The “Choc-O-Bama”.

David Brooks views the Israeli invasion of Gaza not in terms of violence, death or chaos, but “psychology”:

This new game isn’t a war of attrition. It’s a struggle for confidence, a series of psychological exchanges designed to shift the balance of morale. The material destroyed in an episode can be replaced, but the psychological effects are more lasting. What is really important is how each episode ends, because the ending defines the meaning — who mastered events and who was mastered by them.

Em-phass-is mine. While there is certainly no clear consensus on what actually defines terrorism, few dispute the essential psychological impact of violent acts as part of the political calculus of the aggressor. For more on that, Clark McCauley wrote an excellent essay on the subject a few years ago. Worth another gander in our current context. But what is Brooks proposing - that raining death and destruction on innocent civilians is justifiable, so long as the aggressor is a state seeking long-lasting “psychological effects”? So long as someone tut-tuts their regrets, “mistakes were made” (if even that much) and quickly moves on to claim victimhood despite vastly disproportionate means and inflicted damage?

How do you know you’re screwed? Bill Kristol predicts your success. Sorry, Israel.

After arguing that the attack on Gaza is, like, totally different from the attack on Lebanon, Kristol reminds us Why We/They Fight:

An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.

But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.

But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.

Yes, a big favor. Surely our close support of Israel no matter what it does (and vice-versa) has improved our relations with the rest of the world! What could go wrong?

Click image to read the whole cartoon. And the little essay the follows it.

I redesigned the In Contempt site: widened the blog space, changed colors, created a new banner, added some plug-ins for sharing and all that social networking crap, plus a plug-in to enhance subscriber flexibility (weeeee, corporatespeak!) - and, uhhhhhh, that’s it. Oh, yeah, updated the software. BO-RING!

But I like it. And really, that’s all that matters.

Star Wars Smoking PSA

What makes it for me is the end, when C3-PO asks plaintively, “R2 - Do you really think I don’t have a heart?”

And, uh, yeah. I quit smoking. Again. Every 2 years or so I go through this again and again. Next time something stressful comes up, I’m gonna find a more interesting addiction. Like, say, cephalerotica.

Glenn Greenwald observes that the disconnect between the American public and its political leadership — most pronounced between rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic members of Congress — is at its most extreme where conflicts between Israel and Palestinian territories is concerned. This disconnect leads to a rather distorted discussion among the military and foreign policy consultants employed by big media news organizations.

Ultimately, what is most notable about the “debate” in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel’s security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it’s often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.

Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It’s the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, it’s American bombs that — with the whole world watching — are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it’s the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.

Yay, we never left high school! And doesn’t it remind you of every election you have ever voted in?

Only weeks after mounting a stupendously uncreative display denouncing all religion in the Washington state capitol building, Freedom From Religion has joined other activist atheists and humanists in a lawsuit against the use of “so help me God” in the oath of office for President.

Meanwhile thousands of Christian, Jewish and Muslim charity organizations are providing food, shelter and clothing for needy individuals and families struck by economic and environmental disasters. Granted, these same religions foment violence, intolerance, and abuse.

But wouldn’t it be great if there were recognizably atheist organizations that performed similar acts of charity and humanitarian service to the people suffering misfortune? What if in July of this year we had a huge push for giving and soup kitchens and all those other displays of generosity we so often see during the winter holidays? After all, it’s not like the homeless and the poor go hungry only between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

For me this is not merely a rhetorical concern - that is, what messages such stupid lawsuits send about the values of atheists and secular humanists. What about where laytheists like yerz truly can donate his dough? Or get more seriously involved? Our society promotes selfish values of materialism and consumption that induce just enough guilt for religionists to purge at the holiday season without seriously addressing the fundamental inequalities of our economy and democracy that make poverty so difficult to escape. There are religious people working all year long to right such wrongs, but where are the atheist and humanist organizations with similar missions? We need to get beyond these petty activities that just piss off taxpayers, regardless of their religious affiliations. Surely I am not the only atheist who saw this article and thought “frivolous lawsuit.”

The New Year - Death Cab for Cutie

There was much to be grateful for this past year, but for some reason I am feeling really cynical about all of it, especially in light of all that went wrong. Nothing like another Middle East conflict to sour my mood.

Um, happy new year?