A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME

The recent arrest of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan is yet another cultural difference between east and west. Gibbons, a 54 year old English teacher at Unity High School in Khartoum was arrested for holding a competition in her class for naming the class bear, allowing it to be called Mohammad. The Muslims are extremely sensitive to any depiction, religious or not, of their prophet. One merely has to remember the Danish cartoon riots and how the cartoons of Mohammad inflamed the Middle East.

While I am sympathetic to religious differences and respect cultural beliefs, the Danish fiasco will always be an event underestimated by world, but to me, it is a major point of reference. Depictions insulting another culture are distasteful and unnecessary. But I find it so hypocrtical, in fact socially schizophrenic, to detain or violently riot against irrelevant cartoonists or teachers on the one hand, yet on the other hand casually and unapologetically ridicule the 'infidels'. It is as if the insensitivities of a cartoonist's depiction of Mohammad are completely divorced from the insensitivities of burning an American or Israeli flag.

When Hezbollah guerillas march over an Israeli flag, is it not demeaning and highly offensive to a Jew? Is the Star of David and blue and white colours not of religious and emotional meaning to the Jewish people? Similarly, America may have divided church and state, but the stars and stripes are ideals beyond red, white and blue. To Americans, atheist or religious, the American flag is a belief in everything they hold true for which many have died in pursuit of its ideals.

Until the Muslim world collectively starts to show a fraction of sensitivity to other cultures, their protests and over-reactions to those demeaning their culture will have little credibility. In printing this article, I like to follow a habit of placing a picture suitable to the content. In deciding whether to place a picture of the Mohammad cartoon or a burning flag, I opted for neither. Denying genocides, declaring a nation the 'great Satan', burning flags or belittling prophets all have a common denominator- incitement of hate. I won't fall for that trap.

THE LEGACY OF RHODES

A Greek shopkeeper sprawls his fake goods on the cobblestone streets, waiting for the new batch of tourists to disembark from the cruise liner. For the tourists, Rhodes probably is just another stop remarkably similar to all the other Greek Islands visited, but this is merely on the surface. Behind the neon lights of the bars, stand crusader buildings surrounded by ancient walls, reminiscent of Acre or Jerusalem. On the doorpost of the shopkeeper’s arched cove, are scratches where a Mezuzah once was. In the public square, so aptly named after the Jewish martyrs, where children now play, stands a lone monument to a community perished through war. For this remote island on the tip of the Aegean Sea was once home to a Sephardic community, rich in culture and deep in history.

There has been a Jewish presence in this area of the world since Greco-Roman times. Following the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, the Ottomans, seeking skilled professionals in building its empire, welcomed Jewish refugees into its empire. Rhodes, a port town conquered by the Ottomans in 1522, saw an influx of Spanish Jews during this time. The community, carrying a heritage from the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry, flourished for 400 years under Ottoman rule.

At its peak, with only 4 000 souls, the community had 6 synagogues, Sephardic Yeshivot and a Chief Rabbinate. The Jews mainly stayed in the Jewish Quarter of the old town, known as La Juderia in Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), which can be described as a ‘Mediterranean Shtetl’. With the exception of a few isolated incidents of anti-Semitism, such as the infamous Rhodes Blood Libel, the community lived in relative harmony with its Muslim and Christian neighbours.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, Rhodes fell under Italian colonisation. As is the history of the Jews everywhere, economic deprivation forced many of the youth to seek new opportunities or follow their relatives to Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, the United States and South America. As the century progressed, the community gradually declined and eventually was exterminated in Auschwitz in 1944, barring 151 survivors.

As for the emigrants, they set up a new Diaspora in their host lands. Despite the challenges of adaptation, Ladino remained the home language, Sephardic recipes were not forgotten, the community remained tight-knit, and new synagogues, schools and institutions were built in accordance with the Sephardic tradition.

Ironically, war and economic opportunities in the 1960’s and 1970’s again dispersed many of the second generation of the Rhodes Diaspora to countries such as South Africa and Belgium. Today, there are communities in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Rio de Janeiro and Brussels while only a few remain in the DRC and Zimbabwe.

To its Diaspora, Rhodes is not just a place but rather a state of mind. It is a sense of nostalgia to Ladino expressions, vava’s (grandmother) home-baked delicacies, and papu’s (grandfather) canting of Sephardic prayers. This romantic longing to a community destroyed has sparked a yearning to keep its traditions alive. In America, foundations have been established to preserve its heritage. On the island today, which is under Greek sovereignty, a small community remains to run the newly established Jewish museum, upkeep the cemetery and keep the only remaining synagogue, the Kahal Kadosh Shalom Synagogue (built in 1577), open for pilgrims and summer tourists. The synagogue is listed by the World Monument Fund as one of the 100 Most Endangered Sites in the World, bringing worldwide attention to its necessary restoration.

Time erodes communal memory. With every generation, the children of Rhodes are dispersing and diluting within a more dominant contemporary Jewish culture. Like Yiddish, Ladino is a language spoken by grandparents, understood by their children and vaguely recognised by their grandchildren. Perhaps this romantic longing cannot last forever. Yet the legacy of Rhodes is a reflection of the national Jewish psyche. Despite the difficulties of carrying a tradition to new continents and being a minority within a minority, the Rhodes Diaspora exists today. So too, despite 2000 years of exile and all historical certainties, the Jews exist today and still long for Jerusalem. It is no co-incidence that Rhodes is called ‘La Chica Yerushalayim’- the small Jerusalem

THE ANNAPOLIS 500

For months, Condoleezza has been mustering all her political resources for a conference to finally implement, or rather re-invent, the now defunct road map on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Annapolis, November 2007, will be a 'hail Mary' throw for the Bush administration that ends in 12 months time and heralds the beginning of Bush's historical legacy.

For all parties, it is a do or die situation. Olmert's fractionalised government is hanging on by the skin of its teeth after its dismal public support record. Months ago, a poll placed his support in the single digits. Static results from Annapolis could render an even more static government without a vision, causing the coalition partners to jump ship for new elections. For Abbas and the PA, coming home empty handed with no results will render the PA a lame duck de facto government which would inevitably give Hamas a stronger ideological grounding in the West Bank, perpetuating the internal conflict.

Yet with all these chips on the table, there is a minimal chance of actual success from this conference. No side has the practical logistics or political resources to ensure a deal of Palestinian statehood within the proposed 6 month time frame. Any state created within this time will have the sovereignty and political clout of the Siam government.

The Annapolis 500 is a race with no poll position, no chequered flag and no champagne. In this race, there will be no winner, only relative losers.

HOLLYWOOD IN A PITA

Pop culture, a super-size version of soap-operatic and punchline comic entertainment is a response to the culture of the day. High level politics can be manifested in 99 red balloons, the sinking of the Titanic can also have the greatest love story ever told, and a famine in Africacan sell a few records. Nothing wrong with that!

In the past few days, I have watched a few programs on TV that have attempted to reconcile the War in Iraq, terrorism and Islamophobia into the mainstream popular entertainment. Movies, such as American Dreamz and Pretty Persuasion, subtly try to expose the awkward relationship between America and the Muslim world since 9/11.

Popular culture as reflection of the times is nothing new, especially for anyone of the 60’s and 70’s where the Vietnam War shaped the culture and the sexual and drug liberation in San Francisco found its way into the songs of the Beatles. Today, Hollywood is trying dismally to do the same thing, by attempting to incorporate world events into prime time shows. A token Iraqi soldier in the show Lost is a prime example.

Hollywood’s infatuation with random placements of this east/west divide through the means of a camera, by placing token Muslims and random debates about Islamophobia in movies and TV shows, perhaps is a reflection of America’s discomfort around the issue and of its failure to come to terms with the changing world.

But by definition, popular culture does not set the trend and merely reflects it. Even so, movies like Three Kings, and movies with even subtle references to terrorism, such as Inside Man (where the police confuse a Sikh for a terrorist) fall far short from the cult-like movies like Apocalypse Now.

This awkward reflection of contemporary issues reminds me of Al Jolson dressing up as a minstrel as a response to the racial inequality of the day which is as out of place as a black boy sitting at the table of a white family in an I&J Family Meal advert. Perhaps then, pop is a reflection of contemporary culture, which is false and totally misunderstanding as to why there is global chaos in the first place.

THE MENSHIVIK REBUTTAL

My esteemed colleague El Hermo has written an article entitled “Resistance” on his blog Casa Del Hermo to which I feel an unnecessary need to add my thoughts to this matter.

Indeed, let me start off by saying that I greatly respect El Hermo’s writings and analytical views. As he well knows, I share many of the same views as his. In his article, Resistance, he refers to the recent Limmud program in Johannesburg which was an immense success and opened the door of debate in our community which has largely been closed in recent years.

In the spirit of Jewish debate, I would like to pose a thought on the matter. As a culturalist, and someone who holds Jewish culture at the core of my identity, I applaud the organisers of the Limmud program for exposing the cultural depth of our community and regret that I did not attend the program. As such I do not take issue with the program itself.

However, for argument’s sake, I question the notion of an orthodox hegemony, alluded to by El Hermo, suggesting that there is a shift to the right in our community which is, prejudicial and isolationist in nature. While this is true, the exact opposite can be said as well. There is also an underlying tone in our community which is prejudicial to and, dare I say, xenophobic of the ‘religious right’. I cannot back this up with statistical or empirical evidence but rather through disposition.

It is not uncommon in our community to call one ‘mishuga frum’ or to make the clichéd jokes on the frummers breeding like rabbits or that the hole in the cloth is a michitza during sex. While these jokes may seem lighthearted, they stem from a fear and misunderstanding of the religious right. So where does this leave us?

It is a classic form of a thesis antithesis debate, which ultimately leads to a synthesis. The synthesis is that our community is largely segregated, geographically, ideologically and economically, to an extent, and there are fears and prejudices on both sides of the M1 which we all need to overcome. However, considering that the traditional Litvish strand of Judaism is the dominant piece of the South African Jewish pie, and considering that they are the overwhelming voice of the Jewish community, they have a heavier burden not to discriminate or isolate different groups in our community, whether they are Chabadniks, Israelis, liberals or apathetic Jews.

One could compare this duty to the duty that the ANC has in not turning South African politics into a one party state. We are, for that matter, not a one party community.

UMSHINI WAM
Jacob Zuma: A Rebel without Applause

Running on empty is a price we have to pay for the few to come to power. Collective bargaining has somehow metamorphosed into collective politics. With the never-ending strikes, from security guards to public servants to the most recent petrol crisis, one has to wonder whether these actions are being orchestrated or encouraged by the comrades in the “politburo” of COSATU. Co-incidentally, the tripartite alliance’s National Velvet, Jacob Zuma, is picking up pace before the turn of the ANC elections in Polokwane at the end of this year. Is there a correlation between the two?

In looking at the answer conversely, one cannot say that Zuma, the candidate for the people, has not gained political favour from COSATU’s verbal purge of the traditional Xhosa Nostra ANC leadership, specifically Thabo Mbeki. As such, the agitation of strikes and riots can only be political ammo for the worker’s hero, Zuma, a man of the street. Whether he is involved, tacitly or by proxy, in the internal strikes is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he is gaining from the witch-hunting attack on the capitalist Mbeki/Sexwale camp to such an extent Tokyo is being
manoeuvred out if the race entirely.

But what is the price of power? If power is to be gained by all means necessary, including mass action and boycotts, even at the risk of bruising the South African economy, then whoever does so is a rebel without applause in my eyes. Drop your “Umshini’s” comrades, the struggle is over. We need leaders, not rebels.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

When the towers of the World Trade Centre came crashing down, the fear on the faces of those running, those jumping to a certain suicide and those covered in a cloud of dust, told us exactly who the victims were that day. On September 11, we all had a classic view of who the bandits and sheriffs were. Six years on, with the war in Iraq, the rise in anti-Semitism and the hot topic of Islamophobia, it seems the roles of the classic sheriff, bandit game have been reversed.

The saddest thing though is that not only are the western governments considered the bandits these days, but western culture as a whole is ashamed of itself and apologetic for its own values. Our values of freedom, equality and liberty of the individual are the greatest strength and weakness of the western world. But because of the blunders in Iraq on the west’s behalf, matched against the religious zeal of Islamic fundamentalism, it seems as though the western world has become remorseful for its own existence.

After September 11, Muslim communities had a heavy onus of rooting out terrorism from Islam, disassociating themselves from fundamentalism and condemning radicalism. Rather, the opposite has occurred. Western society has had to apologise for its very nature. Our obsession with individuality and liberty has backfired, deliberately or by circumstance, to make us into eternal apologists for our beliefs so as not to be politically incorrect.

Straight after the Madrid bombings, Spain, in a climate of anxiety, immediately changed her government and withdrew troops from Iraq. Fundamentalists in France soon after warned of further bombings should the French government go ahead with banning head scarves in public schools. These events should have unified their respective nations into a common call of solidarity against violent blackmail, but instead, the west went on its own crusade of self-introspection. The west’s internal psyche of rationalism and deliberation posed questions on itself, asking “If these guys are willing to blow up hundreds of people without remorse, then surely we have done something to displease them to deserve such a reaction?”

This political bashfulness was most evident in the Mohammed cartoon fiasco. An irrelevant little Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet, and with a touch of spin by instigators, provoked mass riots in the Middle East and attacks on Scandinavian embassies, so much so that European leaders had to apologise for the cartoons. The fact that the cartoons are controversial and inappropriate is immaterial, considering the Arab media have a no-holds-barred approach to attacking the revered values of the west. What is depressing is that European leaders had to apologise for their values of freedom of speech even though they were not remotely responsible for the cartoons.

Perhaps the reason why America and the west are losing the war on terror is because our society is detached from and rueful for our values, while our radical Islamic counterparts have been unrelenting in theirs. When a detainee is under hostage for so long, they begin to lose hope of their own beliefs and sympathise with the hostage-takers demands. Yes, the west has made mistakes in the past, but we should not be under duress to apologise for our existence and values.

A TRIBUTE TO TONY

Tony, as I call him, or "Mista Blair" as he is affectionately called by Robert Mugabe, has recently taken on his new role in heading the quartet Middle East envoy after being Prime Minister for 10 years in a Labour government.

While some in the streets, from London to Beirut, have called for his blood, and although he resigned owing to low scores in the opinion polls and amongst the Labour back-benchers, I still consider him the only political giant of this day and age.

How can someone be a pragmatist, yet an idealist? How can someone be a liberal with conservative values? Blair is that anomaly who has turned politics on its head in the past 10 years and has redefined and reinvigorated Britain to become, once again, one of the centres of the world.

History can only determine his legacy. Many will see his political career tainted by Iraq and the War on Terror. But in a world of clashing ideologies, from neo-conservatives to Islamic fundamentalists, Blair is the only man who sits in the middle and can see the reality of the situation reasonably but still see the broader picture. He has balanced his steadfastness in the face of terror, his support of principles of a free and open society, and his understanding of the importance of Africa and global warming against the uncertain chaos of this world today. And in my history books, he will be written next to other great leaders living in adverse times, such as John F. Kennedy and Winston Churchill.

I doubt Blair will change the face of the Middle East, or even be successful in bringing all parties to one table. But in this day and age, he is the only leader fit for the job. Good Luck Ton.

THE NEW ARMED STRUGGLE

I hate discussing crime. First of all, it is a perpetually depressing topic of a dinner conversation which leads to no result other than despair. Secondly, discussing crime seems to pigeonhole one into the DA loving, Hyde Park shopping, 94.7 listening white South African who lives in a kraal mentality, out of touch with other existing issues such as inequality, AIDS, township crime and the realities of South African life.

But considering I run this blog, no-one can stop me from throwing a spanner in the works and discussing crime with the unusual twist of actually providing, or attempting to provide, a solution to the problem.

The solution to our problem in South Africa lies partially in the military. Why only partially? Because the roots of crime must be addressed, through education and employment opportunities, which is a topic of conversation for another time. But at the moment, our armed forces are largely out of work, barring our AU commitments in central Africa, Sudan and of course along the Beit Bridge border. I cannot understand why it has not even been a topic of conversation in the daily papers for the military to become more involved in our domestic urban war. This is not to say that there must be a military state of emergency, but why can’t the military help carry the burdens of the police by assisting in road blocks and other minor tasks, leaving the police officers to devote more time to paperwork?

I can understand why public opinion would be reluctant to see “Caspers” and rifles back on the street, as it is a reminder of our violent past. Also, perhaps the reason we don’t see the army tackling crime is the same reason why we did not see Nevirapine in government hospitals for such a long time - the government has a hear no evil, see no evil domestic policy.

Amending legislation to empower the military to assist the police and placing some of the military’s capabilities (very restrictively) under the Minister of Safety and Security, is by no means a declaration of a state of emergency nor will it incite a Musharaf styled coup. But what about basic freedom and the Constitution’s proportionality test? Well I would rather have a corporal holding a rifle in Hillbrow than a Nigerian holding a Kalashnikov to my head.

THE STATE OF THE UNION

Cosatu’s role in South African politics over the past few years has been greatly beyond its scope. More specifically, their involvement in playing party politics within the echelons of the ANC has been pyrotechnic to say the least.

I admit that I have not been following the recent public servants’ strike in the past few weeks. Regardless of a need to study the technicalities of the strike in detail, and even though I sympathise with the public servants who have a right not to live on peanuts, my prejudice over Cosatu’s role in contemporary politics already has been drawn based on the past conduct of the trade union.

I have no doubt that this strike is another reflection of Cosatu’s current leadership’s ambitions. They are trying to flex their muscle in the run up to the ANC elections at the end of this year and indeed, to show that they have the power to bring this country to a standstill. I believe that the strikers have a right to receive an increase, but I fear that Cosatu are using the strike as a political tool and will continue to do so until the 2009 national elections.

As a social democrat, I have no antagonism towards the existence of unions and I recognise the inalienable right of collective bargaining in the interests of class fairness. As such, unions by nature are representative of their respective work industries.

However, I remain sceptical when a unionist group uses Marxist doctrines in dictating how a country should be run and who should be its next President. Cosatu has been a key player in the Mbeki/Zuma split. Even though the group is 2 million strong, they are out of their jurisdiction in this regard. The church and religious councils, despite their sheer numbers, do not play a role in the tripartite alliance or in ANC in-house politics and neither should Cosatu.

When Cosatu makes statements on international policy, with regard to Israel, or statements with regards to Presidential support, they go beyond being a representative union. If they want to play politics, they should put their name on the ballot sheet and not do it by proxy.

SO WHAT'S ALL THIS FUSS ABOUT HAMAS?

Events in the Gaza Strip over the past few days have been most interesting. Nothing, from reality tv to mass strike action, is spontaneous. Hamas's coup provides no exception.

In the past week, the so-called Palestinian unity government collapsed as fast as nun entering a strip club. This collapse was by no means spur-of-the-moment. Ismail Haniyeh, or Isy as his friends affectionately call him, did not wake up one morning and decide to gather a band of chaps together to picket at the local Fatah offices.
No, not at all.

Rather it was a swift strategic take-over of Gaza in less than a couple of days, planned months before hand with deliberation and cunning political manoeuvring. The intricacies of these plans provided Hamas with its own version of "shock and awe" on the Fatah/PA security force in Gaza.

But what Hamas has done is not new and it is quite simple. They are attempting to consolidate their power in the strip, under the auspices of providing order to the gang run town. The Bolsheviks did it during Red October by storming the provisional government's parliament. The Germans did it in 33', by using the burning of the Reich Stag fiasco as a prelude to enact emergency powers and stifle any dissent.

Hamas's chess-like moves were no doubt planned with such a purpose. I even suspect that the capturing of BBC journalist Alan Johnson a couple of months ago was orchestrated behind the scenes by Hamas and his release, which is imminent, would be used as political ammunition after the Gaza take-over so that Hamas could say to the west "Hey, although we just staged a coup, we not so bad as you guys make us out to be."

Abbas's unsure response has shown how taken back Fatah are over what Hamas has done. His Kerensky-styled government has taken drastic and paranoid measures to limit the coup from spreading into the West Bank by arresting Hamas politicians and breaking almost all ties with the terrorist group. I am sure Hamas took such responses into account when planning their coup de tat.

The question is, so now that they got Gaza what are they going to achieve? In all probability they will try fortify their position in Gaza over the next few months. Within the next 12 months, Hamas will make a move by either attempting a sequel in the West Bank, with the political weight of Gaza behind them in their political hostile take-over bid, or they could use Gaza as a springboard for Iranian Shihab rockets and further instigate Israel and surrounding powers into an inevitable and strong-handed retaliation.

We have an interesting chess game ahead.

Mach and Saddam

A POST MODERN ORTHODOX JEW

Apikoros or Apikorsim is a word loosely thrown around today to call someone we dont like or has different, less religious views, than ours. Like so many words in the Judeo street colloquialisms today, Apikoros is another word that many use but few actually know its origins.

I was reading the other day that the word Apikoros derives from the Epicurean school of thought in the Hellenstic period. The Epicureans believed in the pleasures of the flesh and consequently those Hellenistic Jews who were associated with such Greek culture adopted such a name, I doubt by choice.

This word reminds me of the rigid social regiments in the small Jewish population of Joburg. With a community so relatively small, there seems to be underlying divisions between such a monogenous community. A Jew from Crawford is immediately catergorised as that type of Jew while a Yeshiva Jew is immediately categorised as this type of Jew. It is a society where one is defined by what side of the M1 one lives on.

It seems as though playground rules at school have been extended to Jewish life in Joburg. In a school where everyone is uniformed and equal, there are still social hierarchies where there is a popular group to which everyone should subsrcibe and all others must revolve around this group, in terms of what to wear, who to speak to and the like. The same can be said for our community.

While I openly support a more religious society, I view a society that becomes religious as a fashionable trend with skepticism. It seems as though there is a trend now to keep kosher and Shabbat, which is totally respectable, but these are noble acts that everyone else sees. I wonder if there is a strong drive in our community to work on the dimension people won't bump into at Frangelicos, and that is the internal person. Is there a drive to be a better person to others in our community, not to Losh, isolate and judge others?

I question a community where the school children know all the mitzvot of pesach but at the same time koch about their friends or disrespect their elders. I question a community that actively pursues BEE but dissociated themselves from the Jewish anti-apartheid activists merely 20 years ago. I question a community where some can recite all the defences of Israel's right to exist but don't know capital of Jordan.

There is a trend today that if you don't live Glenhazel, don't go on a tour to Israel at the end of the year then you are not part of the in-crowd. To me, Judaism is never about being for the elite kids, nor is it a fashion for others to copy. It is rather for all the kids on the playfield, regardless of their yichus. My view can be summed up by a story of a famous Rabbi of the Roman period who when asked to teach the entire Torah to an inquisitor, he replied "V'ahavta Leracha Kamocha- Love your neighbour as yourself". And for those with black and white vision, who take the view you are either mainstream or an Apikoros, obviously need to go back to school.

This blog entry is dedicated to Grobotski

EICH BIEN EIN JUDEN

Well, Hitler or Hister, as refered to by Michel de Nostradamus (who also happened to be of Jewish lineage) was right about the Jewish grip on the world's economy. It is widely acknowledged that the Jews were founders of the communist philosophy. I need not mention comrades such as Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) to prove my point.

But on the other end of the economic ideological spectrum there is evidence to say that the Jew was also the surrogate father of the laissez faire market. According to historian Max Dimont in his study of the Jews, he claims that the Jew can also hold the title as being the surrogate father of the age of capitalism. Dimont claims that during the Medieval Feudal Age, the European kingdoms were trapped in a feudal hierarchy of the 3 estates of nobility, church and serfdom, while the Jews were directly excluded from this system and were left to form the then not acknowledged Bourgeois class of traders and bankers or userers (as the church found the latter an unchristian practice). The entrenchment and codification of the Talmud, Dimont claims, provided a universal law of trading between Jews in foreign lands throughout the vast Diaspora and it essentially was the "Jewish" version of public international law. Such conditions of investment capital, international trade and law, can be attributed to Medieval Jewry which would eventually become refined in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and indeed, in the Age of Reason.

And when thinking about it, it makes perfect sense why Jews have a flare for business today. Well after all, they have a millennium head start over their gentile counterparts.

But then again, in vehemently anti-communist countries, the Jews were blamed as being the instigators of such an immoral philosophy of a state economy. On the same hand, those same countries such as the 3rd Reich, considered the Jews as the financiers of their enemies and the capitalist leeches draining the herrenvolk for all their worth. It is a perpetual conundrum in which the Jew finds himself, and Mach 3 is caught in the middle.

Search for Mach 3 gets Militant now at Technocrati.com

In this post-modernist world in which we live, gender roles and sociological attitudes of the past generations have been thrown into a cultural stew of uncertainty. And it is on this confusion that I consulted the honourable Bubu, on one lazy Saturday afternoon, on what constitutes a man in today's world. Or more specifically, in an age of self pity and political correctness, when does one step up to the batting plate when others fear to and do what is right in his eyes?

Unfortunately, there is no Life Course 101 at varsity to teach one when and how to act. It is indeed life experience itself which teaches one how to act and react. And a small lesson lesson I learnt (with credit to the honourable Beans aka Chop), and will attempt to practice, is don't mince your words.

Being a man today doesnt mean being sensitive to other needs, nor does it mean being insensitive. But one thing for sure is, and I am a huge culprit of this, if you speak in code and rhymes just to appease some, you will always land up displeasing others and eventually yourself. If you speak frankly, some people might not like what you have to say, but eventually people will respect you. They may not like you or your words, but at least you won't disrespect yourself or the intelligence of the people to whom you are speaking.

So does this mean that if you are honest Abe, you are a man? Of course not. However, history repeats itself and there are recurring times when one must make a stand. It might be something as insignificant as voicing your opinion in a group on where to eat lunch or could be the balance of world power and for your opinion some may hate you and some may love you. But if you true to yourself and walk your path, the world will step aside. So does this make you a man? No, but its just one step on a long and arduous path.

6 YEARS ON



Let us not forget who our friends at a time of tragedy and loss, but most importantly, let us not forget who takes joy in our despair

THE AMAZING RACE

I do admit that there was a time when I was a quasi-supporter of Bush, especially around the 2004 elections, when I believed that the Democrats had no vision or strength to bring to the political table. However, Saddam's execution, or should I say circus of an execution, was a milestone in my change of perception on the status of Iraq and the Bush adminstration's policy towards it. This is not to say that I am a popularist nor will I join the chorus of anti-Bush sentiment. However, I will say this, Shi'ite has hit the fan in Iraq to such an extent that one could slap a sticker on it reading 'Basket Case'.

The country is on the brink of civil war with sectarian strife and the plan of creating a beacon of democracy in the Middle East to counter fundamentalism has fizzled out. I cannot predict what will happen in Iraq or whether US troops will stay or leave, but I can say openly that the increase of 20 000 troops will not change the course of the war.

But in looking to the future, specifically 2008, the American populous and politicians will have to do some inner reflection on the future of their country's power and success in the global arena and in Iraq and the Middle East most importantly. The future Presidential candidate will have to be strong enough to challenge Teheran, Pyongyang and Damascus but will have to be careful not to put itself in the same boat as the past administration and its mistakes.

I believe the 2008 election will be one of the most deciding elections on the course of American history since Kennedy/Nixon 60'. And it should be interesting who will be in the race.

One thing is for sure, a right wing Cheneyist Republican will have no legs to stand this time round after the humiliation of the mid-terms. The Republicans will have to eat humble pie and come up with a new approach. The Democrats on the other side of the spectrum have the upper hand already but will have to support a leader who has balls to stand up to tyrant regimes. Is this Hilary?

I like Hilary and if she plays her cards right, which I think she is doing, she will run as the democratic candidate on the liberal, women, race, middle class vote. But who will challenge her? Connie is making some moves to run, but it would be a cliche to have an all women presidential election. We might as well get the jelly and turn it into a frat wrestling match. Who else? McCain? He doesnt have what it takes. The one candidate who I believe is the only Republican with the popularity and dynamism to run is Guliani. Yes, he is as liberal as a Democrat but he is still the hero from 911.

It would be the most intesting race ever, the mayor of New York v the Senator of New York. Some say New York is its own country from the States and this can't happen. I say my friend FDR, a new Yorker, ran for President and won 4 times.