I still continue to be appalled by those 80% of Americans in the Jewish community who eternally vote for the Democrat Party, the very party which defends and protects Hamas.

It's as if they want to see Israel destroyed so they can have some excuse to blame Republicans or evangelicals, or capitalism for all the evils in the world.

And, I'm not alone in these thoughts, some Israelis I know do not understand Americans in the Jewish community either.
syn | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 7:53 am | #

Syn,
I think what we see is the downside to prosperity. Too much downtime to contemplate conspiracy theories as to why success doesn't proliferate in all cultures.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 8:29 am | #

For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women's rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority

When was the last time you met a progressive that actually wanted that ? For me, personally, it's been a while.

Unless you consider wanting everything (including direct opposites, like women's rights and islam) a superset of this list. In reality the only thing they want is someone else doing their work, nothing more.

@SteveH

But the reason that success proliferates in capitalism IS a consipracy. It's a massive conspiracy of masses of people to sell goods (and services) for money.

A better distinction must be made : obviously an ideology IS A CONSPIRACY. Capitalists conspire to sell goods for money. Socialists conspire to introduce communism with violence. Muslims conspire to kill everyone (including themselves), ... etc etc etc. Note that in an ideology, like in a conspiracy, the real effect, or real target is rarely known by everyone. (such as most capitalist would deny that capitalism maximizes value in the eyes of people, a capitalist fascist state (like "palestina" paying families for successfull suicide attacks) is quite possible, and very danguerous.

Most capitalists are capitalists "because that's the way it is". Most muslims kill eachother as a consequence of islam, but they think the very opposite. Like the raven conspiring with the fox for the sound of his voice, oops, I mean for the cheese.

Like rebels conspiring with locals to be "robin hoods", then stopping halfway ... they stole from the rich, but they don't quite get around to giving it to the poor.

The difference between an ideology and a conspiracy is at best one of scale, not a fundamentally different concept.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 9:02 am | #

"The anti-Semite necessarily defines himself as monumentally inferior to the Jew."
-Shrinkwrapped Blog
N. O'Brain | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:19 am | #

Syn....

I believe the Jewish voters who continue to vote Democratic are "stuck on stupid" in the same way that the Arabs/Islamists are stuck on their false pride and desires for revenge and control.

The Jewish voters can't seem to get beyond the need to seem caring and progressive--it's somehow part of their Jewish-guilt makeup. I know this because I was once one of them, and it took me quite a while to be able to say that I was
"right-wing." This meant leaving the tribe. I became an outcast. It's a hard position to take. But now I'm free.
Promethea | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:57 am | #

Tom, as near as I can tell, you don't understand Capitalism, conspiracy, or ideology. Rather than understanding them, you take a random sample of superficial (non fundamental) characteristics and attribute to them, the totality.

I suggest start looking at fundamentals: those FEW aspects of a thing that determines the most of what that thing is and that most distinguishes it from other superficially similar things. You will gain much more clarity of thought and credibility of communication if you do.

For example, rationality determines most fundamentally what a human is and can be. It most distinguishes him from any other kind of living creature. That he has hair, eyes, and skin and the like, while useful and perhaps vital to full functionality, are superficial characteristics shared by many other living creatures.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 12:25 pm | #

To go one step further on Promethea.

They are not merely 'stuck on stupid'. If it were as simple, all you have to do is to 'open their eyes'.

They WILL NOT change. It would mean their belief system is based on falsehhod. It would mean to completely turn back what they had learned. It touches the CORE of each human being. To change that would take a tremendous effort on the person's part.
always right | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 12:42 pm | #

Real change occurs only when the pain of not changing is greater that the pain of changing. Its time to increase their pain.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 1:55 pm | #

Yeah, that "downtime" factor is a big deal in prog. derangement here. Being freed from external demands to a large extent, the present moment becomes a possibility. Observation threatens to replace automatic pilot. Time even allows for the mind to begin to observe itself. The security of necessary action is gone, choices appear, and mental activity without a pre-imposed goal looms large and dark. Better to strike out toward another goal and more activity, no matter how unrelated to demand, than to endure a single moment of unfettered attention.
Katina | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 2:07 pm | #

"For example, rationality determines most fundamentally what a human is and can be. It most distinguishes him from any other kind of living creature. That he has hair, eyes, and skin and the like, while useful and perhaps vital to full functionality, are superficial characteristics shared by many other living creatures."

Really ? That depends on what you mean by rational. If anyone who claims rationality is rational, then yes, if you take the mathematical concept of rational, relating to the optimization of expectation functions, then no nobody acts rational.

If rational means thinking about the consequences of different actions and then picking the best one ... my cats can do that. So can about a dozen programs I've written.

I don't always like the outcome of their thinking, but I'm absolutely sure that they think, analyse, come up with a strategy and execute it. In fact their strategies regularly win from my strategies. In other words, it happens from time to time that my cats outsmart me. And I do believe I've been outsmarted a few times by programs I've written, and by programs others have written. Sometimes by trivially simple algorithms. I've even been known to delete a program in frustration for continuing to outsmart me, even though it had about 5 instructions and 2 loops in it, in other words, it was trivially simple.

Furthermore, I know a few humans who, as a rule, do NOT think, plan or create strategies. Even though I'm not entirely sure of this, I seriously think entire blocks of the city I live in have few, if any, rational humans in them. And I know that there were long periods when I did not act rational. Or at least, less rational than my cats "normally" act now.

The above was based on my "intuitive" understanding of rationality. Now I do like to do a bit of robot programming so I've been wondering a long time, and looking stuff up about this "rationality" you speak off.

So let's get one thing straight : logic, combined with the imperfections of the real world does not allow for one to act rational, since the reaction of the world is immodellable. You can't even reasonably approximate it. Will the world cooperate or sabotage plan is a question that cannot be answered for any except the most trivial plans.

Furthermore, the problem for answering that question is a problem of sensor technology, not a problem of processing power. Any given amount of processing power (even infinite) would not be able to answer the question for a simple decision like "do I go look for a job or do I play sick and seek an allowance ?". (each of these 2 problems is, by itself, already insurmountable, since this sensor technology required is also impossible to create)

This question is so thorougly and completely problematic that you can mathematically prove that even with infinite knowledge of the world, AND infinite processing power to process it you would STILL have instances where the planning question would be unanswerable.

And now you're going to say "but I know that I can plan, and that I'm rational". The honest answer to that "observation" is however trivially simple, and closely related to the "lucas argument" of philosophy : no you don't. You're constantly taking ill-calculated risks, and simply refusing to admit you do so.

So I'm afraid I don't agree with your assesment. Humans are not, as a rule, rational, nor are animals, as a rule, irrational, there are just tendencies. Furthermore there are fundamental problems with this rationality. There exists an ideal of "rational behavior" but it is entirely out of our reach, and it is known that no matter how smart, how strong or how many resources you have, even if they were actually infinite, you'd STILL not be able to act rational in all cases. For a normal human, living in normal circumstances, rational responses for even trivial actions are seriously out of reach of both human sensors and human intelligence.

We imitate others (literally), our brain in structured in such a way that it cannot take initiative of it's own, lock a person up in the dark, don't stimulate it and slowly his/her brain will actually shut down (it won't even take very long, days, 2 or 3 weeks at the most). EVERY action you take, down to the last pulse sent to any muscle, is a transformation of a memory or an input signal. You act confident because you've seen others act confident. You say you act rational because you've seen others claim rationality.

I don't know just how far this goes. Maybe it even goes so far that memory itself isn't built in, and gets created through a baby imitating his parents, slowly building up a neural loop that can remember things.

The rationality you speak of, is an imitation of the actions of others and only the process of cultural elimination has somewhat optimized this rationality.

And you don't claim rationality because you actually know the implications of that claim, or even follow them. Your faith in your own rationality is equally misguided as any muslims "faith" in his/her own superiority.

And obviously, so is mine. (but I like to think it's nice that I actually admit that)
Tom | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 4:01 pm | #

"WHAT IS THIS 'RATIONALITY' YOU SPEAK OF?" -- axB-1-0000-000.%^XZ9F

Not making the same mistake and expcting it to work, and then repeating it yet again and calling it "progress."
yonason | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 5:54 pm | #

Tom,

Reality is what it is. Man can know what is and act accordingly. However, he must choose to do so and must also choose the method by which he does it. He cannot choose to make reality different except by appropriate means totally consistent with what actually is. Man himself is included within that totality.

Even when a man is not rational, the fact that he MUST choose to be and doesn't leads to the necessary consequences of his failure to thrive. He does not have automatic knowledge of what to do, why to do it, or how to do it. He MUST use his mind. About that, he has no choice.

Its not a matter of arbitrary definitions leading to what is. Its a matter of what is leading to specific definitions. This process of discovery is a fundamental action of man's consciousness. However, even this action must be accomplished by active choice and is not automatic nor infallible. Man can know that he has made a mistake, correct his mistake, and know that he has corrected it.

Since you are confused about these fundamental points, you are confused about nearly everything else.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 6:24 pm | #

"...some Israelis I know do not understand Americans in the Jewish community either." - syn

I no more understand them than I do American non-Jewish Leftists.

That being said, I do know that both groups act the way they do because to do otherwise would invalidate their "values," or lack thereof. They have no real values, so they need to invent them, and the way to do that is to create causes to be outraged about in order to convince themselves and others they have a moral compass. Naturally those who don't see it is pointing in the wrong directon are fooled.

If you want to send them running, give them a real cause to fight for.

Why they are so messed up that they would behave like that, though, I haven't a clue.
yonason | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 7:08 pm | #

I wonder if we can use this...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ind...ew& pageId=61342
...as a precedent to sue MS. Mag for refusing the Israeli ad?
yonason | Email | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 7:27 pm | #

http://www.take-a-pen.org/englis...rticles/ PLE.htm

http://www.take-a-pen.org/ englis...clopedia_E.html

a rational person will not just believe whatever anyone tells him, especially if it's a stranger or if what he's told is inconsistent with what he knows (or should); he investigates, and when it is so easy to find the truth, it is obvious who cares about truth and who does not.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 05.08.08 - 1:05 am | #

ONE OF MY FAVORITE REFERENCES

Because it is SO complete!
yonsaon | Email | Homepage | 05.08.08 - 1:50 am | #

Reality is what it is.

Absolutely there is a singular, absolute, truth that can never ever be changed. So-to-speak, the universe has a "state religion". We do not, however know this religion (though we do indeed know that it at least resembles christianity)

Man can know what is and act accordingly.

No he cannot. Nor can any robot, no matter how many sensors he has or how much processing power. Man has neither the sensors required to "know what is", nor the processing power to use that sensory data to predict reality reliably (and thus lacks the processing power necessary to "act accordingly").

Rationality, combined with Christian ethics, is just another way of imitating others. It's also the only way that will not EVENTUALLY blow up in your face.

All any man has is the "try - get door slammed in my face - modify tactic - try again" loop. Just like any robot.

The only difference between Bin Laden and the pope, or mother Theresa or anyone is is the "modify tactic" part.

However, he must choose to do so and must also choose the method by which he does it. He cannot choose to make reality different except by appropriate means totally consistent with what actually is.

Again this depends on what you mean. Man can certainly choose to make his sensor input different from what it would be directly confronted with reality. Furthermore, another man can choose to change his sensor input to create a false image of the world.

And these days, looking at the TV, a LOT of people are trying to mask reality, and they're getting better and better at it.

Obviously these tactics will fail ONE DAY. But not today, and not tomorrow.

Even when a man is not rational, the fact that he MUST choose to be and doesn't leads to the necessary consequences of his failure to thrive. He does not have automatic knowledge of what to do,

Which is exactly what would be required to be rational in the first place.

Christianity (and leftism, and islam, and ...) on the other hand, provides exactly that : automatic knowledge of what to do. That is the nature of ideologies.

why to do it, or how to do it. He MUST use his mind.

Actually, no he doesn't. Yes the information processing apparatus has to be running, but it does not need to question it's programming. It CAN question it's programming, but most don't.

About that, he has no choice.

Again, if there is anything I've learned at this site, it's that a hell of a lot of people consciously choose to NOT question themselves. Just read the top article at dailykos and see just how utterly arrogant these people are. They think they're God, and they deny any evidence to the contrary. (which is why the (unjustified) Christian belief that "all will be good in the end" is such a problem for them)

Its not a matter of arbitrary definitions leading to what is. Its a matter of what is leading to specific definitions.

Actually it is, and you will find beliefs quite capable of influencing external events. Getting a job at the BBC for example, is clearly massively influenced by the belief you hold.

You see, most actions that we see of this "reality" are in fact directly caused by other people. The fact that we can walk safely over the street, for example, is not an inherent property of the world, but the result of actions, driven by beliefs, of other people.

In other words, your beliefs influence others who are responsible for 99,9999999% of your interactions with "reality", and most of these outcomes can be changed by these people. You *can* give worthless people money for nothing. You cannot do so forever, but as all European states have proven, you can easily do so for 50 years.

So believing you will get money if you change the law, for example, is a very well justified belief. It only collapses after some 50 years ! Is it irrational for a worthless idiot to believe in that then ? It seems to have paid off for quite a few worthless idiots in Europe. And yes, this was the result of belief.

Belief has no bearing on God, on nature, who will eventually "strike down", or however you would call it, and destroy false beliefs. And he will do so on these European states, soon enough. But not tomorrow.

This process of discovery is a fundamental action of man's consciousness. However, even this action must be accomplished by active choice and is not automatic nor infallible. Man can know that he has made a mistake, correct his mistake, and know that he has corrected it.

Again in the mathematical sense, this is not true. So it is not a universal given.

Therefore :

Man can know that he has made a mistake, correct his mistake, and know that he has corrected it.

This is only true for a believer (what you are alluding to is a conscience, a steadiness of purpose, a belief in himself, an UNJUSTIFIED* belief in himself and in the world). He may or may not doubt the exact text of the bible, but for someone who does not respect the principles of the bible, this is not true (even though you do not need to have seen the actual book to believe in it's principles, you could even get them from a children's bible's picture stories just as well).

* unjustified, at least in the mathematical sense of the word. There cannot be justified belief in the consistency of ANY recursive consistent theory. ANY theory that contains the following axiom cannot be proven : if A->B and B->C then A->C.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 05.08.08 - 9:44 am | #