Cyber War I, Acknowledging the Risk

12/21/2014

Cyber War I, Acknowledging the Risk  (with time link subsequent to this writing in addenda)

A couple of young men who were proud of living life in a marijuana induced haze decide to push the edge of international norms by making a comedy about the assassination of a world leader.  One guy, Seth Rogan, was a hit with what is known the "stoner set," which represents an increasing number of those who are thrown into adulthood with few decent job prospects and little chance of making it against the competition of robotics and cheap labor, mostly from Asian countries.  "Stoner" as I use it does not necessarily mean getting stoned, rather it is a sensibility, a way of life.  All they have to deflect an unpleasant future is taking nothing seriously -- the more absurd the joke the better, as reality would be too depressing. 

Some within the film company, Sony Pictures, tried to get them to tone the movie down, "at least don't kill the guy, or fictionalize the character."  But Rogan, who was the director as well as the star, insisted that they make the murder that of an actual living man, the dictator of twenty five million people who are under his absolute control in North Korea, Kim Jong un.  No major film maker has ever before produced a fictional account of a murder of a living national leader.  Sony Pictures never showed any concern with the international or domestic consequences of infuriating this dictator, who is descended from two men in the same position who have never hesitated to impose immense suffering on their population in the name of maintaining power.  Not only did Mr. Rogan claim that the justification, the overriding consideration of deciding to make this film, was not the possible escalation of hostilities, but that the "film was funny."  Ironically, this same sentiment was repeated by the CEO of Sony International, Michael Lynton, in a much more polished presentation even after the escalation of tension between the U.S. and North Korea had begun. 

By the time Lynton told his story in a half hour interview with Fareed Zakaria this Sunday morning, a narrative very different than described above had started to crystallize.  Rather than irresponsible individuals producing a film that breached international norms, we have these "stoners" and the company that approved the film transformed into avatars of liberty, courageously expanding the frontiers of freedom of speech.

(At this point, a week after writing this I link this article from the Washington Post after the film has been released.  It  makes the case that the film actually has the potential to do this, to achieve which I claimed to be the justification of Sony for making the film, actually goad the U.S. to see the film's message of "absurdity" of the film being part of the oppressive regime.  It's an interesting analysis that to the degree that it does change policy, both in this country and in North Korea, could change the place of this film in shaping world events for the better)

 Within a few short days, beginning with President Obama's expressed admiration for this trivialization of assassination along with his personal determination of guilt for the hack and then pronouncement of punishment against N.Korea, the impossible happened -- a unification of liberals and conservatives in a call to arms against the country of North Korea. 

Obama's statement at his news conference last week was absurd on its face.  After joking how he personally likes Seth Rogen,  he continued: " We cannot have a society in which some dictators someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States because if somebody is able to intimidate us out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing once they see a documentary that they don't like or news reports that they don't like"  

In reality, there have been numerous documentaries on national television just this year that describe in great detail the oppression of the North Korean regime, and that government has never expressed any objection, much less attempted to censor them.  While the President called this film "satire," if such a production were produced in this country with him as a target, especially if by those deemed among our enemies, there is little doubt that those responsible would face prosecution, as have such as Ed Snowden, who exemplifies the actual fate of those who really do advance freedom of speech. This freedom has never been absolute even in this country, with falsely crying fire, pornography and fighting words being well known exceptions.  (Here's Snoden's inside knowledge of just how vulnerable this country is to a cyber attack)

If there are unique elements of this cyber attack against Sony, it is not the extent of damage, but that it created a political opportunity -- one of a nature that has led to tragedy throughout history.  Domestic distress, such as the expanding wealth divide that carries over to inequality of  justice, is baked into our society, with no foreseeable fix available.  Just as 9-11 united our country behind the previous administration, even allowing a war to change a regime that had nothing to do with the attack, so rage against a common enemy is a sure way to bring a country together, to rally around the flag with immediate adulation of the leader.   As the guns of August 2014 were being prepared, few from the combatant countries could imagine the horrible carnage of what they all were told would be a short decisive victory.

We are moving ever closer to such a calamity, with any voice of reason being drowned out by the laugh track augmented sound of crowds indulging in mindless guffaws over the funny man with the bad haircut being murdered.  The conclusion from the CEO of Sony saying that 90% of even the most secure corporations are vulnerable to the devastating hack that started all this is simply ignored.  The threat that President Obama made did not define the method of retribution, but it is either traditional weapons or cyber attacks.  Kim Jong un, even before this escalation, has missiles -- perhaps with poison gas or nuclear warheads -- on hair trigger aimed at South Korea, with American forces there as a buffer -- both countries that he technically is at war with.  As the threat level increases, there is a greater danger of accidental launch.  And even if the U.S. were to make a pre-emptory strike, a few missiles would probably be launched with great carnage to the South; as our attack would certainly not injure the dictator, rather it would kill large numbers of his people who are his virtual prisoners. 

The other option is we choose to use cyber warfare, as was done against Iran to cause damage to their nuclear enrichment operation.  It did slow them down, yet no country is more advanced, and therefore more vulnerable than the U.S.A.  This Wall Street Journal article quotes Keith Alexander, head of U.S. Cyber Command:  "Chinese military and commercial cyber theft ($400 billion of F-35 designs) amount to “the greatest transfer of wealth in history,”  With our department of defense, NSA, major newspapers and all financial institutions and corporations vulnerable, I suggest that the only thing that is preventing a world-wide catastrophe is that it is not in anyone's interest to cause such a collapse. 

Barack Obama chose this enemy carefully.  To actually acknowledge the deep causes of this "stoner mentality" that drove this breach of norms of international comity would require that he take this  problem seriously, rather than divert attention by further demonetization  of this new national enemy.  We had been negotiating with Kim Jong-un attempting to find a way to liberate his people, which may have been a long haul, something like that we endured with Cuba's nontraditional leader Fidel Castro.  Our civilization is only here today because the national leaders of that showdown, the Cuban Missile Crisis, had the courage to back away rather than rouse their people to a catastrophic war.  Both Khrushchev and Kennedy knew what the choices were, and did not seek political gain from it.

President Obama chooses to throw the dice with our entire civilization.  The cyber world, from our home computers to smart phones that encompasses every part of our life is now a vital system that is vulnerable. The technology grew much faster than concerns for robustness and reliability could keep up with. Obama's narrative, and that of the CEO of Sony, is a mutually advantageous self serving distortion. Our country is now starting to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake that left a vacuum filled by ISIL, the most barbaric movement since the Nazi era.  And just as Hitler ordered an extended futile last ditch defense of Berlin against the entreaties of his generals to surrender,  there is no evidence that Kim Jong un would be any more concerned with the death of millions of his minions. 

Seth Rogan and Sony Pictures made a profit-motivated decision to poke his finger in the eye of this perverse individual, and when this dictator responded to this trivialization of his assassination by damaging the corporation that produced it the President of the United States chose to turn such crude arrogation of national policy into heroism.   Obama, and those of this country of both left and right, are buying into this disastrous narrative -- which is now taking on a life of its own.  Perhaps it will just fizzle out and calmer voices will prevail.  But history shows otherwise, as the assassination in Serbia almost exactly a hundred years ago illustrates.  Both that one causing an actual death, and the current one making such a death into a joke are now starting to have the same effect.  Like then,  the temptation to escalate hatred rather than promote  rational engagement is "trending."  We are now more connected than ever, enhancing the speed of the contagion of this new brew, stoner mentality mixed with patriotic rage.  

No one could ever have predicted the historical sequelae of that assassination a hundred years ago,  which was a bloody 20th century of wars and suffering that need not have been.  And like today, if someone had made such a prediction, the chance of it being attended to would have been slim. So, ignore the gloomy man shouting from the wings, and turn up the laugh track;  as long as its funny, what else matters.

Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
-----------------------------
Addenda:

Only days after the News conference described and discussed above,  the Internet system of the DPRK, was disabled for about half a day.  The reporting confirmed that the people do not have access to the international internet, having less than one millionth of the URL addresses than the United States.  This gives credence to those professionals who claim that they did not have the resources to have perpetrated the original Sony hack.
-------------------
This article from ABC News on the day after the above essay was written describes how two thirds of the world service of Youtube was disrupted for most of a day by the attempt to close a single video in Pakistan.  It concludes with this paragraph from an authority in the field:  "To be honest, there's not a single thing preventing this from happening to E-Trade, or Bank of America, or the FBI, or the White House,........."
---------------------
A Movie Studio, How About the National Grid, describes just the extent of the disaster that could be inflicted upon us if  attacks through the internet, already happening discretely among government actors, ever became overt.  This is what our President's response brings us closer to. 
 ---------------------
Additional essays on this subject, including early survey on Dailykos, can be found on my main website AlRodbell.com  
---------------------
Eight days after this essay was written the N.Y. Times Editorial acknowledges this danger: Deterring Cyber Attacks from North Korea

Did you know that Bruce Dern slept with Eleanor Roosevelt

'Did you know that Bruce Dern slept with Eleanor Roosevelt'

That's what the guy at the tennis courts said today while we were talking about the new film he stared in, "Nebraska."  I've been playing with Arty for many years and he often brings up a range of subjects that he would enjoy talking about, sometimes to the point of having to remind him that we were here to play tennis not to have a seminar.  He invariably had done some thinking on these subjects, so when he said this about the actor Bruce Dern,  a film star that many people admire, most of us were incredulous.  One woman mentioned the difference in age, and Arty said, "Yes, there was a considerable age discrepancy between the two which makes it even more surprising, and also shocking.  He said that Dern actually wrote about the incident, even going into details of her uncovered legs next to him lying in bed they shared.

This was "Eleanor Roosevelt," probably the closest this country has to a secular saint.  She was the heart of her husbands Presidency, the one who would arrange for Marian Anderson to sing at the D.C. mall after the Daughters of the American Revolution had rebuffed her because of her race.  It was she who got a hearing by the President with American Rabbis whose people were facing annihilation during the war.  In her later years she was a key figure in creating the United Nations and then being America's first Ambassador to this body.  We know about the abuse that she took from political enemies and her difficult marriage that she endured with quiet dignity.  

Since Arty mentioned that Dern's disclosure was on Wikipedia,  I immediately researched it when I got home and, sure enough, here's the link and the entire ugly disrespectful story of this shameful incident that Dern divulged on the Tavis Smiley program on PBS:

Dern responding: Yeah, right. Then (My Father) he went on to become Roosevelt’s first secretary of war, in the first Cabinet, and he died while he was in office. My family used to go visit the Roosevelts up at Hyde Park, where they were outside of New York.

One year they were visiting and little Brucie got to go with them, and I was riding a bicycle in the afternoon, and ran into a tree and hit my head and had a concussion.

In those days when you had a concussion they laid you down with your head on a pillow and then strapped your head across the pillow so you couldn’t move it to the side or forward or anything.

When I kind of came to, I guess it was late at night, 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, and as I rolled my head to the side, I saw this lady’s legs. They were kind of veiny, and had a nightgown down to about here with little kind of tacky slippers. (Laughter)

I didn’t understand. As I slowly came up and started looking up to where the woman’s face was, she had a book in her lap, and she looked like this (makes face) and had that Roosevelt bite. I realized, my God, it’s the president’s wife. (Laughter)

O.K, the Arty from the tennis court I described is me,  Al the blogger, who told everyone in feigned seriousness about Bruce and Eleanor, accentuating and always using the exact wording that they had "Slept Together." with everyone taking it for the euphemism for  "having sex" which is a euphemism for "fucking."  The reason that I did it was not so much for the silly joke, but to illustrate something that I take quite seriously,  how the expansion of euphemisms, unlike in this example, can actually degrade our society in more ways than we know.

Those reading this will always know when "sleep with" is the euphemism or when it can mean what Dern described from the context.  So, I tricked those on the courts by my expression and tone of voice.  Yet, in decades to come, for example if there is a document about crowded tenements where the term is used not only for a married couple to define their sexual intimacy, but for other situations, such as guests who could often outnumber beds, there will be ambiguity.

Sexuality has long been a taboo subject that required euphemisms to protect the kiddies and to identify one as being cultured.  I'm told that the word "pregnant" had been expressed as "with child" even though the latter term could describe having a living post fetus one as well.  We got over that taboo, but we seem to have developed many more without any real push-back.  Now, the motive is not to protect children from learning too soon about their species' carnal nature, but to protect anyone who could be insulted by a description that defines them in an unflattering way.  

Enforcement of this degradation of language is usually informal, but in a recent case it was by federal legislation.  Mental retardation is a congenital condition that like deafness or intersex genetalia creates challenges for the child and family.  Congress went so far as to mandate that all federal documents elide the term "mental retardation" and replace it with "intellectual disability."  This represents the trend in linguistic obfuscation which is replacing precise words with those that are less specific.  One can become intellectually disabled by trauma at any age, or by extreme social deprivation.  Thus use of a specific term for a congenital condition is actually made illegal in some legal contexts.  (this objection is mentioned in this official document, but they ultimately ignored it)  I ask the reader to consider whether this increases or decreases the pain of those so afflicted.

Unfortunately, this movement has been incorporated into a commonly used term with all of the defects of linguistic imprecision that this essay is condemning, "Political Correctness."   The phrase, with it's own abbreviation, "PC" turns this into a partisan issue by depicting it as a liberal quirk, or just another aspect of our world that is as inevitable as power breeding corruption. 

This "Linguistic Degradation"  LD (c)*  is predicated on the absurd conceit that by eliminating words that describe difficult problems we make them go away.  I explored this in my article, "Negro, the word, gets a reprieve," (link below) but I fear the reprieve will be short.   Another example has never been discussed that I know of;  it is how housing for the poor has been renamed "affordable housing."  Under this seemingly harmless linguistic legerdemain the harm isn't immediate, yet it has created confusion and now even the acceptance of the absurd consequences of a California state law that manages to require adverse zoning under the illusion of providing housing for the poor.  For those interested, this article describes the confusion of a local city council member caused by the new meaning of "affordable."

I lured readers into this article by a ploy of exposure of a sexual affair by a woman whom I have great personal admiration, even affection.  I would only do it because I believe that Eleanor would approve of my goals.  She did what she could to create a better world, in this country and beyond.  She didn't shy away from facing life as it existed --including bigotry against Negros, hatred towards Jews and indifference towards the poor.  Pretending that eliminating words that accurately allow addressing the complex challenges of our world is a movement that deserves to be challenged.

I only wish it were being done so by those with more clout than I.
----------------------
*"Linguistic Destruction"  and "LD"  Copyright ©  (2014) under Creative Commons (CC)

Addenda:

My article, "Negro, the word, gets a reprieve"  and why it should.

A P.O.V on "The Interview" an off the cuff declaration of war against N.Korea

12/17/14

OpEd Submission to LA Times.  (Not Accepted)

The LA Times has a running theme,"Company Town," which is an acknowledgement that much of the paper's audience is connected to this industry.  There is an irony in the term, in that it has historically applied to blue collar industries far removed from international, even civilization shaping, impact. This unfolding story has yet to find a simple identifying phrase IE, "The Dreyfus Affair" or "The Cuban Missile Crisis."  Let's try a few provisional ones:  The Interview, Sony Hack, North Korea Blackmail, Sony capitulation, U.S. President escalation, and possibly known by the last chapter, International Cyber Warfare cripples world economy. 

As events unfold, various narratives vie for acceptance, as which prevails affects the course of actual events.  Hollywood has been at this this since its inception.  "Birth of a Nation" was a blockbuster, a breakthrough in technology and artistry, which could have been the headline of the local paper; but it also promoted the most vicious racism of southern states for a half century.  It took time for films to engage in the great debate in this country on taking sides in the developing fascism of the late 1930s, perhaps caused by the major studios not wanting to appear biased by the Jewish ethnicity of owners and often Marxist philosophy of writers.

As "The Interview" story continues it has transformed from what is agreed by critics to be about a third rate farce into a defense of the Western world's most cherished principle, most expansive in our country, that of unfettered freedom of expression.  Yet, lost in the play-by-play reporting is the larger implications of how this will affect our world. Kim Jong un, while not killed, has been transformed into a caricature, one defined by the Sony decision makers whose single interest was a profitable film that promotes the "franchise" of "Stoner sensibility."  Our vaunted freedom of expression is really not as unfettered as advertised; as a comedy about the gang rape of a woman head of state would probably never be "green lit,"

With President Obama's ominous threat against a country possessing both traditional WMD and a capacity to begin a cyber war - where it is our country that is the most vulnerable - we are about to enter uncharted waters. Part of the "stoner mentality" that the film epitomized is that laughter is the ultimate reality, a modern solipsism to avoid actual consequences of inaction,  which as it becomes the dominant cultural norm of the most powerful country, at the very least "attention must be paid."    --------------
12/31/14

To the Letters Editor: LA Times

 

In response to this article:   A Sony Insider, Not N.Korea,  likely responsible for the hack"

Objectively, from the perspective of the DPRK, the government of North Korea, these words of the Commander in Chief of this country that we will"... respond proportionately ... in a place and time and manner that we choose," placed them in imminent* threat of attack by the worlds most powerful country - predicated on a computer breach of a private company that evidence, in doubt then, now shows they did not initiate.  The war mania became widespread, including this newspaper that ignored the President unilaterally taking the world closer to the brink of cyber warfare.  Based on our own standards, military action against us by North Korea would be justified.

The focus of your coverage was the effect on Sony Pictures and the movie industry, fulfilling your role of covering the "Company Town" of Hollywood.  Sadly, this entailed a lack of incisive coverage of the  broader prospective of this unfolding incident that is incumbent on one of our few remaining responsible newspapers.  

--------------------

*"Imminent" has been redefined by the CIA as a threat that could be implemented without further action that is observable by the target - This link summarizes the meaning in the context of the U.S. legitimizing a drone attack,  "the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

"Is the prayer for me working?" wonders the atheist

The holiday season has always been tough for me.   During my childhood it meant that all the kids in the neighborhood would come out on Christmas morning with their gifts, and I had nothing to say.  It's not that we lived in a wealthy neighborhood, not by a long shot.  It was a row of working class apartments built only a year before we moved there in 1941, just adjacent to the Jim Crow demarcation that separated us from the colored people of the Ivy City neighborhood of D.C.

I remember when Henry greeted me with pride brandishing his gift, which was a baseball glove, old and a bit tattered.  He told me that it was a glove that was used by one of the Senators, our local team that was the origin of the ditty, "Washington, first in war, first in peace and last in the American League. "  I suspected that it was just an old glove that his dad was able to afford, but I didn't say a word.  I was amazed that he was proud of his gift, with no sense of disappointment with him or his father. 

We were Jewish, an exception from all those wealthy evil Jewish bankers who control the world, as we weren't even up to those first generation Jews who made that first step towards the American dream by opening a store.  My dad drove a cab to his full time job of being a baker, which was fine for this neighborhood of clerks, and other blue collar positions.  Only later did this become a problem, when we moved to a small house in a better area, and the Diamond Cab became an insignia of shame.

Fast forward to today, from the child who felt especially isolated by the Christmas Carols proclaiming the new born king of Israel we all had to sing at school, to the brightly lit trees and presents of the other kids to now.......(Did you all enjoy the trip?)

Just yesterday, I was invited to lunch at our local senior center, only to see a bevy of kids, maybe about my age when Henry showed off his glove.  They were from the nearby Catholic School to entertain us with seasonal music.  At the table were John D. a dynamic man who lived most of his life in N.Y.C. as I did, as a teacher of the disabled, with a second job as a printer.  He's a devout Catholic, and when the food is served, with deference to me, he says, "I would like to start with a prayer....with he does ending with "and I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ." And I join him in saying "Amen." 

It turned out before I had ever attended one of these lunches, they had recited both the Pledge of Allegiance, and sung "God bless America."  People objected so no more pledge, but the song is sometimes sung, with no sense of it being anything official.  At my table is a women born around 1930 to an upper class family in Tehran who shares her memories of that era, of her family being officially Muslim, but only going to a Mosque when someone was sick to pray and make contributions, as she says since doctors couldn't do much in those days.  She now is a firm atheist, expressing her displeasure of those who equate being a Christian with morality, even to her own daughter who does missionary work in Africa, being retired from or M.D. profession.

As the kids were singing, starting with fun songs like Frosty the Snowman, but including some to those like "Little Town of Bethlehem"  I realized I was enjoying this, that those days of having to sing these songs to a King who my family did not acknowledge was gone, and I had the sensation that knowing these words, singing along, having the kids watch my lips to pick up on some of the words, made feel a part of this occasion, rather than embattled. 

Later that day, my wife was part of small group of musicians in the lobby of an auditorium where her band was giving their annual seasonal concert.  As I was relaxing listening to the music, watching the people arrive, some making a contribution others not, but all greeted warmly, I started to feel a glow, a mellowness that was rare for me. I felt it was directly connected with the words of their music, the feeling of salvation that was there at the end of the long road, that was no longer in the misty distant future -- and that salvation was in the form of an icon, a presence that had reality by the belief of all of those who felt his comforting presence.

In the midst of this feeling, I remembered a year ago at a memorial service for Cheryl  the wife of a friend Tom Cantor, who I have to introduce at this point. Tom was born into a Jewish family whose father was the music critic for Time Magazine.  When he fell in love with Cheryl, his family told him if he marries out to the religion he will be ostracized and the funding for his graduate studies in bio-chemistry will be cut off.  He married her, left school, and out of desperation, used what he had already learn to start a small business in their garage producing medical antibodies.  

His business prospered, so when I met him the little start had expanded to facilities in Mexico, Ethiopia and the being largest employer of Santee California.  What also happened is Cheryl's faith was infectious, and Tom became a believer.  That's a bit of an understatement, as I happened to first meet him when I had attended an open house at the 10,000 square foot Creation Museum he had founded.  He and I are both outgoing Jews, manifestations of some of the same genes and deep cultural roots that allow our tribe to engage easily, to turn tragedy into something else, exemplified by Sid Caesar and maybe Sigmund Freud.     

I felt a human connection, while also realizing that he didn't need any more friends, but certainly wanted to bring another soul to Christ.  When he offered to take me on a personal tour to his facility across the border in Tecate, I accepted.  I did a video story on the trip that you can read, but only after you finish this.  But by the end, when I made it clear it was no sale, he used his trump card, "You probably think that when you die it will just be oblivion, but it's not that way. It  will be eternity in Hell" which he describe rather graphically.  I wondered for a minute whether I would be dumped on the side of the road, but he eventually "seemed" to accept that Al wasn't going to be one of his converts. 

We kept in touch on and off, and I even went to one more museum open house where I was treated sort of like an honored guest, even though he wouldn't go through with allowing me to give the atheist viewpoint to his gathering.  Then a couple years later at the reception after Cheryl's memorial service,  I found out he had not quite given up on me.  I was making small talk to someone, when to my surprise his response to my introducing myself was, "Oh, sure, I know you, we pray for you every week."  Tom confirmed that I am on that short list of those receiving this intervention. 

This came back to me last night, when the connection between the dozens of people praying for my salvation and my feeling the warmth of the moment that allowed me to feel a part of something, just because.  Tom never describes the crisis in his youth that brought this brilliant personable Jewish young man to believe in not only Jesus Christ, but the literal truth of the ancient pre-science explanations of existence.  He gains no extraneous benefits from his endeavors, expending much of his wealth on such proselytizing -- or saving souls as he sees it.

One thing that the praying for me confirms is the sincerity of his beliefs. While I would guess most devout believer develop some doubts along the way, Tom has none.  It's only an accident that I found out about his personal prayers, and far from resenting it, I feel grateful, an appreciation that this man has placed me on his list to attempt to save from eternal damnation.  There was no postcard or email telling me about this,  and I almost didn't come to the memorial and certainly didn't have to introduce myself to one of the prayer group. 

So did the prayer work, and the feeling of belonging to the community of Christ that I was savoring last night confirm his existence?  I could give my answer for this day, but will it be the same as I age another year, another decade?  This more important question I can't possibly answer, because what I can confirm is that everything changes with aging, whether for the better or for the worse.  What I do know is that I am more comfortable with who I am than I have ever been.  It is possible to both reject some of Tom's actions, but also understand him, and enjoy his friendship, not as measured by time spend together but by what he wants to give me according to his lights, not mine.

For me, his real gift is understanding, of him and of myself.  It good to feel that there is someone praying for me, whether I deserve it not.  Must I reject such comfort merely because it is not part of my rational world, which does not provide this, and I don't think ever can.  No, not any more.  I can relax and enjoy it, whether it's the prayer or just a mellowness that I will savor.     






 

Incompatibility between Islam and Democracy (In Progress)

12/09/2014

I question the format of this essay, as it's really an outline for a syllabus, a way of approaching how with the increase in advanced technology do we grapple with primitive forces, religious absolutism that can underlie a barbarism that our enlightened mentality can't understand.  Right now the question is whether Islam is inherently so narrow,  so removed from secularism or more enlightened belief systems that we can't defeat the current manifestation, ISIS, the Islamic Caliphate, and still bestow it with all the protections and privileges that this country provides for all under the rubric of "religion."  I will include articles and books that are diametrically opposed to my thesis in the addendum.

This essay refers first to this article (called diaries)  on Dailykos titled, ISIS is Islam, so say the new apostates,   The general attitude of that website has been to castigate those who opposed Islam, such as promoting constitutional prohibitions against Sharia Law -- depicting this as being the work of bigoted narrow minded conservatives.   This was the nature of the first comments that followed my diary, to the point of placing a marker that the essay should be removed from the site.  Reading the comments will give some idea of how this writer was accused of being a bigot, originally with no attempt by those who were part of the Muslim group to address the substantive issues that I made.  Some of the comments did become substantive later on.  After reading the Dailykos article, the theme will continue here.

This essay you are now reading includes the Dailykos essay linked above, along with ancillary material that is still being developed. Part of this presentation is a hesitancy among the Dailykos readers to give support of my diary by official recommends which could be traced to their user name, which may have personal identification.  It could well have been actual fear, as criticism of Islam can be considered an action that must be revenged.  The Fatwah against Salman Rushdie did result in the murder of at least one person, his editor in Japan.  The outrage against the short anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" did result in at least fifty deaths.

In considering the religion of Islam, it must be viewed as a practice- a social movement, but also it's theology- that which scholars within the religion explain are its principles:  The following is from such a source, a colloquy of such Islamic theology Al-Islam org. 
 -----------------

The western powers have some cards up their sleeves that are very readily used against any country that they do not like--cards of human rights, democracy, and minority rights.

Take, for example, the case of the Branch Davidian cult and its leader David Koresh in Waco, Texas. It was a minority religious group. The US government forces put them under siege for 51 days, and finally, on August 17, 1993, their whole compound was burnt down; 95 lives were lost. The US government presented it simply as a "law and order" issue: that a group had piled up arms and ammunitions illegally, and, therefore, the government was justified in taking the extreme action.

 The US public as well as the international community --with all its propaganda apparatus of human rights, democracy and minority rights-- readily accepted that justification. Now if this same case had taken place in Iran with some Bahā'is or in Egypt with some Coptic Christians --that a minority religious group committed illegal action and the government took appropriate action to enforce its laws-- I am absolutely certain that the so-called international community and its media, the UNO, and the human rights organizations would have portrayed the issue as a Muslim country persecuting its non-Muslim minority!

What I mean to say is that if you hear that a member of a minority has been prosecuted in Iran, it does not automatically mean that it is because he is a non-Muslim. It could be that he has committed a crime and has therefore been convicted of that crime. Many groups try to gain political mileage out of such cases; they would exploit it and present it as a violation of human/minority rights.

-------------

This statement conveys the distorted understanding of the United States, our culture and perhaps the entire enlightenment enterprise represented by this statement as being factual:  "The US public as well as the international community --with all its propaganda apparatus of human rights, democracy and minority rights-- readily accepted that justification (for burning the Branch Davidian Compound"

Not only was the raid and slaughter of the Branch Davidians condemned by most Americans, it was similarly refuted broadly by all who are allowed to think about the place of religion, government and freedom of conscience.  This Muslim scholars above could not even accept this reality.  To me this shows that these Muslim intellectuals are so imbued with the concept of  religious authoritarianism such as exists in the Muslim community, that they could not believe that individuals in the West found the destruction of this sect to be abhorrent.
------------------
The following is from a comment from Dailykos comment section that confirms the reality of the consequences of apostasy:

Muslim teaching in most countries is that: 1) the father's religion (not the mother's) determines that of his children, 2) that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim unless he converts to Islam, and that 3) converting away from Islam is a crime -- apostasy (punishable by jail, lashings, or death in some countries). This is not a new interpretation, and it is not associated only with terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda.

This 1978 (original Arabic Document)  by the head of the Fatwa Council at Al Azhar University in Egypt (founded in the 10th century, c.970 AD). Al Azahr has long been widely regarded as one of the highest centers of Islamic teaching in the world. The ruling speaks for itself:

   In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficient the Most Merciful.
    Al-Azhr
    Council of Fatawa.
    This question was presented by Mr. Ahmed Darwish and brought forward by [name obscured] who is of German nationality.
    A man whose religion was Islam and his nationality is Egyptian married a German Christian and the couple agreed that the husband would join the Christian faith and doctrine.
    1) What is the Islamic ruling in relation to this man? What are the punishments prescribed for this act?
    2) Are his children considered Muslim or Christian?     The Answer:
    All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Universe and salutations on the leader of the righteous, our master Muhammed, his family and all of his companions.
    Thereafter:
    This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.
    As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.
    Seal of Al-Azhr
    Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhar.
    Abdullah al-Mishadd (عبد الله المشد‎)
    23rd September 1978.

 ----------------------
As we see the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt and the growth of ISIS,  it is time to look at what Islam means, going beyond the current simplistic view that all religions are beyond criticism of their essential meaning.  The following is an  excerpts are from a scholar of Islamic Studies, Adibah Binti Abdul Rahim, of The International Islamic University Malaysia present the issue clearly.

The Impact of Secularism on Religious Beliefs and Practices  Broken Link

Conclusion (of the article being quoted)

Islam is not compatible with the idea of secularism despite the numerous attempts to reconcile them. We cannot compromise with secular ways and institutions as it will lead to a dilution of Islam in all fields of activity. Muslims should have a full consciousness of their traditions, values, and beliefs in order to free themselves from the dangerous infiltration of  secular and alien influences. They do not need to look for secularism as inspiration for progress and development since Islam itself endorses progress and development within certain limits. Islam also enjoins the use of reason. However, it is considered secondary to Divine guidance, unlike secularism, which gives no importance to Divine guidance; instead it emphasizes on human reason and self-interest as supreme values.

Secularism is completely unfit for Muslim life. It denounces the objective of Islam that is to purify the soul as well as to reform society. In fact, the Qur’Én provides many verses that emphasize the relationship of religion with state and society. Unlike Christianity which has defined for the church a certain domain, that of the salvation of the soul, Islam legislates matters of state and social relations. It leaves human reason and experience to lay down specific institutions, theories, and laws for the Islamic state within its determined philosophy, ideals, criteria, and objectives. Although the Qur’Én does not directly ordain a state for Muslims and does not mention in detail a constitution for an Islamic state, that does not mean that there is no relationship between religion and state. The Qur’Én prescribes certain religious duties, which cannot be fulfilled without the establishment of an
Islamic state....

I want to insert this column written in 2002 by arch conservative Pat Buchanan.  It is laying out the argument whether Islam is inherently brutal, something expressed most famously right after 9-11 by Rev. Franklyn Graham and opposed by President George W. Bush.  Has the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, ISIS changed the equation? As this country considers engaging in a long war with ISIS, the Islamic Caliphate, it seems appropriate to  evaluate whether this violent organization is legitimately an outgrowth of Islam.  The very thought of criminalizing any religion or ideology is anathema to the liberal enlighten sensibilities yet it has been done before.  Here is the link  from the Wikipedia article on the Smith Act, which did exactly this during the Second World War and the Cold War that followed.  The ideologies that underlies of our enemies,, fascism and communism, and the promulgation of them were made a federal crime.  It was deemed that, even though ideological opposites, were both  incompatible with American democracy.

It behooves us to ask whether this applies to one of the world's largest religions,  and then, as we did during earlier times, choose the path that is right for our times.
-------------
This is a review of "Fields of Blood" by Karen Armstrong, that comes to a different conclusion than this essay, that "religions" contain both elements of comity and of violence, and that geo-political forces determine how they will be skewed.   She could very well be right in principle, in the long view.  Yet, there are decisions to be made in this era, this decade, that may have to be more pragmatic, based on the survival of one's country and culture.  One need not assume that Islam is uniquely and intransigently violent to conclude that it must be combated based on strategic ends. 

"Birdman" a personal reaction and something else

12/15/2014

 I wrote the review below, "Personal review of Birdman" a few weeks ago, but only sent it to one man.  We worked together three decades ago in a printing company where our "executive positions" allowed us plenty of time for private conversation.  His real life work is in the theater, writing and directing with his only reward being participation in this art.

 Recent revelations about how the film has been promoted now take precedence over my personal review.  Once a film is "in the can",  after the producers, writers, actors, directors and editors have created their opus, it is now under the control of marketing.  Their goal is to build an audience that will make the investment profitable.

For most "spectaculars," exactly the type of movie that "Birdman" contrasted with theater -- whether live or on film that affects the viewer in meaningful unique ways, these special-effects laden thrillers  can be promoted in any way without damage; as they are made to provide escape, and nothing more.  "Birdman" is different.  It is both powerful and subtle;  an experience that must unfold before the eyes of the individual in the audience.  This powerful subtlety is fragile.  It can be destroyed by including the final scene in the trailer, which is exactly what the company did.

But the last decision of marketers is the most telling.  Winning awards from festivals is a key to box office success.  It turns out that most of these are in categories such as Drama, Musicals or Documentaries, with some getting more entries than others.  So they made the decision to enter this film in the category of "Comedy"  because of less competition.  There are some laughs in the film, but no laugh lines.  It was the laughter that is part of living, even during the most tragic poignant moments.  The writer-director was not comfortable with this categorization, but did not protest.  

Those who expect a comedy may find one in this film, but it is by reducing a work of art to something quite different.  Perhaps if this ploy works, it can increase funding for such gems, knowing that audience will not be limited to those who frequent art houses.  Yep, maybe that's the silver lining.  But, for those who read this, go out and see this film without reading another review.  Take a chance; it may just be a meaningless few hours of noise and dumb jokes, but then again.......  Here's my own review that I guess you should only read after you see the film:

Personal review of "Birdman" A film you should know about......

For details I suggest this link on IMBD,  where you can get a synopsis, summary and every detail about it.   This is not a review, it's sharing with my readers what this meant to me.   I won't even give it a rating, or tell someone they should see it, since for many it will just be a mess of shouting, joking, fantasy and confusion.

For me the film broke through to my core, only possible because at any moment I didn't know what the movie was doing, or where it was going, or how to put a label on it, or understand the people who populated it.  This could be seen as looking at three realities -- blockbuster movies, Broadway dramatic theater, and that plane of existence that we call real life.

The film draws you in using all three modalities, skillfully blended so the shifts are not delineated; rather we are pulled across boundaries by the honesty of those people who have chosen to be actors.  I wonder about those critics who described the film as a comedy, as such a genre, such formulaic interactions designed to bring laughter are not in evidence.  I was drawn into uncharted territory. 

It will grab you or it won't. (BTW, don't watch the trailer as I'm told it destroys the suspense)  Here's a scene when one of the four actresses in the drama in previews is distraught over the crudeness of one of the men in the play, and later, tearfully in her dressing room she confides: "I'm pathetic.  I've always dreamed of being a Broadway actress since I was a little kid, but now I'm here. I'm not a Broadway actress I'm still....just.a little kid.   I just need somebody to tell me I made it.   And then gently, her friend responds simply,"You made it."

Only a week ago learning of the death of an unusual man who I played tennis with wrote this which came to mind as I watched that scene:

One morning when we were partners and I missed a shot, he was playing the stern authority, so with a firm chastising tone called out, "Al, you are a bad boy."

He didn't know, nor did I, that those words would reach to the core of my being.  I couldn't continue on, as I was too deeply hurt, even though intellectually I knew that he was just being Fritz.  So, I turned to him, and said with sincerity, "Fritz, you made me feel bad, please tell me that I'm a good boy."   And without skipping a beat, with the same sincerity, he proclaimed, "Al, you are a good boy."
And then, instantly, I was O.K.

"Birdman" is both the interplay of personal stories, yet also a statement of our times, a truth that only can be expressed by the greatest of art.  This is a movie about how movies are an escape from a reality that is all encompassing,  how true theater can liberate us from the unseen constraints of our existence, that no one escapes from for more than a brief moment.

Or for some of us in just the right frame of mind,  it will last for the two hours experiencing this amazing work.