(part one) (part two) (part three) (part four) (part five) (part six) (part seven)
December 5, 2007 1:02:43 PM PST
(You'll all kindly forgive me for neither picking up the phone nor writing this twice...it may very well be a tragedy, but it's no more an emergency than it has been for seven months running...)
E was admitted last night to Pomerado. As I'm sure was inferred, the chill-out in Mexico was equal parts self-detox for E and rest for Mom, which ceased abruptly upon their return Monday afternoon. Details are significant, yet at the same time irrelevant; stress triggers, a psychological demon pulling the reins of physical minions - nothing new.
Mom and I spent about three hours trying to explain why going to the ER would be a huge mistake - E, in pain, is still of the opinion that one can pop in, get enough narcotic to snap out of it, go home, etc., though that's not what happens, ever - but it was of no use. Though Mom would have kept going with the heartbreaking knowledge of what actually happens in the hospital, I finally relented, knowing that E's mind would stubbornly cling to what she regards as the only viable option, even if it meant having a stroke, aneurysm, heart attack, etc. to get there. Within a few minutes of that decision she lost almost all motor skills and had to be carried to the bathroom, car, etc. Sad. Had this been any other time and person, the level of absurdity of having a lengthy argument with someone who looks like they are having a stroke would be huge; yet, we still tried to explain logically why it will only get worse going to the hospital, bas ed on every other time before, as if this were just another family discussion. After getting the green light to go to the ER, her brain completely fogged over and she became almost paralyzed. Very telling and very dangerous.
Obviously, we didn't just pop in the ER. She is in room 2-- on a morphine / Diladud treatment plan, every few hours, with a "light" steroid (lighter than 1000mg of IV Prednisone like before) as well. If any thing's different, it's that, maybe, this time everyone named T--- is on board with dismissing the destructive labcoats posing as her physicians. Of course E doesn't see the narcotics as destructive, as they are necessary. She is better today than last night, and perhaps will be able to leave tomorrow. The realist in me thinks it might be closer to next week, when the insurance will again cover a few hundred dollars worth of Oxycontin.
Whatever the fuck it is - and I'm quite certain I know, but that's irrelevant because it's not happening to my body - it will only be undone when E stops suffering, and that may be never. I'm afraid that she will be bearing this cross (which she has the power to vaporize) for the rest of her life. She is a hairline away from somebody diagnosing this as drug addiction exacerbated by a mental/psychological disorder, and while that will tidy things up neatly for the insurance company, it will (probably) thrust E into total chaos, Mom alongside her. In just over 24 hours I watched her go from being able to drive a car Monday afternoon to sliding off a sitting position and hitting the ground with her face, unable to correct it. In between lies the state where it can still be roped in, but I just don't know how to get E to see it that way. She doesn't notice, and will therefore not admit, that she goes back and forth, from paralysis to full use of everything and back - I watched this again yesterday. And, obviously, I have been out of the loop with regard to drug dosage, etc., as my presence here is becoming one more of intrusion than anything.
The "hemiplegic migraine," as lovely sounding as that label is, may have to be replaced by "retractable stroke," because that's what it looks like. In their own way, both Mom and E know that it's the drugs talking, and that, were the opiates removed, what would then be exposed to light is even more intimidating. By staying in perpetual states of physical impairment that unpleasant truth will remain un-dealt with.
Wish I had better news...am still advocating biofeedback and hypnosis (particularly hypnosis), though only to Mom. If I want E to embrace it, I'm better off paying some yutz with a name tag to tout its virtues, and then rallying against it myself...only half-kidding...
She was speaking fairly well when I was there this morning if you would like to call - She's lucid, and "here," unlike the last visit in September.
December 5, 2007 4:09:08 PM PST
Thanks for the update. When I read the postpone lunch in an earlier email, I sort of expected this news.
I can't tell you how sad I feel at us all knowing that this episode, and it no longer matters how much is actually physically produced or psychologically as a demand for drugs; that this may be the exit strategy that she is putting in the hands of the insurance company to write her off as an addict.
You have already, probably accurately, painted that devil on the wall, and what happens when he steps out of the painting at the next episode when insurance has raised the drawbridge over the moat around Pomerado hospital and the only options are either illicit drugs or the snake pit of county detox?
I know you have tried to tell E that, and I know that she hasn't accepted it as truth.
I don't know what the depth of your resources are, yours, your mom's and Brother J's, but I'm pretty sure, that unless we're talking mid-six figures, the conclusion is foretold. Then what?
I know that none of us can accept, at this point, that there is no solution that doesn't originate within E, and sans that, no solution at all.
If she's going to be there tomorrow and not released, I may try to visit, but will call first.
December 6, 2007 12:16:25 AM PST
It is sad, yes.
The only thing with which I would respectfully disagree - if it's even that - is this roadblock present just slightly larger than some Chuy with an orange vest redirecting traffic: that a) E still considers this a disease, and is not in a place where she can comprehend this as a disorder and, b) that taking drugs while referring to it as "medicine" makes for a very difficult, perhaps insurmountable wall. I'm very concerned about her psyche makeup, precisely because she is so intelligent, and while she can appreciate that drugs are a no-no enough to self-detox last week after seven months of habitual use (to her credit), she will continue to view, and refer to, that which transforms her physically in the third person. No "medicine" is ever going to remove that, and the brutal truth is all the support by way of family, diet, exercise will help (skipping over the co-dependency part here for a sec), and that's it - it won't solve. Having the insurance pull the plug will be a shocker, and not necessarily a bad one, provided she can survive it. Beyond that, however, the actual beast resides. Psychiatry may help, but, frankly, so would internalizing good routines instead of bad ones, be they mental, physical, dietary, et-fucking-cetera (stop me if you've heard this one before...).
An old parable was written for just such an occasion:
The Westerner, having forsaken the hot wife, big house and awesome job, and having trekked across the world in search of enlightenment, finally reaches the Tibetan mountain top ragged, hungry and desperate. He cries out to the wise old monk he finds meditating there: "Oh master, I have traveled many miles to reach you. I have renounced everything worldly and stand before you a poor soul seeking guidance. I have suffered greatly, master, what should I do?!"
"Stop suffering."
The garrisons we build sometimes, and sometimes unknowingly...and what lengths we'll go to fortify them...again, nothing new...
Mid-six figure numbers are no problem, just as soon as decimal point placement becomes optional...
Seriously, she has racked up over 100k this year in the hospital charges, easy. And for what? Certainly not to get better. It was short-lived, but 50 bucks a night in Puerto Nuevo to shake, rattle and roll narcotic addiction was the best money spent in a long time. I have to believe that that time will come around again.
It is devastating to watch the (figurative) compression going on in E's skull repeatedly every few months, and I've accepted that the crap shoot that will be presented sometime in the future c/o Blue Shield may have ghastly results. She may also snap out of it and go sell entire floors of Trump condos in Baja. I'm completely serious.
She was good enough tonight to not have - for the first time that I'm aware of - my mother stay at the hospital with her all night. We'll see what's what by morning.
With hope,
December 6, 2007 2:18:17 PM PST
While I respectfully agree with your analysis, I equally respectfully submit that what you call it doesn't matter as much as what you do about it, and, with as independent a spirit as E, the only one who can do something to accept that the cart is driving the horse, is E.
Until she does, all the logic in the world is going to be received with nods of understanding and efforts to toe arbitrary lines in the sand.....until the next episode of need manifests itself.
Yes, having the wellspring of available "medicine" dry up will be a shocker, and maybe that will be the sink or swim point, though I know how heartbreaking it is to step out of the "bursting radius" of co-dependency. Been there; done that.
As for old parables, here's one I found lurking just under my starboard parietal suture:
One of the last living members of The Hohndlers; an obscure tribe of itinerant hypermerchants, often afflicted with perceived needs for substance abuse, sought solace in the advice of The Guru of Small Things, who resided in a small but lavishly furnished cave in Ojai, California.
Assuming the humble pose of the supplicant, the Hohndler said to the guru: "oh, wise guru, I can't imagine never again having access to the magic potions that, while I know are harmful to me, seem to make me forget my pains".
And the wise guru said: "well, my child. then don't imagine never having that access; just imagine not having it today...".
As basic as that may sound, it's the philosophy that has made AA and NA work, for the average and the super achiever. Just get through today, just today....but first you have to want to, and that's the trick...
I hope she does want to, if not today then soon.
December 7, 2007 11:16:25 PM PST
That's as good a parable as any, and it most certainly does work.
Keeping it brief:
E's doctors are flustered; the neurologist has conceded defeat and removed himself, and the primary is openly agitated and would like E out of the hospital (I'm sure he's having difficulty "Shielding Blue" missiles of inquiry from penetrating select orificee). He has dropped her IV narcotic from 10mg morphine every so and so to 4 mg, but has re-introduced the long-acting Oxycontins, in fact the exact same dose as in September, and July, and May, etc. It's retarded - there's really no other way to describe it.
E will leave tomorrow, and be right back in the same holding pattern, addicted to narcotics. Worse, she will continue to believe that narcotics are a legitimate headache remedy, even if at least three doctors (not those mentioned above) have said explicitly that they aren't.
As I've mentioned, if something can go on and off - instantly - then I'm of the opinion that can be reinforced, and both directions. Thus far it's only been going one direction, and (I hope) E will soon be ready to accept what is so obvious: that she makes it worse on a sub-conscious power grid that -as if that's not bad enough - is swimming in opiate dependence, reinforcing the myopic "knowledge" that this will go away if I just take these pills, and so forth...
Gently, I mentioned as much to her today, in front of my mom, and with an example of just a few minutes prior: when the neurologist was in, she looked like she had cerebral palsy or worse - barely slurring words out of the side of her mouth, her right side shot, etc. - but a few minutes later she was sitting up, her right leg normal, both eyes open and even; everything, and usually just for a sec or two and then it is sent packing. I framed it politely, of course, but how in the world can this be programmed into her skull without, well, programming? This is what I was referring to when notating the drug addiction, which is a big deal, is secondary - and, when the drugs are gone, if she doesn't have her hard drive scrubbed, then the slightest thing will bring about the same migraine-induced reaction, which will then require narcotics...
Yes, it's frustrating...and the thought of placing hidden cameras occurred to me months ago, as wacky as that sounds. E transforms; I've been biting my tongue for too long as it is, and am already complicit in perpetuating this shit. The no-diet sodas diet, the clean up your own mess and exercise daily, the question authority when it's all about pharmaceuticals, etc.; it's all ancillary, but necessary - erasing those big, unattainable plans for Where We're Going, and just focusing on How We Get There for today and today only. Like your Choo Choo of the Small Things up in Ojai: I think I can - today. Period. Cut, print, wrap; you'll know it when you can do more...
Trying to help implement solid daily habits is the best I could do without freaking everyone out with the truth, a truth that might do even more damage out loud anyway.
I'm not a Thoreau guy, but I read a blurb a few weeks ago that makes perfect sense, and is always applicable: "Do not worry about how small the beginnings. For once something is done correctly, it is done forever." Good for questioning slavery or the annexation of Mexico, or for just putting down the cheese doodles...
Pretty simple shtuff there...and yet I'm still working on my numerous One Day at a Timers myself...starting with being in the Nile about being brief...sheesh!
I set another appointment with a psychiatrist (the first was a bust) today, as well as a counselor whom Lisa has seen before, and who has experience with CBT/NLP. Lisa is receptive to trying both, and that's encouraging...
December 7, 2007 11:50:32 PM PST
Thanks for the update, however depressing it has to be for all of you and me too. The frustration of knowing that you are watching a sentient being determined to keep doing what's destructive because she has programmed herself to believe that she is treating an ailment rather than feeding an addiction must make it almost impossible to stay the course. What course? Just being there to pick up the pieces...
My silly little parable is pretty shopworn. I trotted it out for my son R for years, saying: "You don't have to not ever do drugs; just don't do drugs today". It still took years, and he only did it when I stopped being his co-dependent and gave him a card to keep in his pocket so that they'd know who to call to pick up the remains...
So what will you do at the next regression, and she wants to go back to Pomerado?
December 8, 2007 12:43:13 AM PST
That's the question...
It's late, but what comes to mind is trying to get my mother to be so incapacitated that Lisa waits on her, does her wash, listens to her moan, feeds her drugs and occasionally helps her in the bathroom when my mother can't tidy things up on her own.
It feels like crap to write that, and it's not very realistic, but in my heart I know that's one way to knock off this nonsense in a hurry. E needs to be brought back into reality, or forsake some liberties if she opts not to. I do hope it's not the latter.
I am charged with continuing to do what I am able, and that is, mainly, reminding her that she does indeed hold the power to survive without such suffering. She does not yet accept as much, thinking it is a thing-in-itself that she can neither cure nor chase away. But that's why they call it therapy, right? A little patience-in-Russian music, please...(I'll need it)...
I've accepted E's possible futures some time ago. My mother is not quite there, but does realize how being a co-dependent is not so helpful. It's tough, as I know you know...
December 8, 2007 8:00:45 AM PST
There are no good choices left, are there?
I think we are both familiar enough with addictive behavior to know that brave attempts at compliance with helpful programs will be evidenced, if only to demonstrate that relapsed needs are "real"..I don't know a way to defeat that. Perhaps it may require her needing to be the helper to your mom, but that could be only too real if you weren't there, and with tragic results.
Lisa may not be in a truth accepting mode today, but that wise guru in Ojai would say "today ain't over."
December 10, 2007 12:35:09 PM PST
Thought I'd be current and pass along a post-sibling retrieval update to youse even if there isn't one. After leaving the hospital a couple of days ago, E went into the ER Tuesday night pretty incapacitated after complaining for hours about a throbbing headache and becoming so immobile we carried her in (she had left Saturday night in a wheelchair and with her head throbbing). A (relatively) small amount of steroid has been re-introduced, along with 240mg of Oxycontin daily, which is 240mg more than this past Monday saw. She is with oxygen tank, TV remote and the occasional plate of sustenance. Last night she was walking around downstairs with eyes open and extremities in full regalia, serving herself munchies and even washing a dish, which, it would seem, lends credence to the theory that E does not go from looking like she needs her own telethon one day to...well, I believe I've covered this already...
E believes she can't control it, or at least is awash in enough of a chemical mindset to believe that she believes she can't control it. And maybe she can't. That she may very well march to her death in this fashion is almost unbearably tragic; that she will spend the next ten years taking Moms along with her is just rude, and unacceptable. But what to do? I would like to be macho enough to say that failure is not an option, but failure is a very real option. In fact it has been the primary option-du-jour out of the last seven months of "jours."
Am forwarding the links I dug up this morning (it took all of five minutes), ones I am presenting to E and Mom, in that what is blatantly obvious might sound legit coming from others (though Mom is already on board with the narcotics-only-create-headaches knowledge). Things are exactly the same here, and, undoubtedly, a little too much truth coming out of my mouth will broker exactly the same results as past attempts. Which means, at great personal sadness, that I can only back off and let others live their lives as they so wish.
I don't think it's possible for Mom to do any more than acknowledge that the co-dependence has become so prevalent it has created its own gravitational field...there's just too much heartbreak on the table for her to say "no" and "enough already." I hope I'm wrong...
There are appointments for psychiatrists and counselors this week, and perhaps something will come of that. I believe botox was also approved, and was helpful in the past.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=1696888
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_other_head.aspx#rebound
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_opioids.aspx
Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:46 PM
E is back to being E, in that she is mobile, making plans, etc., and I think Mom is just happy that the darker clouds have blown over, even if it means round-the-clock Oxycontin. We took E to a psychiatrist yesterday, and there are possible biofeedback, CBT and disorder appointments coming up. Perhaps something will come of it that's not more tragedy, but I'm not particularly hopeful. As I said to Mom recently, you don't let the gambling junkie decide how much weekly casino time they're allowed; or, say, watch someone show up for drug counseling high and expect their sincerity to be taken seriously. I think Mom understands this...E cannot, at least not now...
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Primum Non Nocere VII
(part one) (part two) (part three) (part four) (part five) (part six) (part eight)
Monday, November 19, 2007 9:29 PM
I don't think much is happening here, holiday-wise ("we've" a new round of health problems, unfortunately). Matzo stuffing aside, I feel more connected to a cherry blossom festival as it is...anyway, if you would like to maybe grab a turkey club Thursday...after services, of course (I'll be visiting Our Lady of Perpetuate Deception)...
November 19, 2007 10:46:14 PM PST
By a new round of health problems, do you mean E?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, E...the removal of unnecessary / detrimental Big Pharma crap is to be heralded with great fanfare; unfortunately that only clears more playing field for drug addiction to start wrapping tentacles, or manacles, etc. I'll keep it short: still very, very happy that the Depakote, et. al., are in the rear view, and that symptoms are (for the most part) likewise. Opiates, as everyone knows - even the person who graduated from Seattle U minoring in chemistry and biology - readily replace this vacuum with a litany of ailments to occupy time, hinder wellness and cloud judgment. This is to say nothing of what I believe may very well be what some call a sematoform disorder; specifically, a conversion disorder. Only that, whatever it is, is almost certainly psychological before it becomes physical, and is now getting a less-fettered round-the-clock opium bath.
You can imagine the specifics as to why I haven't suggested any gets-togethers with "mom-n-dems"...there are plans and appointments with doctors and psychiatrists, with the second pain management guy (UCSD) suggesting a detox center in Mission Bay, etc. A case worker is looking into NLP/biofeedback practitioners that are covered, the guy I took E to in Mira Mesa being very helpful, but at $110 a pop.
Brother J, who turned 37 yesterday, can barely contain his rage, with the underlying thought being somewhere around age 40 shouldn't the kids be looking after the parents? Our mother's health is delicate enough, but it's a crapshoot to give E an ultimatum, for if she snaps irreversibly my mother's heart will break. Though we all know that E could just as easily make Eva Peron look like a wallflower if she (not Evita) would just get her head right.
November 21, 2007 2:04:07 PM PST
Sematofom-shematoform; it no longer matters what you or anyone else, including E calls it or how well any of us can interpret its manifestations.
All it may take is one more detox referral by one more covered specialist, and E, I predict, will find herself on the outside of coverage for anything more than a safeway shopping cart to hold all her worldly possessions.
Don't think for a moment that these scrivening pustules who approve coverage aren't building a case for disenfranchisement. They are.
As for fitting in a get-together with all players, we should do that. Perhaps while my memsahib is away? I'll whip up one of my famous road kill primaveras with ingredients appropriate for all exclusions, inclusions, and occlusions.
Brother J's comments are well taken, and happy birthday to him. Of course the last thing any parent wants (well, almost the last thing), is to have to be taken care of. The way you guys rallied to your mother's side at your dad's passing was impressive.
Your mom is doing her best to be independent and to not "need", but need she will, and if that need is in addition to what E may need, well....That may transcend the line between need and...sentence.
Of course when that bolt from the blue turfed me out of the workforce before I was ready, I wished I'd put away a bit more beforehand , but was triply glad that I hadn't been a complete shmuck and given up my military medical benefits and pension. For me to have had to be dependent on my sons is and was unthinkable...unthinkable. Enough on that, before I get diatribe-ish...
None of us of the phylum chordata, genus/surname T--- does well with ultimatums (ultimata?) Crystal clear understanding is the preferred avenue, and it must be conveyed. The very last words you ever want to hear are "why didn't you tell me?"
November 21, 2007 8:27:29 PM PST
I would agree that the Laverne & Shirley "shematoform, shemazelform" is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This ain't polio; i.e. you've (she's) not the luxury of clinging to a disease racking her body, since there isn't any. The one (glaring) exception being that some yutz along the way once said "You've got _____ (let's say 'an eating disorder')" and followed with "You need to take _____ (let's say 'prozac')" and E chose and still chooses to internalize, with Pavlovian efficacy, such brazen horsehit time and again. Add to that soup the ability of narcotics to always provide bountiful, mañana-like excuses and you have the present quandary. (Hint: it's not living in "de-Amazon"...)
You are most kind to elevate those within the health care Accounts Receivable corridors to the status of scrivening pustules (nice...). I am surprised the bastages haven't yet made a move, and I would welcome it if they do (see above: "This ain't polio"). Enough is enough.
Brother J's points are well taken, yes, and I hope to see our mother visit out in Vegas sometime soon for as long as she can and just chill...no one deserves it more...
We (royal and otherwise) are forced into contingency planning with the malleable success of crystal clear understanding regrettably temporary. When habitual narcotic use becomes past tense, things will obviously perk up. That s'mores and chloroform shit, however, will remain, whatever it is, and needs to be reprogrammed out of E's skull. I'm completely serious.
I would say, with an evenness that has only come with age, that my father was given so much native intelligence at birth that several of those on both sides of his place in line were left wanting, and surely became night watchmen or even republicans. After a decent night's sleep and a bowl of Wheaties I'm lucky to break 140 on an IQ quiz; he could top that with an additional 40 points after a half bottle of his beloved Smirnoff, easy. But what of clear understanding, or comprehension, when the aptitude is present, but the gravity surrounding that comprehension (speaking in health terms now) remains woefully absent - for whatever reason? E doesn't need to embrace wearing such blinders. It's debilitating and inconsiderate.
But it's not from a paucity of intellect, obviously...or is it? How else to explain, without inferring cruel intentions or drug-addled rationale as tidy explanations, such illogical decision making?
In E's case, I'm afraid we'll just be treading various levels of water until there's a cooling system flush. She is remarkably better than a couple of months ago...but...one only gets to say "I didn't know / why didn't you tell me?" so many times after knowing / having been told...
In my father's case, of course, in the space of a half an hour he could have made Aristotle's head spin with more RPMs than Linda Blair's, and left Ari scampering toward the causality of a bath house for solace...
Would be most honored to attend a PRK party (Primavera Road Kill) with as many as will decide to attend...can make it a re-education hot pot-luck if you like...
November 21, 2007 10:32:16 PM PST
It doesn't have to be polio; it's all relative and there is no universal threshhold of tolerance; nor is there one of self-determination to accept the RPGs that the Gods hit us with, with equanimity rather than despondency and dependence.
A break in Vegas would be great for your mom, I just can't imagine her doing it right now.
Your father, my brother, was indeed blessed with many creative and active gray cells at birth. I think I recall hearing that his IQ was measured in the 160s at Samuel J. Tilden high school in Brooklyn before he was turfed out of that institution. I'd guess that yours is right up there alongside that score, as mine was measured at 144 before a portion of it fried, and I've always thought your bulb wattage was right up there. While you father's innovative ability was incredible, his ability to execute those innovations was abysmally inept, and best left to lesser, but more disciplined intellects.
In Aristotle's case, he would have gladly given your dad all his worldly goods, the toga off his back, and gone out and stolen another toga to give him before limping off to said bathhouse, but eventually Ari would have snapped to the awareness that all the togas in all the gin joints in the world wouldn't have been enough....
I hope there's enough water to tread, and the strength to keep treading until change occurs.
PKK P/U pencilled into short term agenda.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 19, 2007 9:29 PM
I don't think much is happening here, holiday-wise ("we've" a new round of health problems, unfortunately). Matzo stuffing aside, I feel more connected to a cherry blossom festival as it is...anyway, if you would like to maybe grab a turkey club Thursday...after services, of course (I'll be visiting Our Lady of Perpetuate Deception)...
November 19, 2007 10:46:14 PM PST
By a new round of health problems, do you mean E?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, E...the removal of unnecessary / detrimental Big Pharma crap is to be heralded with great fanfare; unfortunately that only clears more playing field for drug addiction to start wrapping tentacles, or manacles, etc. I'll keep it short: still very, very happy that the Depakote, et. al., are in the rear view, and that symptoms are (for the most part) likewise. Opiates, as everyone knows - even the person who graduated from Seattle U minoring in chemistry and biology - readily replace this vacuum with a litany of ailments to occupy time, hinder wellness and cloud judgment. This is to say nothing of what I believe may very well be what some call a sematoform disorder; specifically, a conversion disorder. Only that, whatever it is, is almost certainly psychological before it becomes physical, and is now getting a less-fettered round-the-clock opium bath.
You can imagine the specifics as to why I haven't suggested any gets-togethers with "mom-n-dems"...there are plans and appointments with doctors and psychiatrists, with the second pain management guy (UCSD) suggesting a detox center in Mission Bay, etc. A case worker is looking into NLP/biofeedback practitioners that are covered, the guy I took E to in Mira Mesa being very helpful, but at $110 a pop.
Brother J, who turned 37 yesterday, can barely contain his rage, with the underlying thought being somewhere around age 40 shouldn't the kids be looking after the parents? Our mother's health is delicate enough, but it's a crapshoot to give E an ultimatum, for if she snaps irreversibly my mother's heart will break. Though we all know that E could just as easily make Eva Peron look like a wallflower if she (not Evita) would just get her head right.
November 21, 2007 2:04:07 PM PST
Sematofom-shematoform; it no longer matters what you or anyone else, including E calls it or how well any of us can interpret its manifestations.
All it may take is one more detox referral by one more covered specialist, and E, I predict, will find herself on the outside of coverage for anything more than a safeway shopping cart to hold all her worldly possessions.
Don't think for a moment that these scrivening pustules who approve coverage aren't building a case for disenfranchisement. They are.
As for fitting in a get-together with all players, we should do that. Perhaps while my memsahib is away? I'll whip up one of my famous road kill primaveras with ingredients appropriate for all exclusions, inclusions, and occlusions.
Brother J's comments are well taken, and happy birthday to him. Of course the last thing any parent wants (well, almost the last thing), is to have to be taken care of. The way you guys rallied to your mother's side at your dad's passing was impressive.
Your mom is doing her best to be independent and to not "need", but need she will, and if that need is in addition to what E may need, well....That may transcend the line between need and...sentence.
Of course when that bolt from the blue turfed me out of the workforce before I was ready, I wished I'd put away a bit more beforehand , but was triply glad that I hadn't been a complete shmuck and given up my military medical benefits and pension. For me to have had to be dependent on my sons is and was unthinkable...unthinkable. Enough on that, before I get diatribe-ish...
None of us of the phylum chordata, genus/surname T--- does well with ultimatums (ultimata?) Crystal clear understanding is the preferred avenue, and it must be conveyed. The very last words you ever want to hear are "why didn't you tell me?"
November 21, 2007 8:27:29 PM PST
I would agree that the Laverne & Shirley "shematoform, shemazelform" is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This ain't polio; i.e. you've (she's) not the luxury of clinging to a disease racking her body, since there isn't any. The one (glaring) exception being that some yutz along the way once said "You've got _____ (let's say 'an eating disorder')" and followed with "You need to take _____ (let's say 'prozac')" and E chose and still chooses to internalize, with Pavlovian efficacy, such brazen horsehit time and again. Add to that soup the ability of narcotics to always provide bountiful, mañana-like excuses and you have the present quandary. (Hint: it's not living in "de-Amazon"...)
You are most kind to elevate those within the health care Accounts Receivable corridors to the status of scrivening pustules (nice...). I am surprised the bastages haven't yet made a move, and I would welcome it if they do (see above: "This ain't polio"). Enough is enough.
Brother J's points are well taken, yes, and I hope to see our mother visit out in Vegas sometime soon for as long as she can and just chill...no one deserves it more...
We (royal and otherwise) are forced into contingency planning with the malleable success of crystal clear understanding regrettably temporary. When habitual narcotic use becomes past tense, things will obviously perk up. That s'mores and chloroform shit, however, will remain, whatever it is, and needs to be reprogrammed out of E's skull. I'm completely serious.
I would say, with an evenness that has only come with age, that my father was given so much native intelligence at birth that several of those on both sides of his place in line were left wanting, and surely became night watchmen or even republicans. After a decent night's sleep and a bowl of Wheaties I'm lucky to break 140 on an IQ quiz; he could top that with an additional 40 points after a half bottle of his beloved Smirnoff, easy. But what of clear understanding, or comprehension, when the aptitude is present, but the gravity surrounding that comprehension (speaking in health terms now) remains woefully absent - for whatever reason? E doesn't need to embrace wearing such blinders. It's debilitating and inconsiderate.
But it's not from a paucity of intellect, obviously...or is it? How else to explain, without inferring cruel intentions or drug-addled rationale as tidy explanations, such illogical decision making?
In E's case, I'm afraid we'll just be treading various levels of water until there's a cooling system flush. She is remarkably better than a couple of months ago...but...one only gets to say "I didn't know / why didn't you tell me?" so many times after knowing / having been told...
In my father's case, of course, in the space of a half an hour he could have made Aristotle's head spin with more RPMs than Linda Blair's, and left Ari scampering toward the causality of a bath house for solace...
Would be most honored to attend a PRK party (Primavera Road Kill) with as many as will decide to attend...can make it a re-education hot pot-luck if you like...
November 21, 2007 10:32:16 PM PST
It doesn't have to be polio; it's all relative and there is no universal threshhold of tolerance; nor is there one of self-determination to accept the RPGs that the Gods hit us with, with equanimity rather than despondency and dependence.
A break in Vegas would be great for your mom, I just can't imagine her doing it right now.
Your father, my brother, was indeed blessed with many creative and active gray cells at birth. I think I recall hearing that his IQ was measured in the 160s at Samuel J. Tilden high school in Brooklyn before he was turfed out of that institution. I'd guess that yours is right up there alongside that score, as mine was measured at 144 before a portion of it fried, and I've always thought your bulb wattage was right up there. While you father's innovative ability was incredible, his ability to execute those innovations was abysmally inept, and best left to lesser, but more disciplined intellects.
In Aristotle's case, he would have gladly given your dad all his worldly goods, the toga off his back, and gone out and stolen another toga to give him before limping off to said bathhouse, but eventually Ari would have snapped to the awareness that all the togas in all the gin joints in the world wouldn't have been enough....
I hope there's enough water to tread, and the strength to keep treading until change occurs.
PKK P/U pencilled into short term agenda.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The Transoms of Our Minds (Dear Caroline version)
(On March 18, 2008, Barack Obama gave his now-famous speech on race relations. On the other side of the world, also on the 18th of March, Caroline Glick of Jerusalem Post fame posted her assessment of Obama's speech. She spoke of her own childhood in Chicago, was fairly critical of Obama and considered his distancing himself from the reverend with the big mouth a case of "too little too late." But she also notated a speaking event where she walked out until it was her turn at the podium because the guy speaking was a xenophobic bigot intent on painting all Muslims with the same brush. Her post may be read here. It was because of these words by her that I opted to send along a critique I wrote of an article of hers titled "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" that was published in the Jerusalem Post in February of 2007. I am reprinting below my as-yet unanswered letter to her along with my accompanying article on xenophobic tendencies and their potential energy.)
March 19, 2008
Dear Ms Glick:
Reading your columns from time to time, the fact that I might not always agree with your perspective is without fail trumped by consistently being more informed in the process. Your column yesterday, however, was particularly moving. Specifically, your conduct with respect to how you handled the speaking engagement in Dallas. It is because of yesterday's column that I have decided to send you a piece I wrote last year in response to another of your columns, one that was also quite affecting.
Your article "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" was sent my way by an uncle who had recently reviewed it with a former squadron mate soon after its initial publishing. A reply back to my uncle morphed into an article of its own, and is reprinted below. I took exception with the presentation that those cited by you that go on shooting sprees here in the US are possibly part of some larger, interwoven if undeclared community that has its foundations in triggers in the brain inherent once the Muslim faith has been internalized; that it may be as simple as viewing Islam as some serotonin reuptake inhibitor. While there is obvious truth that belief systems, once believed, can pave the way for an endless parade of abhorrent conduct, it's up to what's left of us in the sane community to arrest the problem as much as we are able, and a start might be acknowledging that a) people of all flavors just snap sometimes, and b) in this country they have remarkably easy access to firearms.
I would have had nothing to write if the "message of jihad being so strong" cited in your article was then followed with any of the countless examples available throughout the Middle East on a daily basis. To notate this potential energy here in the US, however, becoming possibly kinetic once "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" ensues, is lacking if we ignore the prevalence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons as extreme potential energy itself. As an example, the piece I'm sending your way was written about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the headlines would have been slightly different if that unstable Korean kid was instead named Mohammad. Whether in shopping malls or institutes of learning, examples of males going meshuga with firearms are being replenished monthly, and with religion generally having nothing to do with it (here). What is noticeably absent from the reporting is the immunity provided gun makers, an immunity signed into law in 2005.
The following is a bit critical, and perhaps our similarities end somewhere between us both being born to Jewish parents here some four decades ago and only one of us making aliyah sometime after. I hope not.
I thank you in advance for your time.
The Transoms of Our Minds
March 11, 2007
It would seem to be the most obvious of logic, even in an often highly illogical world: If Johns Hopkins wouldn't regularly provide a forum for Christian Scientists, or if the Army Corps of Engineers would decline consultation from the Flat Earth Society, why would any self-respecting college president allow a microphone in the hand of a Holocaust denier? And yet, as Caroline Glick's recent piece in the Jerusalem Post amply reminds us ("Jihad's Campus Collaborators"), this form of "tolerance" for divergent beliefs is, more and more, an acceptable attitude with those at the university level. Educated people are permitting its proliferation, and calling attention to this sad fact cannot be understated. But what of the way we shine light on this growing trend, with the obvious objective being one of eradication?
As a recurrent theme in the article, the "battlefield of ideas" is of utmost importance; to be sure, it's perhaps the most important. Could we improve upon the way Ms Glick has presented our collective (read: any and all sane individuals') viewpoint - our "battlefield" in this global matter? I think so. I think the transition used from not investigating the seeds for potential terrorist acts germinating in the UK Muslim community to the tragedy of US college campuses allowing time for revisionist speakers by way of citing the individuals in the manner chosen for the article was a poor segue. So much so, in fact, that the age-old question popped into my head while assessing her choice of words: Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the Jews? There are ideas sewn into the tenor of the article that should be examined with this in mind.
Let's start from the introduction of US home-grown terror prospects.
Adding Sulejman Talovic to the list of those bent on doing Allah's bidding seems to be a stretch at best. An examination of both spree killings and planned assaults by crazed gunmen in the US, while containing obvious anti-Semitic behavior in some cases, has only one truly common thread in all these personal "jihads," namely: easy access to high-powered weapons. Including unstable individuals such as Naveed Afzal Haq, who along with Derrick Shareef and Sulejman Talovic are the names listed as groundwork for exploring the possible existence of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," strikes me as an argument already setting out on loose footing unless a sympathetic target audience is expected. This is not to say Shareef's assertions of what he was willing to do on Allah's behalf should be discounted (although that's all he appears to have done on Allah's behalf), but that claiming, "As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during hi s shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives..." is redirecting around the simple fact that these were angry, unstable humans with firearms, and by all accounts, not crossing off any checklist on the way to a few dozen virgins in the way so many malleable psyches in the Muslim world continue to accept as legitimate. If only requiring a surname's association as grounds for a symptom, the inclusion of Beltway sniper John Muhammad would appear to follow suit. Or, if religion is to be held blindly responsible for unconscionable acts, perhaps we should consider whom Jesus would bomb (in Northern Ireland).
Indeed, if we are able to open up our comprehension of the word "jihad" and consider this a Muslim description for aspects of the human condition, such as types of struggle in the eye of the beholder, or analogous to the almost unimaginable horrors wreaked upon women and children under the useful umbrella of the word "crusade," then an honest argument becomes possible. (Full disclosure: I'm one that considers both The Crusades and any rationale for jihad incontrovertible proof that religion just poisons the human skull, in the process excusing great swathes of corpses left in its wake.) The JPost article appears to sidestep this high road altogether, but in a refined manner that borders on sleight of hand. Again, taking factual data from the Policy Exchange report (though implying something quite different from the conclusion of the PE report's executive summary), then using examples that do not at all appear consistent with indoctrinated, brainwashed mentality from some far away madras: using two examples of males who simply snapped - one looking for Jews and one in Utah - and including another male who merely ran his mouth, all before deftly introducing the concept of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as a suggestion thrown into the fray as a possible means of an explanation.
Here the article makes a right-angle turn that should be reconsidered: in the space of just three short paragraphs, it explains the facility with which law enforcement might use this syndrome as a case closer to avoid cumbersome investigative work, and by the third paragraph has decreed the obvious place for such "...serious empirical study" is at the university level. Perfectly rationale assertions. It's the paragraph between that is a bit of a deal breaker:
"IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps."
This is unfortunate. In fact, this compromises an otherwise well stated article, if only the onus of the article were the absurdity of all owing anyone to go forward with revisionist history under the aegis of tolerance and equal time in an institute of higher learning - an argument that should be made until the practice of allowing these people time on college campuses is eradicated due simply to the basic tenets of human evolution. Like eradicating smallpox, because we can. However, in an effort to stay on message with the power of ideas, the JPost article briefly descends into powerful, xenophobic "transoms" of its own before bouncing back to the sensible need to call attention to what's happening on campus for the remainder of the article. In the context of a couple short sentences an entire sixth of the Earth's population is now being considered to be such pliable, witless sub-humans that their males have a Pavlovian response to ". ..the message of jihad [being] so strong that [they] can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings...". Instead of saying that the reference to shooting pregnant women is a reference to a deranged individual who appears to have nothing more to do with al-Qaeda than the Manson Family shooting pregnant women (or Charles Whitman or the kids at Columbine or American white power youth who are willing to shoot Jews if available, but can be equally "inspired" at a moment's notice to drag a black man from a pickup until he partially disintegrates), we are told that, "...[perhaps] the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation...".
And perhaps injuns can't drink and perhaps nigras can't be left alone with white women. Why such cavalier invective? This type of analytical thinking would seem to have come from the script of "Birth of a Nation." Again, unfortunate.
So should we consider that little children can be taught horrible things by their elders to the point where their chromosomes almost seem affected and there is no consciousness of humanity in carrying out terrorism? There's no need to consider that, as it is in fact legion throughout the Muslim world. But what of "the message of jihad being so strong" that some are intellectually powerless when the figurative wand of that Tinkerbell (in a burkha) taps he or she on the head? The Japanese once instilled this "noble" mindset into their fighting ranks, washing it down with sake and methamphetamine, and with some success. This isn't ancient history. Was it easier to regard the Japanese as yellow insects? Yes. Are Japanese people yellow insects? No. Is it easier to regard Muslims as having a predisposition to sub-human tendencies?
Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the US?
Well, it is hard to know what to make of this view, too. Perhaps it is good for Israel, depending upon what one's interpretation of what Israel is in the real world. Writing from the US, I only feel it acceptable - and just barely at that - to offer long-distance observations with regard to Israel, not pronouncements.
One observation: A few paragraphs later in the JPost article, the International Solidarity Movement is mentioned, it's sponsorship of "...weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers." If the past is any indication, this generally doesn't work out in the Palestinians' favor. Why should we expect anything different here if the emphasis on confrontation is thinly-veiled, if at all? Talking about appalling conditions in the world is not the same as appealing to revisionist history or encouraging the subjugation of independent thought in impressionable minds so that wanton violence makes sense, and allowing any fraction of this to transpire at the university level in a society claiming culture is reprehensible behavior. Since Hebron was mentioned, though, what of Baruch Goldstein's experience in Hebron, and the fact that it took an act of the Knesset to dismantle the shrines testifying to his martyr-like holiness? How in the world can that be good for Israel, glorifying that psychopath? Did he, too, succumb to "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?" Are those that condone like behavior other SJS candidates as well? Or are they just a bunch of assholes?
Though Ms Glick primarily (and correctly) states that the current levels of tolerance for hateful speech on college campuses are only aiding the enemies of the West, leaving an ancillary "maybe" out there with regard to the prospect of all Muslims falling under a murderous spell if the stars are aligned just right is counter intuitive to achieving results humanitarian, rather than militaristic. If one's posture is of bellicosity, then it could not be more intuitive to regard entire populations as incapable of being little more than savages. It produced a visceral reaction just reading the piece, knowing the potential energy in all humanity to do unconscionable things to one another once some justification has been acquired. A justification that excuses behavior on the grounds that others are less than human.
It seems as though once someone is beneath you, turned sub-human and compartmentalized in the recesses of your mind, a great many things become possible.
In closing, I wish to present three examples of perspective toward conflict resolution that should be considered:
(i) The Policy Exchange Executive Summary, from which the article's initial figures were extracted, has as its closing summation the following:
"We argue that the government has to change its policy approach towards Muslims. It should stop emphasizing difference and engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous, and attempts to give group rights or representation will only alienate sections of the population further."
It goes on to make more sense, and can be read here after downloading the pdf:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=307
(ii) 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 4, 2007 on the power of the Internet in Islamic extremist circles. Like allowing the advocating of violence a forum on a college campus, these trends (actually, tactics) should be infiltrated and dismantled whenever possible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/02/60minutes/main2531546.shtml
(iii) In the spirit of furthering the desire for conquest in the "battlefield of ideas," the following publication by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of writing that all children, Muslim and otherwise, should have as required reading:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25318/pub_detail.asp
Finally, what are "we" (in the world) without relentless self-examination? I would submit that we are dangerously close to being no better than "they", if not already there in some respects. Perhaps an article telling us that the sky is falling is not the most responsible message. We (in the US) have had some propaganda-fueled terrorism experience, and before 9/11. It was courtesy of the Ku Klux Klan. Also, those affiliated with the Aryan Nation have done their part whenever possible to lower the quality of American life. Given our First and Second Amendment rights, the Tom Metzgers and David Dukes are allowed to speak repeatedly without imprisonment, and the Tim McVeighs and David Koreshs are allowed to amass weapons like some of us buy groceries. And while most in this country do fall in line with the "Eye for an Eye" mentality, indicting all white Christians as a means of eradicating the Klan probably won't fly. My conclusion is that indicting all Muslims isn't such a hot idea either. True change for the better would start with following the money, specifically on two fronts here in the US: the gun lobby and the Saudi Arabian lobby.
But that's another article, far more lengthy.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
March 19, 2008
Dear Ms Glick:
Reading your columns from time to time, the fact that I might not always agree with your perspective is without fail trumped by consistently being more informed in the process. Your column yesterday, however, was particularly moving. Specifically, your conduct with respect to how you handled the speaking engagement in Dallas. It is because of yesterday's column that I have decided to send you a piece I wrote last year in response to another of your columns, one that was also quite affecting.
Your article "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" was sent my way by an uncle who had recently reviewed it with a former squadron mate soon after its initial publishing. A reply back to my uncle morphed into an article of its own, and is reprinted below. I took exception with the presentation that those cited by you that go on shooting sprees here in the US are possibly part of some larger, interwoven if undeclared community that has its foundations in triggers in the brain inherent once the Muslim faith has been internalized; that it may be as simple as viewing Islam as some serotonin reuptake inhibitor. While there is obvious truth that belief systems, once believed, can pave the way for an endless parade of abhorrent conduct, it's up to what's left of us in the sane community to arrest the problem as much as we are able, and a start might be acknowledging that a) people of all flavors just snap sometimes, and b) in this country they have remarkably easy access to firearms.
I would have had nothing to write if the "message of jihad being so strong" cited in your article was then followed with any of the countless examples available throughout the Middle East on a daily basis. To notate this potential energy here in the US, however, becoming possibly kinetic once "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" ensues, is lacking if we ignore the prevalence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons as extreme potential energy itself. As an example, the piece I'm sending your way was written about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the headlines would have been slightly different if that unstable Korean kid was instead named Mohammad. Whether in shopping malls or institutes of learning, examples of males going meshuga with firearms are being replenished monthly, and with religion generally having nothing to do with it (here). What is noticeably absent from the reporting is the immunity provided gun makers, an immunity signed into law in 2005.
The following is a bit critical, and perhaps our similarities end somewhere between us both being born to Jewish parents here some four decades ago and only one of us making aliyah sometime after. I hope not.
I thank you in advance for your time.
The Transoms of Our Minds
March 11, 2007
It would seem to be the most obvious of logic, even in an often highly illogical world: If Johns Hopkins wouldn't regularly provide a forum for Christian Scientists, or if the Army Corps of Engineers would decline consultation from the Flat Earth Society, why would any self-respecting college president allow a microphone in the hand of a Holocaust denier? And yet, as Caroline Glick's recent piece in the Jerusalem Post amply reminds us ("Jihad's Campus Collaborators"), this form of "tolerance" for divergent beliefs is, more and more, an acceptable attitude with those at the university level. Educated people are permitting its proliferation, and calling attention to this sad fact cannot be understated. But what of the way we shine light on this growing trend, with the obvious objective being one of eradication?
As a recurrent theme in the article, the "battlefield of ideas" is of utmost importance; to be sure, it's perhaps the most important. Could we improve upon the way Ms Glick has presented our collective (read: any and all sane individuals') viewpoint - our "battlefield" in this global matter? I think so. I think the transition used from not investigating the seeds for potential terrorist acts germinating in the UK Muslim community to the tragedy of US college campuses allowing time for revisionist speakers by way of citing the individuals in the manner chosen for the article was a poor segue. So much so, in fact, that the age-old question popped into my head while assessing her choice of words: Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the Jews? There are ideas sewn into the tenor of the article that should be examined with this in mind.
Let's start from the introduction of US home-grown terror prospects.
Adding Sulejman Talovic to the list of those bent on doing Allah's bidding seems to be a stretch at best. An examination of both spree killings and planned assaults by crazed gunmen in the US, while containing obvious anti-Semitic behavior in some cases, has only one truly common thread in all these personal "jihads," namely: easy access to high-powered weapons. Including unstable individuals such as Naveed Afzal Haq, who along with Derrick Shareef and Sulejman Talovic are the names listed as groundwork for exploring the possible existence of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," strikes me as an argument already setting out on loose footing unless a sympathetic target audience is expected. This is not to say Shareef's assertions of what he was willing to do on Allah's behalf should be discounted (although that's all he appears to have done on Allah's behalf), but that claiming, "As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during hi s shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives..." is redirecting around the simple fact that these were angry, unstable humans with firearms, and by all accounts, not crossing off any checklist on the way to a few dozen virgins in the way so many malleable psyches in the Muslim world continue to accept as legitimate. If only requiring a surname's association as grounds for a symptom, the inclusion of Beltway sniper John Muhammad would appear to follow suit. Or, if religion is to be held blindly responsible for unconscionable acts, perhaps we should consider whom Jesus would bomb (in Northern Ireland).
Indeed, if we are able to open up our comprehension of the word "jihad" and consider this a Muslim description for aspects of the human condition, such as types of struggle in the eye of the beholder, or analogous to the almost unimaginable horrors wreaked upon women and children under the useful umbrella of the word "crusade," then an honest argument becomes possible. (Full disclosure: I'm one that considers both The Crusades and any rationale for jihad incontrovertible proof that religion just poisons the human skull, in the process excusing great swathes of corpses left in its wake.) The JPost article appears to sidestep this high road altogether, but in a refined manner that borders on sleight of hand. Again, taking factual data from the Policy Exchange report (though implying something quite different from the conclusion of the PE report's executive summary), then using examples that do not at all appear consistent with indoctrinated, brainwashed mentality from some far away madras: using two examples of males who simply snapped - one looking for Jews and one in Utah - and including another male who merely ran his mouth, all before deftly introducing the concept of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as a suggestion thrown into the fray as a possible means of an explanation.
Here the article makes a right-angle turn that should be reconsidered: in the space of just three short paragraphs, it explains the facility with which law enforcement might use this syndrome as a case closer to avoid cumbersome investigative work, and by the third paragraph has decreed the obvious place for such "...serious empirical study" is at the university level. Perfectly rationale assertions. It's the paragraph between that is a bit of a deal breaker:
"IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps."
This is unfortunate. In fact, this compromises an otherwise well stated article, if only the onus of the article were the absurdity of all owing anyone to go forward with revisionist history under the aegis of tolerance and equal time in an institute of higher learning - an argument that should be made until the practice of allowing these people time on college campuses is eradicated due simply to the basic tenets of human evolution. Like eradicating smallpox, because we can. However, in an effort to stay on message with the power of ideas, the JPost article briefly descends into powerful, xenophobic "transoms" of its own before bouncing back to the sensible need to call attention to what's happening on campus for the remainder of the article. In the context of a couple short sentences an entire sixth of the Earth's population is now being considered to be such pliable, witless sub-humans that their males have a Pavlovian response to ". ..the message of jihad [being] so strong that [they] can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings...". Instead of saying that the reference to shooting pregnant women is a reference to a deranged individual who appears to have nothing more to do with al-Qaeda than the Manson Family shooting pregnant women (or Charles Whitman or the kids at Columbine or American white power youth who are willing to shoot Jews if available, but can be equally "inspired" at a moment's notice to drag a black man from a pickup until he partially disintegrates), we are told that, "...[perhaps] the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation...".
And perhaps injuns can't drink and perhaps nigras can't be left alone with white women. Why such cavalier invective? This type of analytical thinking would seem to have come from the script of "Birth of a Nation." Again, unfortunate.
So should we consider that little children can be taught horrible things by their elders to the point where their chromosomes almost seem affected and there is no consciousness of humanity in carrying out terrorism? There's no need to consider that, as it is in fact legion throughout the Muslim world. But what of "the message of jihad being so strong" that some are intellectually powerless when the figurative wand of that Tinkerbell (in a burkha) taps he or she on the head? The Japanese once instilled this "noble" mindset into their fighting ranks, washing it down with sake and methamphetamine, and with some success. This isn't ancient history. Was it easier to regard the Japanese as yellow insects? Yes. Are Japanese people yellow insects? No. Is it easier to regard Muslims as having a predisposition to sub-human tendencies?
Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the US?
Well, it is hard to know what to make of this view, too. Perhaps it is good for Israel, depending upon what one's interpretation of what Israel is in the real world. Writing from the US, I only feel it acceptable - and just barely at that - to offer long-distance observations with regard to Israel, not pronouncements.
One observation: A few paragraphs later in the JPost article, the International Solidarity Movement is mentioned, it's sponsorship of "...weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers." If the past is any indication, this generally doesn't work out in the Palestinians' favor. Why should we expect anything different here if the emphasis on confrontation is thinly-veiled, if at all? Talking about appalling conditions in the world is not the same as appealing to revisionist history or encouraging the subjugation of independent thought in impressionable minds so that wanton violence makes sense, and allowing any fraction of this to transpire at the university level in a society claiming culture is reprehensible behavior. Since Hebron was mentioned, though, what of Baruch Goldstein's experience in Hebron, and the fact that it took an act of the Knesset to dismantle the shrines testifying to his martyr-like holiness? How in the world can that be good for Israel, glorifying that psychopath? Did he, too, succumb to "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?" Are those that condone like behavior other SJS candidates as well? Or are they just a bunch of assholes?
Though Ms Glick primarily (and correctly) states that the current levels of tolerance for hateful speech on college campuses are only aiding the enemies of the West, leaving an ancillary "maybe" out there with regard to the prospect of all Muslims falling under a murderous spell if the stars are aligned just right is counter intuitive to achieving results humanitarian, rather than militaristic. If one's posture is of bellicosity, then it could not be more intuitive to regard entire populations as incapable of being little more than savages. It produced a visceral reaction just reading the piece, knowing the potential energy in all humanity to do unconscionable things to one another once some justification has been acquired. A justification that excuses behavior on the grounds that others are less than human.
It seems as though once someone is beneath you, turned sub-human and compartmentalized in the recesses of your mind, a great many things become possible.
In closing, I wish to present three examples of perspective toward conflict resolution that should be considered:
(i) The Policy Exchange Executive Summary, from which the article's initial figures were extracted, has as its closing summation the following:
"We argue that the government has to change its policy approach towards Muslims. It should stop emphasizing difference and engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous, and attempts to give group rights or representation will only alienate sections of the population further."
It goes on to make more sense, and can be read here after downloading the pdf:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=307
(ii) 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 4, 2007 on the power of the Internet in Islamic extremist circles. Like allowing the advocating of violence a forum on a college campus, these trends (actually, tactics) should be infiltrated and dismantled whenever possible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/02/60minutes/main2531546.shtml
(iii) In the spirit of furthering the desire for conquest in the "battlefield of ideas," the following publication by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of writing that all children, Muslim and otherwise, should have as required reading:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25318/pub_detail.asp
Finally, what are "we" (in the world) without relentless self-examination? I would submit that we are dangerously close to being no better than "they", if not already there in some respects. Perhaps an article telling us that the sky is falling is not the most responsible message. We (in the US) have had some propaganda-fueled terrorism experience, and before 9/11. It was courtesy of the Ku Klux Klan. Also, those affiliated with the Aryan Nation have done their part whenever possible to lower the quality of American life. Given our First and Second Amendment rights, the Tom Metzgers and David Dukes are allowed to speak repeatedly without imprisonment, and the Tim McVeighs and David Koreshs are allowed to amass weapons like some of us buy groceries. And while most in this country do fall in line with the "Eye for an Eye" mentality, indicting all white Christians as a means of eradicating the Klan probably won't fly. My conclusion is that indicting all Muslims isn't such a hot idea either. True change for the better would start with following the money, specifically on two fronts here in the US: the gun lobby and the Saudi Arabian lobby.
But that's another article, far more lengthy.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
