Yikes and Yuks

Just had a glance over my last few posts. Apparently, I only write when I'm depressed and whiny.

I feel just this way now, as a matter of fact, but I have to laugh (yes, at this line, I am thinking of that Beatles song). My mind really is blown out. Middlesex classes just finished. The weekday class was a failure. The Saturday style didn't translate well at all. Good news is that I feel I know how to fix it.

What's more, I'm totally floundering at work. I can't tell if I'm on the way out or just irrelevant to the proceedings of the business.

Hiring TMI was a good move, but I fear that I'll move someplace else and simply repeat the same pattern that's plagued me up until now. What I want, what I really want, is to run a small business - just me and some other guy, and no limit as limit.

I've slipped back into almost total non-Judaism, which pains me because I have learned so much this past year. One thing I have learned is that when in doubt, read Torah. That's what I am going to do now.

Shalom.

Out of the Whirlwind

I've been meaning to check in for some time now, but I've been so incredibly busy that I am having a hard time keeping up with everything.

Let's catch up on news, first. I am having a third child -- the wife is, actually -- and it's a boy. I'm ecstatic about this, naturally. Emily is getting big. She's at a great age and I'm totally bonkers for her. Hannah is in pre-school, but she is still de facto boss of the house. She's a great kid, and funny as anything.

Work is going OK. I'm still with the same company, but not sure how to move my career ahead. I am going to start dressing more professionally, and see if I can bring an upgraded attitude with me. We're very busy, and our executive team has been all shaken up. If I can keep my job, I think it will be good for my career and my wallet.

APMP Nor'easters has its first-ever symposium this coming week. As president, I have several responsibilities and concerns.

Teaching two classes is difficult. I can't remember names and I have not been preparing as well as I think I need to.

Anything else? My goodness, that's a lot of stuff.

Well, there's plenty of else, but where to start?

Yom Kippur just concluded some hours ago, and I am greatly disappointed in myself. I never let myself be all there this year. I allowed myself to be distracted, I permitted indulging in thoughts of business and other monkeyshines, and I never felt all that guilty about it. So, I see that I have behaved like a jerk but I'm not prepared to do anything about it. Apparently I have become almost comfortable with being a sociopath.

Happy New Year.

Preserving the Trees of Elul

Today’s Shabbat services at Chabad focused on a certain passage from the Parshah (Devarim 20:19-20):

When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to seize it, do not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them, for from it you will eat, and you shall not cut it down; is the tree of the field a man that it should enter the siege before you? Only a tree that you know is not a food tree, it you may destroy and cut down, and build a bulwark against the city that makes war with you, until it is conquered.

Our discussion question, basically, was how is a tree like a man. I realize I am not providing some useful context here about how the question was presented, but the important part is that this was the question we were supposed to ponder individually.

The actual discussion brought up things such as “man, like a tree, creates ‘fruit,’” which is so in issuing children or disciples, performing mitzvot, studying Torah, performing acts of teshuvah, praying to HaShem, and so on. Discussion also focused on the way man develops his Jewish roots in childhood, grows them strong and wide later in life, and yields fruit – see above – through work, study and service. These were nice, meaningful discussions.

I was struck with the context of the passage. What interested me was that the passage concerned the conduct of war. I thought it was important that in a time of war there would be this constraint not to destroy a fruit-bearing tree.

It made me think that we are commanded to keep our aggression in check, to remember that war, though violent by definition, should not descend into all-out brutality, cruelty and destruction. Yes, there is a practical reason not to destroy a fruit-bearing tree: we may feed off of it. And yes, there is a logical reason to preserve such a tree: after all, it won’t suddenly become a warrior fighting against you like a man.

I also thought there were two key spiritual imperatives involved in protecting the fruit-bearing tree. One was the imperative to maintain one’s judgment, particularly one’s ability to distinguish things with real value. The other was the imperative to preserve one’s own stores of energy: if you swing an axe against every tree, you may tire yourself out for an actual opponent!

To me these two imperatives have a special purpose in the month of Elul. As we reflect on the year that’s closing, and on our character development and interactions with fellows, we wage a kind of war against ourselves in which virtually everything about us appears wrong. Why did I act so impulsively, so selfishly? How could I be so insensitive to so-and-so? Why couldn’t I have been more disciplined, more diligent, or more responsible? In this war, we could really become very aggressive against ourselves.

However, even in this war, we can remember to withhold some of our wrath, for we have some fruit-bearing trees that can be preserved. When we reflect on the same year, we can remember our acts of service, kindnesses and lessons learned. And we can let these be as they are, without seeking out their minute imperfections. Criticizing and fretting over every detail of every behavior eventually becomes a waste of energy and a confusion of the true direction one’s teshuvah should take – which is toward HaShem, rather than toward oneself.

So I did not exactly think about how man is like a tree, or a tree like a man. Rather, I thought about how men have, and how they plant, many kinds of tree in a year. It occurred to me that Elul is not about wiping out the past entirely, but creating an environment for its best trees to grow and to develop its yield of fruit.

The principle applies as well to approaching others. For example, maybe one has a dislike of a co-worker. One could realize that even this co-worker has a fruit-bearing tree – a skill, a common interest, a word or deed – that can be found and appreciated. Who knows? By seeing this tree and letting it stand, perhaps a wonderful friendship could result.

Working in Five

My early menopause continues as I try to figure out what to do with my life. I think about what I want to be doing for work in 5 years. That will be 2012. I have a hard time imagining that far ahead, and imagining myself in that world.

If I am happy in 2012 with my work and my life, what is it that gives me joy and satisfaction? Well, I know there’s money. However, I am not thinking about money to be greedy. I just want a steady stream of income that is substantial enough to allow me to save. So, where’s the money coming from? Of course I’ll have a job, but what will I be doing that makes me happy?

As I imagine it, I envision a cause, a goal of some sort. For example, I get pretty charged up at being able to pursue the street betterment cause. I like being an advocate for a cause. And there are several causes that interest me. I see myself doing a combination of desk work and field work. Now I am totally desk-docked, and I don’t like it. I want to go out and visit people, talk to them and get things done.

So, there’s money, social responsibility and interactivity. This is a start, right? I can continue to press this thinking forward and hopefully develop a clearer sense of my occupation, my real occupation.

Robert Johnson, Hire Me! (Re-Released)

I seem to be at another career crossroads. I have talked to the folks at BAE Systems and may be in line for a job as Senior Proposal Manager.

On the up side, I would get a “senior” in my title and there would be an immediate bump in pay – not much, but a bump nonetheless. I would work with some great people on important projects, and my office would be oh-so-much closer to home.

On the downside, I would be under the thumb of another Neal, and I’ll have to start at the bottom of the company totem pole yet again – not desirable! Plus, I would pretty much seal my fate as a proposal guy. That is, unless I eventually go for my own gig, I would be a proposal guy probably for the rest of my career. Of course, if I am going to be a proposal weenie, having the kind of government experience afforded by BAE would invaluable. They do hard-core DOD proposals, which would put me in good proposal stead anywhere.

On the other hand, what if I stay where I am? I expect a bump in pay in the next 6 months or so, bringing me to between 96K and 98K. I could also lobby for a bonus and maybe reel in an additional $500 or $1000. I work in a fun environment in a company that is going public within the next year or so, which presents many financial and perhaps also career opportunities, or so I am told.

The downside is that I see myself getting ever more pigeon-holed as a support guy rather than a leader, as administration rather than management. The commute is so-so: I have had worse, and it may even be better than SimplexGrinnell. I worry that I will never get a chance to move up and be a real corporate leader here. My lack of business experience and knowledge really sticks out here, as does my introverted temperament.

Yet, the longer I stay, the better chance I have of doing some great things, so long as I push for it. If I am silent, MBAs will come in and take the roles I want (whatever they are – I don’t even know!).

So, my choice boils down to: (a) stay and fight for more – a gamble – or (b) leave and resign myself to what I have. If I remain where I am, I have the chance to forge my own path and get the kind of cutting-edge business experience that may be very helpful later on. If I move to BAE, I have the chance to gain some useful experience and position myself as a real proposal manager, which is a position of strength.

The real issue is whether I am on a path to doing the work I want to do – the work that has the money, prestige and excitement I crave – or a path of repeated frustration in my career. Am I giving in to “grass is greener” syndrome and being foolish, or making a smart decision? This is what I cannot seem to resolve within myself. I am always and constantly dissatisfied with where I am, what my title is, how much money I make, what kind of authority I have. It’s a destructive mode of thinking. But let’s look at this objectively:

1. Strength against strength: Senior-level and real government versus advancement potential and general business exposure. Advantage: Leave.
   
2. Weakness against weakness: No autonomy and steady-state versus little authority and significant risk. Advantage: Stay.
3. Strength against weakness: Senior-level and real government versus no autonomy and steady-state. Advantage: Stay.
4. Wildcards: A $105K paycheck, more autonomy than I imagine, better benefits, a sense of future leadership.
   

Conclusion: I should move forward with an interview, full-speed, and get a better sense of the opportunity and the company. If it’s not right, I’ll stay where I am. But I should also start talking with Bob and getting more active in fashioning the role I want to play in the future.

You Don't Know Me

I know how you got here, and who you think I am, but it's someone else.

The Road to Nowhere

I had a lengthy – and, I’ll admit, fun – exchange with a pro blogger on ZNet. I don’t know how I got to this site, but the tone of discussion irked me when I started reading the material there.

Clearly it's a lefty site; there's plenty of the foggy language I remember so well (even fondly) from my grad school days. I still have plenty of liberal leanings in my political/social thought, but I was bugged by reading some of the posts. Why? Because it was all pot-shot stuff, people criticizing as if they only needed to offer opinions and evaluations and no substantive considerations to pragmatism.

As for me, I hope that the path I pursue is constructive. If I don't think you are doing something correctly - and I am in a position to provide criticism - then my obligation is not only to say so but also to explain how I think it should be done. From there, my obligation becomes making this explanation a reality in the world of activity.

On ZNet, I find repugnant the lack of solutions being proposed and the absense of practical grounding. To me, these posts read as smarmy, self-important arguments from a detached and idle class. These writers and posters often seem as though they have no real investment in either the things they criticize or the piecemeal solutions only implied by their commentary.

For example, they feel that the U.S. (and, one must assume, other countries) military actions in Iraq are criminally liable. If this is so, why don't they pursue formal charges? Why don't they petition their elected representatives or run for offices themselves? Why don't they seek to create media campaigns to influence greater public opinion? In other words, why don't they walk their talk?

To me, the great lessons of post-structuralism are lessons about action. These posters on ZNet perhaps don't realize the violence of posting, the assault that writing constitues. One must, in my opinion, assume responsibility for the violence one commits, whether it is the violence of the word, the fist or the gun. All this violence is the same Frankenstein's monster: only make it if you are prepared to follow it to the ends of the Earth.

Below, I have reproduced (though introducing my own edits where I wanted to) the basic narrative in the blog posts between David Peterson and myself.

Sun, 2007-07-08 21:23.
Seeing that this Sunday's New York Times advocated at length for the immediate withdrawal of the occupying military's troops from Iraq -- "without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit" ("The Road Home," July 8) -- perhaps it is worth remembering that, five years ago, there already were a hell of a lot of voices in this world -- even in the largely whacked out fundamentalist republic of America -- who opposed the invasion before it ever began, when opposing it really mattered --

[snip]

Who no doubt would oppose a similar war of aggression against Iran -- under ominously similar scare tactics and sexed-up lies.

And who also opposed the earlier aggressions against Afghanistan. Against Yugoslavia. Against the world. Including you and me.

So you say you want to use military and/or other techniques of destabilization to remove a government, and you'd like to justify it by the conjunction of Lie A, Lie B, Lie C, … etc.?

Who do you call?

The United States of America.

Now why can't the New York Times also call for an inquiry to be opened into the criminality of the individuals most responsible for these acts of aggression?

If you can answer that one, you'll also know why there is very little reason for hope
that the United States won't turn around and do it again.

It’s worth pointing out that this person writes out of Chicago. You’d think he was holed up somewhere in France. That “occupying military” he talks about remains staffed by our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters – staffed by us, you and me, in other words. But “occupying military” sounds sexy and subversive, I suppose, and allows one not to have to worry much about the humanity of the people in the military.

My first post was a ridiculous, sarcastic spoof. What I think I was really trying to challenge, though, was Peterson’s strange implication that Iraq and Saddam Hussein, in particular, were total innocents with no culpability in the military action taken against them by U.S.-led forces.

That Murderous Iraqi Tyrant Should Have Been Left Alone
Mon, 2007-07-09 17:04.
The world should not have interfered with that taunting, evidently dangerous maniac. Instead, the world should have stood by and done nothing, remaining passive and registering (loudly) a self-righteous and intellectually masturbatory moral indignation. Instead, the world should have sat in committee and passed judgment, or maybe it should have taken out an ad in the NYT.

Tell me when it's time to convert to Islam.

Then, to add to a different blogger-on-blogger argument, I posted this.

Hi Pot, It's Kettle ...
Mon, 2007-07-09 20:50.
No apologies here, but what do you think of this report:

TUZ KHURMATO - A suicide truck bomb killed at least 150 people and wounded 250 at a busy outdoor market in the Shi’ite Turkmen village of Amerli south of of Tuz Khurmato (200 km north east of Baghdad) on Saturday morning, police said, according to Reuters and AP. Over 30 houses and 20 shops were leveled in the massive blast, and the wounded had to be transported to hospitals in Tikrit and Kirkuk because the Tuz Khurmatu hospital was understaffed, contributing to the rising death toll. Five people were still missing and unaccounted for, according to VOI. The sectarian and ethnically mixed Tuz region, sandwiched between Kirkuk and Baquba, had recently witnessed increased, deadly activity of Islamic State of Iraq militants, who were possibly on the run from military operations in Baquba and Baghdad.

Will you condemn the actual, human perpetrators for this act? Or will you justify this behavior by saying "bad policy made them do it"? Where is the condemnation of the suicide bombers, of those who encourage such depravity, of the institutions that teach it?

What of this report?

KIRKUK - Four civilians were wounded when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb 25 km west of Kirkuk, police said.

Maybe you don't think some people deserve a dignified answer, but I think planting roadside bombs is a wicked act, especially when civilians are affected by these devices.

So tell me: what have you done to change the bad policies? What would you have me do? Give me some action instead of stale posturing.

Please.

Then Peterson himself got into the act.

Tue, 2007-07-10 00:01.
The former President of Iraq was the leader of a very tyrannical and dangerous regime. No doubt about it.

Now tell me something: How is it that you and I know this? Did his regime kill people? Did it terrorize them? Did it invade foreign countries? Devote an exorbitant percentage of the national resources to building up the means of state violence, including "weapons of mass destruction"?

In other words, aren't tyrannical and dangerous regimes those that really do engage in tyrannical acts and endanger innocent people?

If so, then how would you have the world deal with regimes that do such and such things? Should the world (i.e., the international community, and coalitions of the willing) stand by and do nothing when there are clear cases of tyrannical and dangerous regimes, remaining merely passive and registering merely self-righteous and intellectually masturbatory moral indignation? Maybe even take out ads in the New York Times?

Now tell me something else: What's going on in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq today?

I don't believe that you'll need to convert to Islam to answer these questions.

But you will have to approach them honestly.

And on this count, I have grave doubts.

It’s a good response, attempting to show me the hypocrisy of my view, which was trying to show the hypocrisy of his view, and so on. But I saw his core reasoning as flawed.

Tue, 2007-07-10 12:35.
Let me respond to your last point first, in which you express your "grave doubts" about my personal ability to approach serious questions honestly (unless you were using an ambient "you," as in "everyone").

You don't know enough about me to judge my capacity for honestly approaching matters. I'll tell you this, however: I believe that objectivity is a myth. That is, there is no such thing. When you ask me to approach questions honestly, you really mean approach them from your point of view. While I can respect your point of view, I think it is not only a partial view - as they all necessarily are - but it is also a flawed view.

How are you defining terms like "tyrannical"? In these tyrannical regimes you speak of - do you dare to write their names? - who are their single rulers, the ones vested with absolute power and exercising such power unjustly or cruelly?

Define your terms wisely, sir, and then see how they apply not to one country, one ruler or one "side." To me, this seems the more honest approach. Are you willing to take it?

You ask what's going on in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq today? I say that armies are fighting there, staffed by some very good people, people you know and like; some obnoxious assholes; and some people that intend harm to you, whether or not you are sitting in an office in Chicago feeling good about your self-defined honesty.

Now, look at all of the governments directing these armies. Tell me, which one does not kill people? Which one does not terrorize either a portion of its own citizens, its neighbors or the world at large? Which one has not invaded foreign countries or supported invasion? Which one has not devoted an exorbitant percentage of national resources to building up the means of state violence?

Which government is this? Answer this and then tell me how the world should respond.

The "objectivity is a myth" bit was the really important part, but Peterson decided to duck these points and instead build a circumstantial case.

Tue, 2007-07-10 16:44.
But your original post ("That Murderous Iraqi Tyrant Should Have Been Left Alone") was dishonest. Unless you'd like to cop a plea of mere provocation. Nothing wrong with that.

So you were either sincerely provocative or -- as I suspect by your sarcasm to the effect that one tyrant in particular should have been "interfered with," and your closing remark "Tell me when it's time to convert to Islam" – you very well may object to a previous murderous Iraqi tyrant, but you don't honestly object to tyranny per se. Particularly Murderous Super Tyrants.

There is one, and only one, way to determine that a regime is tyrannical, murderous, dangerous, and the like: By what it actually does.

Question: On or about October 7, 2001, or March 18, 2003, which regimes in this world possessed both the intent and the means to conduct their affairs tyrannically, murderously, and to the endangerment of innocents? And not just internally, either. But internationally? Of course, there was more than one regime on this list. But the list is hierarchical: Some regimes would have ranked higher than others. Qualitatively as well as quantitatively so.

Another question: On July 10, 2007, which regimes in this world possess both the intent and the means to conduct their affairs tyrannically, murderously, and to the endangerment of innocents? And in exactly the same manner?

Presuming that you yourself give an honest hoot about the issues you've raised about murderous tyrants,....

The thought Peterson didn't consider? That I didn't see tyranny in the U.S. actions with respect to Iraq. This is why I responded as follows.

Tue, 2007-07-10 17:28.
Of course my original post was primarily sarcastic. Don’t be thick.

If anything, your refusal to engage the plain points of my previous post suggests that you have your own issues with the truth. You seem perfectly fine with acts of real and threatened aggression so long as the perpetrators are not American.

You accuse me of not objecting to tyranny per se; I accuse you of not objecting to aggression and hatred.

As for me, I certainly do object to tyranny. You, however, misuse the term, as tyranny generally refers to a government in which a single ruler has absolute power and exercises that power unjustly or cruelly. I don't see how the U.S. president is currently vested with absolute power, and I ask you to justify your use of the term. I don't think you can, if you're honest.

I give more than a hoot about the issues raised about murderous tyrants. Here’s a challenge for you: make a list of 5 verified tyrannical acts performed or authorized directly by Saddam Hussein. Then, list 5 comparable acts performed directly by the current U.S. president or his most recent predecessors.

I thought this was a decent challenge, but Peterson chose not to respond. Too bad. I wanted to ask on the next go-'round whether it would be preferable to be a U.S. soldier captured by the insurgents in Iraq or an Iraqi insurgent captured by U.S. soldiers. This question might have clarified some issues of where evil lies.

Scare Me Into Training

This story was one of the reasons I decided to start training more seriously for my upcoming marathons!

Triathlete died of a heart attack
He collapsed at Cohasset event
By Mac Daniel, Globe Staff July 10, 2007

A 38-year-old triathlete who died during the inaugural Cohasset Triathlon on Sunday suffered a fatal heart attack while swimming, race organizers said yesterday.

Although race organizers and police declined to identify the victim at the request of his family, records from the race identified him as Joseph J. Lyons Jr., 38, of Newton Highlands.

"We're not interested in speaking to the press at all; we have no comment," said a woman who answered the phone yesterday at Lyons's address. Cars were parked in front of the family home for much of yesterday, and neighbors contacted by phone also declined to comment.

Lyons was listed as a certified public accountant who previously lived in San Francisco.

Organizers said they were well prepared for the event and that conditions on the water were good. They said three people, including Lyons, were plucked from the water after experiencing distress during the triathlon, including a 40-year-old woman who remained hospitalized yesterday after suffering cardiac distress and a 29-year-old man who was treated and released at South Shore Hospital.

More than 700 athletes participated in the event, known as a sprint triathlon because its three events cover shorter race distances than some other triathlons, including a quarter-mile swim, 12.5-mile bike race, and 3.2-mile road race. The event drew first-time triathletes as well as more experienced participants, organizers said.

The race began at 8 a.m. Sunday with clear skies, a light wind, the temperatures in the 70s, and a water temperature of 64 degrees. It raised more than $45,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

The event was sanctioned by USA Triathlon, the sport's governing body based in Colorado. Bill Burnett, the race director, said in a statement yesterday that an emergency room physician, five paramedics, and two advanced life support ambulances were on hand at Sandy Beach for the swimming leg. Three Cohasset harbormaster boats, one volunteer personal boat, and eight kayakers were also on hand, Burnett said.

Lyons was taken ashore during the first of six heats in the swim leg of the competition. After being alerted by several racers that Lyons was in distress, a harbormaster boat picked him up and took him to the beach, where he was met by emergency medical personal.

"Upon arrival at the beach the victim went into cardiac arrest," Burnett said. CPR was performed, and the victim was taken to South Shore Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The fatality in Cohasset has cast a spotlight on the grueling sport, which has been growing in popularity.

Lyons's death was the third in the nation this year at a sanctioned triathlon event, according to officials from USA Triathlon. The other deaths occurred at triathlons in Tampa in April and in Missouri three weeks ago, said Kathy Matejka, the group's events services director. As with Sunday's fatality, the other two occurred on the swim course. Two deaths occurred in 2006, also on the swim course. Matejka said.

Many newcomers are joining USA Triathlon's ranks, where the annual membership is expected to pass 100,000 this summer. In 2004, the group had 1,500 sanctioned events and last year surpassed 2,000 events for the first time.

Tragedies like the one in Cohasset are "something that's always on our mind," Matejka said.

Race organizers had to submit a safety plan to USA Triathlon for an event to be sanctioned. "We're extremely confident that all the preparations were done properly," she said.

With the growing popularity of triathlons , Matejka said USA Triathlon's officials have informally discussed creating a system that would require participants to have completed a number of smaller triathlons before being allowed to register for others.

Race officials said that they did not know Lyons's experience, but that the problem of novice triathletes joining the sport is a concern.

"You do need to do the right work, or you're going to put yourself at risk," said T.J. Murphy, editor in chief of Triathlete magazine. He said summer triathlons are more taxing, especially with extreme sodium loss.

Ego Is "Out of the Office"

Recently, I have decided to give my ego a vacation. I have tried to act on this as well, but I’ve been only somewhat successful. The basic idea is that I forget about my personal vanities and the whims of my heart, and just give a rest to all that “be what I want to be” stuff.

I know, it sounds strange – especially in this day and age – for one to strive to reject following his own heart’s desires. But my conclusion of late has been that no lasting goodness has ever really come to me by following my heart.

Most of my life I have insisted that “because I want to” was a good enough reason for me to undertake virtually any course of action. What’s more, I refused to have my decisions scrutinized or questioned by anyone.

So I have lived a life giving primacy to the dictates of my ego, and at 37 and a half, I am finally considering “re-assigning” my ego, not affording it broad influence over my days and nights any longer.

How will I know what to do? I’ll listen better to Torah and the sages. And I’ll improvise: before I act, I’ll pause and try to understand what seems to be happening and what’s really happening, and I’ll choose the ethical path.

Sounds easy, but already I know how difficult it is. Almost every moment of the day calls free will into the scene. Will I eat that ice cream or do some work? Will I indulge in daydreams or occupy my mind with something of value? These are choices that have to be made over and over, constantly throughout daily life.

Hopefully, writing this down and then posting it is part of the choice I am making to strive for ethical improvement. Sometimes there’s a close resemblance between the right thing to do and personal vanity. I suppose time and my labor will together reveal the true nature of this post.

Postscript, September 22, 2007: See my post, "Out of the Whirlwind." Ego stayed aboard and exacted some revenge on me.

Free Speech It Ain't

Here’s a nice, little journalistic tidbit out of Azerbaijan, an oil-rich country north of Iran:

Baku Appeals Court here Friday approved on the Preliminary Civil Court verdict against officials of Azerbaijan Republic's San'at Qezti for offending Islamic sanctities.

According to Baku media sources, the Appeals Court has rejected the appeals request filed by Rafik Taqi, the writer of the blasphemous article, and the Editor in Chief of the said biweekly, Sedaqat Uqli, both of whom have been sentenced to three- and four-year prison terms respectively.

The appeals court of the two was held in absentia of the culprits and in the presence of a jury.

The West inclined low circulated San'at Qezty that is published once every two weeks published an insulting article against Islamic sanctities, including Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) last fall, that raised the outrage and the Azeri pious individuals, intellectuals, and various political, social and cultural circles in Azerbaijan Republic ever since then.

To sum up the article: A newspaper writer and editor said something that offended a group of Muslims. They were tried, convicted, and sentenced, and their latest appeal happened without them in the courtroom. It’s unclear whether “the culprits” are in jail or hiding out in another place.

Thank goodness there was a jury hearing the case. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been fair.

Gotta love the “West inclined low circulated” bit in this piece - way to propagandize! You must really feel secure in your way. Yeah ... really ... secure.

Whatever "blasphemy" these poor fellows wrote and authorized, it has apparently boiled the blood the Baku’s pious for something like nine months now. (Puking sounds, to be translated as moral indignation, e.g., "give me a break!")

An article like this reminds me of why I am glad to live in the United States and to have been born a Jew and not a Muslim.

Mediocrity: Underrated?

While running - slowly - this morning, I ended up having one of those epiphanies that must surely afflict all the mediocre. Maybe I'll call it "having a Salieri," after the great mediocrity portrayed in the movie Amadeus. I just realized, and acknowledged, that not only am I not as good (smart, successful, impressive, etc.) as I always thought, but I may not be that good at all in the first place.

If this is true, well, at least I won't have to worry about being an underachiever. Ha ha, very funny, ha ha.

Anyway, I decided not to resign myself to this thinking. I decided not to decide it's true. Instead, I chose to understand that my life remains in a state of transition, which makes it unfair to judge it definitively at this time.

I also felt that continuing to work hard in all things would pay off. People who really work hard and dedicate themselves to projects that connect with others ultimately become recognized as the achievers, as the ones whose lives have meaning, substance and value.

What's the bottom line? I may have a mediocre intelligence, but it's manic - that's different, at least.

Fat Again!

Yep, it's true. I'm between 178 and 180 pounds. Of course, I'm still running, but more slowly!

I'm training for Bay State again. I know I can run under 4:15 and perhaps under 4:00. I'll need to weigh under 155, though. Eating like a hog needs to stop.

G-d, Religion, Atheism - Textuality

Happy New Year.

I hope that 2007 turns out to be less tumultuous than 2006. Some very good moments – Emily’s birth; some very bad moments – the argument with Becky on Rosh Hashanah; some success – the APMP presidency; and some hope – studying Pirkei Avot with a Chabad rabbi.

I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins’s The G-d Delusion. It’s a good way to test and define the faith I have been working to cultivate. I won’t give his precise argument – the title of his book does that, anyway. I appreciate the challenge offered by the book, even if the voice reminds me of everything that I associate, negatively, with British intellectualism. A kind of mean-spirited, elitist polemic presented to be wit.

Yet as a result of what I have read so far, I am more and more coming to conclude that, to twist a familiar saying, “The man who believes in G-d’s existence and the man who doesn’t are both right.” Maybe G-d, the One I hope will inhabit the place I am building in my heart, will exist only for me and only in the way I “construct” him. Hence, the “delusion” that Dawkins refers to, the self-reflecting belief, or fiction, that the constructed G-d preceded the constructor and, indeed, had constructed him instead.

But maybe that G-d, in that reality, my reality, exists precisely as He should, as He always has. There is no outside-text. The universe, even the one Dawkins imagines, is a text. It is created and expressed in/through language. The textual, textualized universe depends on the conception of an external creator. This universe only is if it is authored, if it is understood to be authored.

Once the universe, any universe, is understood to be authored or even understood to be understandable, we commune and communicate with transcendence (divinity, if you will) and its intimations. G-d exists, as do each and all of us, in the text(s) we create, review, revisit, revise, erase and supplement. He appears, and moves, through a mirror in and of language; He observes, intervenes in and comments on the quotidian fiction(s) we make from Shabbat to Shabbat.

Neither science nor religion is adequate by itself to explain the universe. It is textuality that provides the necessary language and concepts, the ones that animate the others.

Happy New Year, whatever year you make.