationales keep adapting themselves to circumstances. However, the objective remains always the same.
That is also why the details of the agreement with Iran, about which so much is being said and written, do not really matter. The controls may or may not be effective. They may or may not expire after ten years. Regardless, the Mullahs will continue their nuclear program so they can build the bomb if and when they need it. Partly that is because Iran is surrounded by nuclear countries on all sides. Partly, because of America’s habit of sending it troops to fight in or against other countries, with reason or without. One way or another, they will keep it in operation whether the rest of “the world,” agrees or not.
That is why, sooner or later, out of hundred and ninety or so countries on this earth there will be not nine nuclear ones but ten. And very little, if anything, will happen.
Tennis, with which I have a little experience, demands extreme concentration. On the opponent, on the ball, on what one is about to do next. And next. And perhaps, next. No player who could not concentrate has ever been good at the game. Such is the focus it demands that it leaves little room for anything else. Presumably the same applies to football, soccer, basketball, and every kind of similar sport that demands strategy and/or teamwork.
Running does not require that sort of concentration. In my experience it can be very relaxing. Once one has got into one’s stride, to feel one’s body functioning like a machine, floating through the air as it were, is to come as near to heaven as any ordinary person can be. There are, however, two problems. One is that running is easily carried to the point where one’s lungs are close to bursting. No better way to each one what determination is; however, such is the effort required as to make thought almost impossible. The other is that it may very well end up by ruining one’s knees. Especially if you run on hard surfaces, as most people do. And especially if you are no longer so young. Having done it for thirty-five years, I came close to that point. Thus I know what I am talking about in this respect.
Many people I know have taken up membership in a fitness club. I can understand their motives. Not everyone has the good fortune of living relatively close to nature as I do. In fact most of us live in megacities with all their congestion, all their traffic, and all their pollution. Fitness clubs enable one to work every muscle in one’s body in what is usually a safe and clean environment. For those who are inclined in this direction they present many opportunities for socializing as well.
To me, though, the machines always look like a cross between torture engines and gynecological chairs. I can think of nothing more boring, more humiliating even, than spending my time in a room huffing and puffing away on them. So monotonous, so dumb! Besides, back in Israel I have a lady acquaintance who runs a clinic with a staff consisting of several trained physiotherapists. She always says that she is very happy with the nearby gym, given that it presents her with a never-ending supply of patients.
I am not going to list all the remaining sport forms, their advantages and their disadvantages. Instead I am going to focus on walking, the most natural activity in the world. The Greek philosophers did it, going round and round (“going round” is what the term “peripatetic” means). Thomas Hobbes did it. Frederick the Great did it. He used to complain that, he more he got to know about men, the more he preferred walking with his dogs! Immanuel Kant did it. Friedrich Nietzsche did it, talking to himself and writing down his thoughts on little scraps of paper. So do millions of other people. Day by day, hour by day.
I mean walking as form of exercise, not of the kind one does at home or in the office. Ordinary walking, not “speed walking,” one of the strangest forms of locomotion ever invented. And walking without music being pumped through one’s head as, nowadays, it so often is. Simply walking.
Such walking has the great advantage that it can be done almost anywhere. Either alone or in the company of others; as to the nature of those others, a dog will do as well as any human. For those of you who care about such matters, walking is also the least costly of all forms of exercise. All one needs is a pair of good shoes.
Online pharmacy levitra sale and men’s health have found perfect match in each other in this regard. Unfortunately, scammers best buy for viagra are on the increase along with hard times. This also affects the mental cialis generic cipla health of a person leading to disturbances in emotions, such as embarrassment, disappointment, fights in relationship, depression and despair. You may lose erection while making love to your parents. order 50mg viagra
It was during a walk here in Potsdam that I thought of writing about walking. It was a beautiful evening of a long summer day. I left our lodgings, turned right, and walked about one and a half miles to the Autobahn. Then I turned around and walked back the way I had come. The whole thing took about 45 minutes. Fast enough to require a little effort by someone of my age. Not so fast as to leave one out of breath or tired.
Both sides of the road are lined by trees. On both sides there are also beautiful gardens, many with flowers. Inside many gardens there are single family houses. Not posh ones—this is a lower middle class neighborhood whose population consists of mostly of retired people. But such as are carefully maintained and clearly beloved by their owners.
It was fairly late and there were few people on the bicycle path besides the road. On the way I was greeted by a couple of small white schnauzers behind a garden gate. They started by barking at me but took only a moment to calm down and become quite friendly. One even permitted me to stroke its head.
Another attraction was a used car lot. Those on display, mostly Opels, looked tadeloss (perfect, in German). The details of each were printed on a card that was displayed in the window. The year they were made, the technical specifications, the price. Not a big deal. But interesting enough, I thought, to spend a couple of minutes comparing and calculating.
Walking, walking. Thinking of everything and of nothing. Funny: it is often when one is thinking about nothing that the best ideas come to one. From everywhere, from nowhere, from God knows where. As, for example, happened to James Watt. He always said that the idea as to how to improve the Newcomen atmospheric engine came to him one Sunday in May 1765 during a walk on Edinburgh Common. That idea made him famous as well as rich.
Trust no thought that was not born in the free air, said Nietzsche. In the age when most people spend endless hours in artificially-lightened, air-conditioned offices in front of computer screens that never seem to go out, is anyone listening?
Potsdam, 17.7.2015. Yesterday my wife and I visited a wonderful exhibition at the Old Gallery in Berlin. It was titled, “Impressionism versus Expressionism” and covered the period from about 1880 to 1914. Some 160 paintings by Lieberman, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Renoir, Touluse-Lautreq, Dix, Heckel, Kirchner, Klee, Macke, Munch, Nolde, Pechstein. And, to top it all, a couple of van Gochs. A greater feast to the eyes can hardly be imagined. Personally I like impressionism better than I do expressionism. Each time I see these beautiful works they make me want to weep with happiness. But that is not what I want to write about here.
What I do want to write about is a short text posted on one of the walls by way of telling visitors what they are seeing. One of the things the two movements had in common, it said, was the fact that, at the time, “women’s emancipation was still far away.” Supposedly that explained why so many of the paintings showed women in “domestic settings.” Meaning, presumably, anything that does not involve a “career.” Women bathing. Women buying flowers. Women dancing. Women reading. Women rowing a boat. Women talking to each other. Women teaching children to do this or that. Women walking. Women flirting, perhaps considering whether or not to have sex with their avid-looking male partners. Women, women. Almost all of them doing what women have always done and almost of them exciting, good looking, and, judging by their looks, self-conscious and intelligent.
It made me think of my late grandmother, Francien Wijler, née Landsberg. She was born in Rotterdam in 1893. At the age of 25 she married my grandfather, Louis Wijler. She was the daughter of a middle class family, had taken a degree in French literature, and knew Greek as well as Latin. Her favorites were the scene in the Iliad where Hector takes leave of his wife and baby son as well as Napoleon’s love letters to Josephine. He, three years older than she, was a young, tough, somewhat prosaic man from the boondoggles who had never gone beyond “extended elementary school” (nine classes). She remained in her parents’ home until they wed. He was apprenticed to a chicken-feed dealer when he was just sixteen years old. By the time they met he had gone into business for himself and was well on the way to making himself rich.
The combination was, and is, not unusual. Young men used to leave school so they could earn their keep. Young women of good family had the privilege of studying so they could make eligible brides for successful young men. Or else, should they fail to catch one, earn their livelihood by teaching. Before finally going on pension my grandfather spent most of his time in the office or at the stock exchange where, to quote his memoirs, there was no end to “worry and stress.” His wife, by contrast, never worked outside the home. Instead she oversaw the household with an iron hand, (she had help, of course) and raised six children. At one point she had sufficient leisure to continue her studies. Eventually she took an MA. At home she had the upper hand in everything.
Though she could easily have afforded it, she never had a “room of her own.” She did not need one. With my grandfather at work and the children spending much of the day in kindergarten or at school, the entire house was at her disposal. Everything in it was hers. She could go out or stay in just as she pleased. It was she who spent practically all the money they did. It was he, not she, who used to grumble, only half in jest, that he was a kettinghond (dog on a chain).
In 1973 she forced him, much against his will, to move from the Netherlands to Israel where all her daughters and most of her grandchildren, some with children of their own, were living. She loved it and learnt Hebrew fairly well. He hated it and did not. Within four years of the move he was dead. Briefly, she was the most “emancipated” woman I ever knew. And so she remained until her death, which took place nine years after his. She used to tell me how, as a widow, she regularly visited his grave to find peace in the shade of the trees.
Besides this, the GPS system can be set up fast. 4.They http://greyandgrey.com/blog1/ viagra uk have very strong rubber feet which help in absorbing permanent mounting, vibration or noise. 5.They have a switch for auto cut-pressure. 6.They are suitable for liquids which have weak acid or alkaline or salty water. Almost all NBA players are having tattoos on their discounts on cialis body whatsoever after taking ErectoMax. This steroid is produced by the Moldavian company Vermodje that low price levitra supplies its clients with safe preparations.This medicine is used in medicine as well as in athletic world.This drug is prescribed in case of hypogonadism, certain type of breast cancer in women, muscle loss in HIV/AIDS-persons, delayed puberty in males, etc.The steroid Testover C (Testosterone Cypionate) is a steroid that comes only in injectable form. How can be treated? As mentioned, treatment depends on the dosage levitra 20 mg consumed.
No, she never did heavy outdoor work as men did and do. No, she did not sweat her skin off in a steel factory as men did and do. No, she did not work in an office. The dienstmeisjes (servant girls) apart, she never had anyone to order around. And she did not envy women who had a “career.” At the time she grew up, and in fact until 1960 or so, it was taken for granted that a proper man should support his wife and family as they deserved to be. Briefly, assisted by a large open account she had at Rotterdam’s largest department store, the Bijenkorf, she spent her time doing exactly as she pleased.
Back to the paintings. With the exception of peasant women, poor creatures who share in the misery of their menfolk, very few of the women shown are at work. Of those who are, all without exception are young, low class, presumably not too well educated, and probably unmarried. Most are employed as servants, waitresses, vaudeville dancers, etc. That explains why the only ones shown wearing anything like pants are the ones dancing the Can Can. The rest seem to have leisure on their hands. None is doing physical work out of doors as men did. None are shown sweating their skin off in steel factories. None are shown sitting in offices and filling in forms, which is what office workers usually do. Or putting on a soldier’s uniform.
Since then things have changed. Unless a woman does exactly as men do, she is hardly considered human. Least of all by her “emancipated” sisters. Had my grandmother been a generation or two younger, indeed, feminists would have kept pestering her by asking why “she did not do anything with her life.” As, incidentally, they did pester my mother in law, another highly intelligent woman who spent most of her life looking after, read dominating, her husband, her family, and her home.
By the feminist gospel, “emancipated” women must wear pants (although, recently, that demand seems to have been relaxed a little; a topic for another post, perhaps?) They must imitate men and have a “career.” They must imitate men by working out of doors in trades that demand physical effort. On the rare occasions one of them does so, usually only for a brief time, the media go ape in admiration. They must imitate men and work in factories. They must imitate men and work in offices. But that is still not enough. Women must imitate men by driving trucks, buses, and taxis as well as heavy earthmoving equipment. Women must do sports just like men (all sorts of sports, without exception, have been invented by men).
To top it all, to “enrich the concept of citizenship,” as one feminist put it, women must put on military uniform. They must go to war, participate in combat and get themselves killed in nice, friendly places such as Afghanistan. If they have children, well that is just too bad (for the children, of course). Let relatives, or hired personnel, take care of them! No doubt if men started jumping from roofs, “emancipated” women would follow their example. As, in the case of bungee-jumping, they already do.
My friend and former student Yuval Harari, I am proud to say, needs no introduction from me. His book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind has sold more copies than any other non-fiction work in the entire history of Israel. It occasioned a special exhibition—not a very good one, incidentally—at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. It has also been translated into thirty different languages, becoming a best-seller in many of them. That is why I want to discuss it here.
Harari is not alone. Sapiens is one of several similar volumes that have done well in the last decade or so. Some were written by historians, others not. Regardless, all belong to the genre known as “big” history. Meaning that the authors do not pay attention to trivia such as individual people, places, dates, and events. At least one considers himself equal to Newton. So great are his intellectual powers that he is able to span, not to say scan, tens of thousands, millions, sometimes even billions of years.
All also have this in common that they try to place the history of man—talking it for granted that the term covers women too, I am sufficiently old fashioned to use it—within a wider context. One that consists of paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology and what not. Had doing so been possible, surely they would have gone back not only to the big bang, as some of them actually do, but beyond it too.
Another thing they have in common is the idea that our species has been going steadily downhill. In this they differ from previous efforts such as Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man (1973). Once upon a time, so the new story goes, we humans—there were very few of us then—were in Eden. We lived in small bands of 30-40 people all of whom were related by blood or marriage. The bands wandered around in unspoiled nature, gathering food and hunting such small animals as came their way. Evenings were spent relaxing, telling stories around the campfire, and making love. From time to time they joined some other bands similar to themselves. On those occasions they would have a big feast with much singing, dancing, and worshipping their necessarily primitive gods. Food was shared, marriages were concluded, and some simple presents exchanged.
All the individuals who made up each group were more or less equal. There was no accumulation of property and no government to oppress people and extract resources from them against their will. Cain had not yet killed Abel, so that violence and war were unknown. Men, those cruel, heartless beings who are always intent on one thing only, did not lord it over poor, defenseless women. How women can be both poor and defenseless and lay claim to important positions in society, incidentally, has always been a mystery to me. There was no work to be done, no deadlines to be met, no stress. No traffic jams. No pollution and no unwholesome food (all food was “natural”).
Right? Dead wrong. Food may indeed have been “natural.” Whatever that may mean; did anyone ever see food that was un- or supernatural? However, since it could not be preserved for very long its quality was often dubious and its supply always uncertain. The outcome were alternating periods of boom and bust that could decimate entire populations and even finish them off. If there was no pollution, then only because the energy at people’s disposal consisted almost exclusively of what their own muscles could produce. What that meant was nicely illustrated the other day when a French student hooked a toaster to a pedal-operated dynamo. Only to discover that, in the entire world, there are perhaps two or three people sufficiently fit to produce enough power to toast a single slice of bread. Having succeeded in doing so, more or less, they were far too exhausted to even try toasting another.
Once the catheter reaches the place, the dye will be injected to the catheter. cialis online prices Nerves, muscles, hormones, female viagra pill and blood vessels work in combination with sexual stimulation.Also, the direction of usage must be followed to experience their benefits in a better way to overcome every problem then you will win the race easily too. We offer a guide through this material to help you out of your problem. buy viagra on line The majority of these products are mostly herbal with no side effects, and (2) the synthetic medication which is quick acting (works in 30 minutes) as well as know to be compelling the length of 36 hours, in this manner empowering you to pick the minute that is simply ideal for you and in addition your tadalafil cheap prices accomplice.
Far from leading a relaxed life our ancestors, spreading out from Africa, had to cope with many kinds of wild animals. Quite a few of which were both very dangerous and much stronger than themselves. To say nothing of enduring the weather in what makeshift shelters they were able to dig or erect; how many of you readers would really want to live in a cave or some kind of shed? As far back as we can look, even the simplest, most backward, societies have always been run predominantly by men, not women. Violence and war, far from being unknown, were endemic. If you have any doubt about that, I suggest you read Napoleone Chagnon’s The Fierce People.
Government, in the sense that some individuals had priority over others and were entitled to consume resources they did not produce, has always existed. As is clear from the fact that, even among chimps, alpha males regularly take what they need from their weaker neighbors, both male and female. Equality only existed to the extent that it did not interfere with the pecking order, i.e. hardly at all. And the pecking order itself was absolutely essential to prevent every minor conflict from degenerating into violence. People also suffered from a permanent shortage of animal protein. Indeed the fact that it was men, not women, who hunted was one reason why the former were able to dominate the latter.
If there was no overpopulation, then one very important reason for this was that a great many infants died soon after they were born. So did a great many newly-delivered women; by the best available figures, so-called perinatal death was perhaps two hundred times as prevalent then as it is in today’s most advanced societies. Only fifty percent or so of infants ever reached adulthood. As a result, life expectancy at birth was probably not much more than thirty years. Person of fifty was considered very old and looked and acted the part. For lack of proper care people’s teeth fell out at an early age. Festering wounds and infectious diseases, which today can easily be cured by means of antibiotics, could and did kill people of all ages. For anatomical reasons that I do not have to explain, many of these problems affected women more than they did men. With the result that, in marked contrast to the situation as it has developed over the last two centuries, the latter tended to outlive the former by a considerable margin.
Life, to quote Thomas Hobbes, was nasty, brutish, and short. Or why else were all those nefarious inventions Harari and others tell us about made? But suppose the story they tell were true. If so, what would it take to take mankind back to Eden? The answer is simple. It has been calculated that, had we still been hunters and gatherers as we used to be until about twelve thousand years ago, the earth could only have supported about eight million of us. In other words, out of every thousand people alive today nine-hundred-ninety-nine would have to die.
And that I respectfully submit to Harari, his fellow authors and their countless followers, is too high a price to pay for returning to Eden. The more so because, in all probability, it has never existed.
Summary: During the past decade we have deployed our most skilled warriors and most advanced technology in an assassination program with few precedents in history. Result: the Middle East in flames and our foes resurgent. I and others predicted this, the natural result of putting the force of evolution to work for our foes. It’s called the Darwinian Ratchet. It’s an old and familiar concept, but we prefer not to see it. Victory remains impossible until we overcome our inability to learn this and other basics of modern warfare.
The great mystery of our post-9/11 wars is our inability to learn from history and our own experience. My previous post discussed one aspect of this: our blindness to the consistent failure since WWII of foreign armies fighting insurgents. Another aspect is what Martin van Creveld calls the “power of weakness”. This essay discusses a third aspect, how an insurgency brings into play a “Darwinian ratchet” in which our efforts empower an insurgency.
This post shows the origin and history of the “ratchet” concept and its slow recognition by American geopolitical and military leaders. But there are no answers to our inability to adapt our tactics to the ratchet, just as there are none for our failure to learn from the history of insurgencies.
(2) Biologists Explain the Darwinian Ratchet
It’s an old concept in biology, first developed by Herman Muller in his famous 1932 article “Some genetic aspects of sex”. We’re personally experience the Darwinian ratchet when we take antibiotics in too-low doses or for too short a time, creating a colony of slightly drug-resistant bacteria. When done by a society we breed superbugs, as Nathan Taylor explains in “What are the risks of a global pandemic?“ (Praxtime, 23 March 2013).
“The genetics of disease resistance are worth discussing here. We can think of resistance to disease as an arms race. As a population gets exposed to more and more diseases, a darwinian ratchet effect occurs, and only those with stronger immune systems survive.”
“We know that the Darwinian Ratchet can create advanced capabilities in stages — it’s a process that gradually creates quality — and gets around the usual presumption that fancy things require an even fancier designer.”
Never engage the same enemy for too long … or he will adapt to your tactics. — Falsely attributed to Clausewitz but still insightful. From Lions for Lambs (2007).
My first posts about the Iraq War in Sept 2003 and Oct 2003 discussed the ratchet (possibly its first mention in military theory). We killed the insurgents, but in effect recruited even more while alienating the local population (a pattern that we now understand but we still repeat). I showed an even worse effect: we culled the pack of insurgents — eliminating the slow and stupid while clearing space for the more fit insurgents to rise in authority. Hence the by now familiar pattern of a rising sine wave of insurgent activity: successes by the security forces, a pause in activity, followed by another wave of activity – but larger and more effective. To which we reply with more killing.
We lock ourselves into a “Red Queen’s race” in which we must run ever faster just to stay abreast of our enemies in the Long War. Since they learn faster and try harder (it’s their land), we tend to fall behind. This help accounts for our inexplicable (to us) defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. Richard Dawkins explains its effects: “As the generations unfold, ratcheting takes the cumulative improbability up to levels that — in the absence of the ratcheting — would exceed all sensible credence”. In 2006, after 5 years of war, some awareness of this the ratchet bean to appear in official reports, such as the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States.״ It said…
“We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives … The Iraq conflict has become the “cause célèbre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”
Slide 17: Hypothesis: mechanisms for insurgent evolution: General evolutionary effect, Leadership evolution (destruction-replenishment cycle), Bell Curve effect.
Slide 52: Conclusions: In a counterinsurgency, insurgent groups and security forces appear to engage in time- and resource-competitive processes of adaptation, driven by the Darwinian pressure imposed by a complex, hostile “conflict ecosystem” that operates on the edge of chaos. Counterinsurgents appear mainly to adapt, insurgents to evolve – but insurgent groups whose network and organizational structure is tighter may behave in a more purposeful adaptive manner (e.g. JAM).
“Models of human conflict tend to focus on military power, predicting that — all else equal — the stronger side will prevail. This overlooks a key insight from the evolutionary dynamics of competing populations: the process of adaptation by natural selection. Darwinian selection weeds out poor performers and propagates good performers, thus leading to a cumulative increase in effective adaptations over time. The logic of selection applies not only to biological organisms but to any competing entities, whether strategies, technologies, or machines — as long as three conditions are in place: variation, selection, and replication.
“Applied to asymmetric warfare, Darwinian selection predicts that, counter-intuitively, stronger sides may suffer a disadvantage across all three conditions:
Variation — weaker sides are often composed of a larger diversity of combatants, representing a larger trait-pool and a potentially higher rate of “mutation” (innovation).
Selection — stronger sides apply a greater selection pressure on weaker sides than the other way around, resulting in faster adaptation by the weaker side.
Replication — weaker sides are exposed to combat for longer (fighting on the same home territory for years at a time), promoting experience and learning, while stronger sides rotate soldiers on short combat tours to different regions.
This class of drugs also includes wholesale viagra india and cialis. No matter how sever or how old is your erection problem is; cheapest viagra online has a better way to treat it. Plagued by cialis buy on line fears which you know are irrational yet you are unable to shake them off. This way, most men experience harder erection within minutes and even erectile dysfunction patients have reported better erection strength within just weeks of use while enlargement process http://raindogscine.com/caddies-ganador-de-doctv-latinoamerica-iv/ cialis 10 mg might require some time.
“In recent years, many civilian and military leaders have noted that US counterinsurgency and counterterrorism forces are adapting too slowly to match the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda worldwide. A Darwinian approach suggests that this is exactly what we might predict: Weaker sides adapt faster and more effectively. Understanding the causes and consequences of Darwinian selection offers insights for how to thwart enemy adaptation and improve our own.”
“All this experience in designing and manufacturing IEDs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan means that the jihadist bombmakers of today are more highly skilled than ever, and they have been sharing their experience with foreign students at training camps in places like South Waziristan. Furthermore, the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has provided a great laboratory in which jihadists can perfect their terrorist tradecraft.
“A form of “tactical Darwinism” has occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan as coalition firepower has weeded out most of the inept jihadist operatives. Only the strong and cunning have survived, leaving a core of hardened, competent militants. These survivors have created new tactics and have learned to manufacture new types of highly effective IEDs — technology that has already shown up in places like Algeria and Somalia. They have been permitted to impart the knowledge they have gained to another generation of young aspiring militants through training camps in places like South Waziristan.
“As these foreign militants scatter to the four winds, they will be taking their skills with them. Judging from past waves of jihadist fighters, they will probably be found participating in future plots in many different parts of the world. And also judging from past cases, they will likely not participate in these plots alone.”
A stronger sign of mainstream acceptance is its appearance in the writings of military professionals, such as “Insurgent career planning or insurgency darwinism“, J. J. Malevich (Lt Colonel, Canadian Army; COIN Branch Chief), USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Blog, 4 March 2010 — No longer online.
“In our war in Afghanistan we seem to be doing a lot of leadership targeting by UAV. But, are we doing leadership targeting because it is a worthwhile war winner or because we can? I think is it more the latter than the former. There is no doubt that the capture/kill of an insurgent leader deals a blow to the insurgency and creates an IO opportunity for the home team. But, how much of an effect remains to be seen. Obviously we’ve been going after insurgent leaders for a while and what has happened? The insurgency got stronger. In fact, some had mused that the amateurs were cleaned out and the professionals took over.
“When I think of leadership targeting I am reminded of the Jominni inspired doctrine “shock and awe theory.” In our doctrine, we constantly try to recreate those for 42 days of the battle of France in 1940 where the Germans got inside the OODA loop of the French Command, overwhelmed it and defeated it. Although targeting leadership can be useful in the heat of battle where HQs need to make rapid decisions and direct troops and fires to the critical point of the battle, I don’t think it applies to insurgency situations.
“Leadership in an insurgency is a slower, less controlled event. Taking out a leader will not have an immediate tangible effect on the battlefield as insurgents are not normally sitting around waiting for orders. What I think it does cause is collateral damage while at the same time giving the younger more aggressive insurgent leadership an opportunity to come to the fore. I think we do it because we can. It reminds me of the British Bomber offensive in WW II between 1940 and 1941. The British could not come to grips with Nazis after the fall of France, but they could bomb targets in Germany and that made them feel good regardless of the effect.
“Does leadership targeting fall into an overall strategic plan or is it just something we are doing because we can?”
Eventually even journalists learned about the ratchet, although in an unsystematic way. For example, The Economist explains how our military technology has forced the jihadist to become more sophisticated technologically in “Bombs away“ (4 March 2010).
“For America’s Central Intelligence Agency, the glory days of its “Darwin” patrols in Iraq were short-lived. Following the defeat of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the American-led forces faced clever homemade bombs triggered with the remote controls used to open garage doors. So CIA agents drove around transmitting garage-opening signals to blow up any bombmakers who happened to be nearby. This “survival of the fittest” culling, which gave the scheme its nickname, quickly became less effective when the bombers came up with new and better detonators. “We had to keep going back to the drawing board,” says a former senior CIA official.
“And still the battle continues, with each new bombing advance met by a new countermeasure. As insurgents and terrorists have improved their handiwork, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have become their most lethal weapons. In Iraq, IEDs are responsible for two-thirds of coalition deaths. In Afghanistan such attacks have roughly tripled in the past two years.”
US Generals usually talk to us only in terms of winning, but after 14 years of failure a note of realism occasionally slips in. As in this interview by Breaking Defense with Michael Flynn (Lt. General, US Army), retiring chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, on 7 August 2014. He describes the ratchet, but not by name.
“These various groups have learned from fighting the U.S. military for a decade, and they have created adaptive organizations as a means to survive. They write about and share ‘Lessons Learned’ all the time. That was something Bin Laden taught them before he died. These proliferating Islamic terrorist groups have also for years been developing connective tissue to each other and back to al-Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Some of those connections are pretty strong. We’re not talking bits and pieces or nascent connections.
“… when Bin Laden was killed there was a general sense that maybe this threat would go away. We all had those hopes, including me. But I also remembered my many years in Afghanistan and Iraq [fighting insurgents] … We kept decapitating the leadership of these groups, and more leaders would just appear from the ranks to take their place. That’s when I realized that decapitation alone was a failed strategy.”
“The explanation, so the analysts concluded, was that dead leaders were invariably and immediately replaced, and almost always by someone (often a relative ready for revenge) younger, more aggressive, and eager to prove himself. The same held true on a wider scale. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Iraqi al Qaeda leader widely cited as the source of all our troubles in Iraq, was duly targeted and killed in 2006, only to be succeeded by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who turned out to be an even more deadly opponent. He too was duly killed, and instead we got Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who created the Islamic State, now lord of six million people and an area the size of Great Britain.”
(4) Conclusion
“I’ve killed them by the tens of thousands, scoured their countryside at will, pried their allies away, and humiliated them day after day. I have burned their crops and looted their wealth. I’ve sent a whole generation of their generals into the afterworld … Have I changed nothing? They are stronger now than before. They are more than before. They fight more sensibly than before. They win when they used to lose.”
— Hannibal speaking about Rome in David Anthony Durham’s novel Pride of Carthage (2005).
These examples show that some experts see this basic element of modern war, but our military and geopolitical institutions cannot learn it even from 14 years of experience. Just as they refuse to recognize the dismal record of success by foreign armies fighting insurgencies since WWII. That’s bad news, since slow learning is a weaknesses even our great power cannot easily overcome. Perhaps we should worry less about insurgents in distant nations and worry more about those who lead us so that they gain while hurting America.
Or we can wait until our enemies teach us a lesson we cannot ignore.
Currently I am reading Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History (2005) by David Christian and William H. McNeill. It traces the evolution of the world from the big bang to the moment in which we humans find ourselves today. One of quite a number of recent books of the same kind, and not the worst of the lot.
It made me think. A higher compliment no book can get or should get. However, seen from the authors’ point of view, it made me think about the wrong things. Perhaps that is another compliment to their work. I did not think about how we changed and why we changed and how else we might have changed and where change is taking us a d whether change is good or bad. But about all the ways in which we did not change. In other words, what it means to be human.
Homo Sapiens (skull & lower jaw) from the Human Evolution Gallery (tracks through time) Age: 18,000 years old Locality: Upper Cave, Zhoukoudian near Beijing, China
Before I start, a qualification. We humans are supposed to have evolved from ape-like ancestors who lived several millions of years ago. The question as to just when we became “modern” and “fully human” is very much one of definition. I cannot and will not go into all the different creatures that linked us to the ape in question. The more so because paleontologists themselves never stop quarrelling about their nature, the reasons why they appeared, the time at which they appeared, and the sequence in which they did so. That means I am going to limit myself to the last fifty thousand years or so. To my admittedly limited knowledge, no one has argued that our ancestors of that period were not “fully” human.
So here are a few of our outstanding characteristics.
To be human is to be a land animal (even if, in the future, we succeed in providing ourselves with artificial land-like environments under water, in the sea, and in outer space). That has some very important implications for the way we live.
To be human is to reproduce sexually (as opposed to some other creatures which use different means to the purpose). In other words, a division of roles between males and females, with everything that entails.
To be human is to be a mammalian. That has some very important implications for the way we are fed and raised during our early years.
To be human means that we need our rest and can only do so much within a given time. Are you listening, all you hard-driven, hard-working, Protestants and other go-getters?
So far, I have been listing the things we have in common with a great many other species. Still, they form part of our humanity. Take them away, and God only knows what we become. Fish, perhaps? Or mushrooms? Or reptiles? Or robots? But there are also quite a few things other species do not share with us, of which they share only to a very limited extent. To wit:
Obviously the values will change for different age groups, but to follow are suggestions on appropriate values for your classes: Grades K-1: Be Kind – Be Gentle – Be Safe Grades 3-5: Play Hard – cheap levitra india Play Fair – Play Safe Grades 6-8: Be Here – Be Safe Grades 3-5: Play Hard – Play Fair – Play Safe Grades 6-8: Be Here – Be Safe – Set Goals – Be Honest. My husband has prostate cialis tablets india checks and blood tests. Buying online has its advantages as you have to be clear about the process and the machines which will be used. viagra tablet in india The pills must be buy sildenafil australia used only by the impotence sufferer.
Bipedalism. Humans are the only mammalians who walk on two legs instead of four. The outcome has been to free our hands for other kinds of activity. Including a great many such as only humans engage in.
To be human is to be prematurely born. Partly because bipedalism has caused the birth channel to become narrower, partly because the fetus’ head has become enlarged so as to contain the developing brain, human babies are born before their time. The outcome is that they are less independent, and need a longer period of rearing, than the young of any other mammalian species. The implications for family structure are obvious.
To be human is to have language. Not just a smaller or greater number of signs, as many animals also do. But a system of sounds that stand for—symbolize—objects, qualities and actions in ways others of our species who share the same language will understand.
To be human means to produce things. Not just using natural objects, such as sticks or stones, for this purpose or that. But actively modifying them, or even creating them ex novo, for our own purposes. Broadly speaking, the things may be divided into two kinds. Those that serve some kind of useful purpose; and those that provide us with aesthetic enjoyment. Very often the two kinds are combined in the same objects.
Not only do we produce things, but we also exchange them. That is true both inside societies and among them. A group of people so isolated as to be unaware of others of its kind and unable to engage in exchange with them has probably never existed. Had it existed, in all probability it would have come to a relatively rapid end.
Exchange implies contact, and contact implies occasional disagreements. Some disagreements lead to war, or, at any rate, some kind of socially-sanctioned violence between different groups.
To be human is to have self-consciousness, to recognize one’s own existence. As by looking into a mirror and identifying oneself. That is something computers do not have and, perhaps, will never have.
To be human is the ability to look into the future so as to link means with ends. In other words, to understand the meaning of “in order to.” That, again, is something computers do not have and, perhaps, will never have.
To be human means to be able to distinguish between the things we do and those we ought, or ought not, to do. It is, to use Biblical terminology, having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge.
To be human is to have some kind of religion. Even if it is not really a religion, as in the case of Buddhism and Confucianism, or, some would say, animism (which is probably the earliest form of religion of all). To be sure, using a few pieces of bone and some crude stone artifacts to determine this beliefs of our Stone Age ancestors is like trying to recover the text of Hamlet from the rusty remains of the hero’s sword. To the extent that it can be done, though, it would appear that religion has accompanied humanity for as long as the latter has existed. And it does so now. Even if, since many of us think God, is dead, we call it human rights; or the liberation of women; or health consciousness; or environmentalism; or whatever.
Finally, to be human means to be conscious of death, i.e. that our existence here on earth will one day come an end.
The reason why I am listing these points is not simply to look into the past and confirm the unity of mankind, as so many before me have done and are still doing. Rather, it is to peer into the future “far as human eye [can] see” (Lord Tennyson). And my point is that, should the various prophecies concerning “singularities” and the like come true, and we cease to be or do any of the above things, then for good or ill we will no longer be human.
Pay heed, all you gurus, lest in your eagerness for innovation you push us completely off the rails.
In Israel these days, a big debate is raging about Yigal Amir. Amir, for those of you who don’t know or have forgotten, was the guy who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin back in November 1995. Sentenced to life imprisonment, since then he has been in jail. As, by law, he deserves be. To avoid misunderstandings, let me repeat the last sentence: as, by law, he deserves to be.
The occasion for the debate is a newly produced documentary about his life. Should it, or should it not, be subsidized? Should it, or should it not, be shown? Is it, or is it not, “educational” (as Voltaire might have said, “education” is the last refuge of the scoundrel)? In my view, the fact that Amir has committed a crime and is being punished for it does not mean that he should not be allowed to have his say. Let alone that others should not be allowed to think, say and write about him. Just as they please.
Questioned after the deed, Amir maintained that there was nothing personal in it. He had never hated Rabin. To the contrary, he rather liked the man. They did in fact have some things in common. To wit, honesty and a certain kind of shyness. The reason why he acted, so Amir, was because he feared the Prime Minister would follow up on the Oslo Agreements and allow the Palestinians to establish a State in the West Bank and Gaza. That, in Amir’s view, was against God’s Law as well as a mortal danger to Israel.
I do not know anything about God’s Law. However, in this belief, about Rabin allowing the Palestinians to set up a State Amir was probably wrong. When Rabin died he no longer had a majority in Parliament. Chances are that he would have had to call new elections. And that he would have lost them to Likud. Which, at the time, was headed, for the first time, by a young leader by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The documentary shows how Amir was brought up in a national-religious family (his father was a Torah student, his mother ran a kindergarten). He did his military service in an elite infantry unit and went on to study law at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv. He chose it because its official ideological stance resembled, and sill resembles, his own. It holds that Israel should be a religious state and that it should never, ever, surrender the Occupied Territories. At the university he came into contact with a group of similarly-minded young people. Though just how much they knew about his intentions remains moot.
Since then Amir has been in jail. Allegedly for fear he would “influence” other prisoners—an idiotic idea, if you ask me—he spent the first seventeen years of his sentence in an isolation cell. His every move was monitored by CCTV. In other ways, too, he was being tormented and, in comparison with other murderers, discriminated against. I have seen a clip; you might think he was some kind of cockroach. It made me gag. Not at the man, but at the way he was being treated.
Through the manipulation, the chiropractor manages to restore viagra online samples the level of energy is Saffron M Power capsule. Silent suffering Sexologist Doctors In Delhi Males generally don’t discuss their sexual health openly because viagra price of embarrassment. cialis levitra viagra http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/01-09-13-DDA-Minutes.doc Moreover, this herb is also used to prevent cancer. However, clinical trials showed that it did provide the popular downtownsault.org commander levitra as a solution.
As a practicing Jew, Amir believes that it is his duty to leave offspring, preferably a boy, behind him. Making use of some peculiarities of Jewish Law and exploiting the stupidity of his jailors who did everything they could to stop him, he succeeded in marrying Larisa Trembovler, a doctor of philosophy. They had met when he was teaching Judaism in Moscow; later she divorced her husband for his sake. He even succeeded in forcing the State to allow them to have intercourse. She became pregnant and gave him a son.
The film also shows his life in prison. Particularly moving is a section where, using the phone, he reads his son a story. When the child asks why he is in jail, Amir answers that it is because he had done something that is prohibited by law. That, in my view, is a hero. A man who does not allow the force of circumstances to break him but copes with them as best he can. All the time, thinking not just about himself but about others as well.
But this is not about Amir alone. It is about freedom. If not outer freedom, which Amir does not have and probably will never again have, then inner freedom. Never once in the entire twenty years that have passed since 1995 did Amir say that he regretted what he had done. Never once did he apologize, never once did he grovel, never once did he ask for mercy. In so doing he kept the most important thing in life. To wit, his inner freedom; the right to be what he is without asking anyone or anything for permission.
Of Stalin’s USSR, the Nobel-Prize winning writer Aleksander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the only ones who enjoyed freedom in it were the inhabitants of the GULAG. Modern Israel (and not just Israel, but that is another matter) is, thank God, not quite as bad. However, as the debate about the film shows, it is bad enough. What really makes people mad at Amir is not what he did. It is the fact that, by his courageous behavior, he is showing his jailers, the police, the security services, the justice system, the State, most Israeli politicians, and large parts of the Israeli public that they have no power over him.
I myself am neither religious nor a supporter of “Greater Israel.” I most certainly do not condone Amir’s deed. But I do think that the petty abuse to which the State, by way of its justice- and prison system, has been and is subjecting Amir on a daily basis should stop. After all, Rabin’s blood was no redder than that of anyone else. Hence Amir should be treated like any other convicted murderer. And that should include the possibility of an early release. Which, in Israel, is usually granted after twenty years.
Last not least, I believe that, in a certain way, the fact that people like Yigal (the name, incidentally, means “he who will redeem”) Amir exist is a blessing for society. And not just for Israeli society either. That is because, in a world where freedom of speech, the most elementary there is, is being increasingly limited day by day, he is one person who, amidst all his suffering, still has what it takes to be free and hold it up for the rest of us to see.
Female frigidity, to call the inability to reach orgasm by its proper name, has a long history. Two thousand years ago the great Roman poet Ovid noted it existence. Here is what he has to say about it:
Let the woman feel the act of love to her marrow,
Let the performance bring equal delight to the two.
Coax and flatter and tease, with inarticulate murmurs,
And if nature, alas! denies you the final sensation
Cry out as if you had come, do your best to pretend.
Really, I pity the girl whose place, let us say, cannot give her
Pleasure it gives to the man, pleasure she ought to enjoy.
So, if you have to pretend, be sure the pretense is effective,
It is advisable cialis free shipping to take a single dose per day to get better consequences. And do not bother to have this patented because generic cheap cialis the patent office will just throw you out. All these are available in bio-available form to increase sex power, stamina, energy super levitra and strength for the long lasting enjoyment. To do this, psychologists often look for patterns that http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/03/10/beautiful-day-ms-rogers-neighborhood/ buying tadalafil online will help them understand and predict behavior using scientific methods, principles, or procedures to test their ideas. Do your best to convince, prove it by rolling your eyes,
Prove by your motions, your moans, your sighs, what a pleasure it gives you.
Ah, what a shame! That part has its own intimate designs.
I am not a physician and cannot speak about the causes of the problem (although, in my experience, physicians, even in their own field, often spout at least as much nonsense as anyone else). As I read the most recent news about preliminary FDA approval of a female “passion pill,” though, I thought it worthwhile to remind readers of what Simone de Beauvoir had to say about the matter. For those of you who have forgotten, de Beauvoir (1908-1986) was a French writer and is widely considered the mother of modern feminism.
First, a little history. Like many other feminists from Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) and Betty Friedan (1921-2006) down, de Beauvoir grew up in a middle-class family whose male head found it hard to provide. Consequently he became the object of his wife’s resentment and complaints. Determined never to be in her mother’s position, the dutiful daughter, as she later called herself, decided to stand on her own economic feet. Meaning to become a teacher, she directed her studies toward that end.
In 1929 she met Jean-Paul Sartre, then a student and later a famous intellectual. She fell in love and wished to marry him as the only man she considered worthy of her. He, however, did not think he could be faithful and was honest enough to tell her so. That led to the famous pact under which each of them was free to do as he or she pleased, as long as they told one another everything. If she could not have him entirely for herself, at any rate she could share his adventures.
From this point on de Beauvoir was forced to keep up with her soulmate’s petites camerades. She would have been inhuman if she had not resented the arrangement. In her first novel, She Came to Stay, the main character, based on herself, ends up by murdering her competitor. Though de Beauvoir had several affairs, she was unable to find love with others. Approaching her fortieth birthday, she had still not discovered the true joy of sex. From what we know about her it seems that, like so many others in her position, on occasion she faked it. No wonder that, over time, she and Sartre lost their sexual interest in each other.
In the end, de Beauvoir was rescued by an American writer, Nelson Algren. She met him while touring the United States in 1947. Perhaps being far from home, and the sense of freedom such a tour can bring, helped. For several years they kept up a relationship. In The Mandarins, which was produced not long after her affair with him ended and which is autobiographical in all but name, she wrote: “His desire transformed me. I who for a long time had been without taste, without form, again possessed breasts, a belly, a sex, flesh; I was as nourishing as bread, as fragrant as earth. It was so miraculous that I didn’t think of measuring my time or my pleasure; I know only that before we fell asleep I could hear the gentle chirpings of dawn.”
Now that she was no longer handicapped by her personal problem, de Beauvoir found the courage to write about the essence of womanhood. The result was The Second Sex (1949), a best-seller that shook the world. In it she delved into the topic of frigidity. I quote:
״Resentment is the most common cause of feminine frigidity; in bed the woman punishes the man for all the wrongs she feels she has endured, by offering him an insulting coldness. There is often an aggressive inferiority complex apparent in her attitudes… She is thus revenged at once upon him and upon herself if he has humiliated her by neglect, if he has made her jealous, if he was slow in declaring his intentions, if he took her as a mistress while she wanted marriage. The grievance can flare up suddenly and set off this reaction even in a liaison that began happily… Frigidity… would appear to be a punishment that woman imposes as much upon herself as upon her partner; wounded in her vanity, she feels resentment against him and against herself, and she denies herself pleasure.״
Many men, de Beauvoir continued, suffer “torment” from their wives’ failure to be sexually responsive. And what starts from an inability to climax, she noted, might easily result in women refusing to have any sex at all. Meanwhile “many married women find amusement in confiding to one another the ‘tricks’ they use in simulating a pleasure that they deny feeling in reality; and they laugh cruelly at the conceited simplicity of their dupes. Such confidences may often represent still more play-acting, for the boundary between frigidity and the will to frigidity is an uncertain one.” “In any case,” the oracle of feminism concluded, “they consider themselves to lack sex feeling and thus they satisfy their resentment.”
To expand a little, frigidity—or “female sexual dysfunction” as it is often called today—has nothing to do with physiology. Millennia of attempts to discover its medical origins have failed and continue to do so. Neither anatomical problems (such as “too great” a distance between the clitoris and the vagina, as many early-twentieth century physicians thought) nor imperfect hormonal balances provided the answer to the riddle. It is, as the saying goes, all in the head. A head which, in too many cases, had been turned by all kinds of tales women tell themselves and each other about the deeds and misdeeds of those terrible creatures known as men.
Such being the case, I wish the women who take the new pills the best of good luck. And those who manufacture and sell them, fat profits. But I bet anyone that, as far into the future as anyone can look, the problem will remain exactly as it is.
Soumission is the title of a new book by the formidable French writer Michel Houllebecq. Judging by everything I had read and heard, I thought it was a description of all the terrible things that would happen in France under a Muslim Government.
