Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00413)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Actually, the big oil companies don't want the United States to go 
to
> war with Iraq. If the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Saddam Hussein 
would be
> more than happy to increase his oil production and sell it to the 
U.S.
> cheap. In terms of oil, letting Hussein do whatever he wants to do 
would
> increase the supply and decrease the price.

That is an excellent point. Let me get your thoughts on this: a few 
weeks ago the NY Times quoted a government official who spoke on 
condiion of anonymity. He said the war would be an oil war and that 
Bush's intention was to secure a source of oil which would guarantee 
his supplies "forever." I have to say, I think this fellow was 
telling the truth, although admittedly neither of us knows for 
certain. It makes me very uneasy and what particularly bothers me is 
that there seems to be no check or balance against Bush's ambitions 
anymore. He runs all three branches of the government. He runs the 
UN. He runs much of the rest of the world. And now he wants to run 
Iraq. I do not feel comfortable with a man I do not trust in the 
first placce having such unrestricted power. I hope war can yet be 
averted but do not see much hope at this point. Time will tell which 
way it goes.

> I don't believe it EVER was well-intentioned. If you read the 
debates
> over the early drug laws, they were quite explicitly aimed at 
bigotry. A
> major anti-marijuana campaign was started by, at one end, 
Prohibition
> agents who saw their jobs disappearing, and, at the other end, 
organized
> crime who had just lost a major profit source. The drug laws ever 
since
> have been designed not based on how dangerous the drugs are, but how
> much more likely are minorities to use the drugs. 

No contest except on one point. The war on drugs started before the 
end of Prohibition, and was supported even by Prohibition gangsters 
in the beginning, who held drug smugglers in contempt.

It is true that many laws create what might be thought of 
as "criminal set asides" in which a part of the economy is set aside 
for the benefit of the Mafia. For quite some considerable time the 
gaming uindustry was a criminal set aside as you probably know. 
After the death of their principal protector, J. Edgar Hoover, the 
position of the Magia started steadily deteriorating.

> I assume that is a joke. There's a term for those who don't obey the
> government in every particular in Arab countries: corpses.

One is required to obey the government everywhere, Bart. Unless you 
are wealthy and know when to keep your mouth shut you are required to 
obey the government here. Leona Helmsley had half of that but missed 
the other half. Ditto with John Gotti.

Ironically, an inefficient and poorly organized foreign state is 
intrinsically more free than a highly organized and efficient state 
like our own. One of Bertrand Russell's comments on history was that 
although ancient and medieval rulers were despots their governments 
were so inefficient that the people who lived under them were freer 
than most people are today. In most countries the law only applies 
if you don't know someone or pay a bribe. Most countries also do not 
have the phenomenal number of laws that we have, a point made by 
sociologists. Sociologists have long pointed out that if you want to 
lower the crime rate with the stroke of a pen, just repeal a few 
million laws. You can't take a deep breath in this country without 
becoming a felon twenty times over. And it's not just liberals who 
say so. G. Gordon Liddy just wrote a book about that. It is an 
issue which crosses ideological divides.

> Please feel free to give a way that Israel can give the Palestinians
> full rights without having the Palestinians thank them by killing 
every
> Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel? That is Israel's dilemma.

Try a thought experiment. Imagine that you have entered a time 
machine and been transported five hundred years into the future. 
Imagine further that you are busy acquainting yourself with the then 
current state of affairs in Palestine.

>From that perspective, the twenty-first century will be history, but 
the people will be living with the consequences of what is being done 
today. If the current crowd really does succeed in putting together 
an ethnically purified, ethnically cleansed state in which only Jews 
are welcome and all Arabs and goys of every descriptin have been 
eliminated they will probably say that it is regrettable what had to 
be done, but that they feel about the same way about that as we do 
today about Columbus bringing the common cold to the Indians.

My concern is that I don't believe that vision of the future iis 
workable, and I base that on some knowledge of history. A more liekly 
scenario is that the population will consist of Jews and Arabs, that 
the Arabs will be in the majority, and that the indignities beomg 
visited on Arabs today are considered living memories and not old and 
forgotten incidents. Bear in mind the average Arab thinks the 
Crusades happened earlier this morning. If that scenario works out, 
the current oppressors of the Palestinians are leaving a terrible 
legacy for their descendants.

There is a third possibilty which will require vision and strong 
ethical commitment in which baby steps are taken to bring about a 
reconciliation with the Arabs. The idea of a "Jewish state" in which 
everyone else is unwelcome would have to be abandoned and Arabs would 
have to be given the opportunity to participate and take an interest 
in the welfare of the state at every level. Then as the Arabs come 
to the ascendant position they could be caused to think of the Jewish 
minority as playing an important part in the community and therefore 
serving the self interest of the Arab majority. The ideal would be 
to create an Arab state in which Jews and Arabs coexist congenially, 
unlike the situation everywhere else in the Muslim world. I think 
with sustained commitment it could be done. The Kahanist 
alternative, which is so popular today, leads only to disaster. Time 
is not on the side of the Sharonistas and the Kahanists, and they 
themselves frankly admit that this is true. Their goal is just to 
put disaster off into the future, not avert it altogether.