The Third Commandment

10 Commandments Monument courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Before broaching this religious topic, I must put my cards on the table. I was raised in a Christian home and believe in God, but my communing with a higher power is now done outside of organized religion. Have never encountered an organized religion whose mythological stories convinced me to do otherwise. Nevertheless, the Christian history, lore, icons and such have always held some fascination for me. A very large part of Christian lore is 'The Ten Commandments' -- a code of moral laws handed down by God to Moses in the Old Testament.

The 10 Commandments deal with the most serious human character flaws -- those of lust, envy, arrogance and such. Breaking several of them would be felonies, even in secular society -- theft, murder and perjury to name three. Others are clearly major breaches of the social contract without necessarily breaking a law -- idolatry and adultery. Clearly what the stone tablet covers are the major subject areas of human behavior; it doesn't dwell on the trivial. "Thou shall not overeat" is not on there. So, even as a child, I was always challenged by the third commandment:

"Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

Both Sunday school teachers and my own parents told me that it meant that you shouldn't say, "God damn it" or "God damn you". What bothered me is that these are profane epithets that anyone might utter while hammering a nail or misapplying wallpaper. Part of God's interpretation of your words would surely be intent or effect. God, having made you, can certainly discern where you are 'coming from' with anything you say. An angry epithet would be on par with jaywalking or littering in a park. These are certainly bad behaviors, but are they worthy of the Moses curse? What occurred to me is that my Sunday school teachers were putting too much of a literal meaning on the commandment, while altogether bypassing its more important meaning.

The commandment means that you shouldn't try to assume the identity of God, or present yourself as God. It is much more directed at hypocrites or anyone presuming to speak for God -- televangelists and minions of organized religion come to mind. Anyone whose words are "God has chosen me ..." or "God speaks thru me..." is suspect. The most extreme cases would be the Reverend Jim Jones of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid fame, or Marshall Applewhite's "Heaven's Gate" cult where followers gulped fatal sedatives in hopes of riding the Hale-Bopp comet in an after life.

So does that mean learned scholars can't discourse the purpose or intent of God and God's scripture? It only prohibits that if the speaker claims that he is God, or directly speaks for God. We can assert God's purpose in a more collective sense -- by evaluating scriptures, but also by tapping into our aggregate knowledge and employing practical observation. Now, one might have to pose an odd question. Was Jesus violating the third commandment by claiming that he was "the way, and the only way" long after Moses brought down the tablets? Maybe God makes exceptions and there is coda that says, "* unless you are Jesus". This last speculation is more to be provocative to my Christian readers. May God speed you along the way of understanding -- I say that in all humility, without assuming His name.


© 2006 blogSpotter.

Fourth Generation Warfare?

Hezbollah martyrs, courtesy Wikipedia Commons

by blogSpotter
Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer had a good editorial, "Outsourced Violence" in last week's Dallas Morning News. In it, she describes the current devolution of nation-states into tribes of people who act in rabid self-interest. She describes a concept called "Fourth Generation War" (military term for insurgent warfare) where primitive, narrow interest groups are now able to acquire sophisticated weapons. A result of this is new guerilla warfare that resembles full-blown wars of previous decades; we have long range missiles being launched across national boundaries by Hezbollah as one example.

Geyer goes on to say that nation states such as the United States react both clumsily and ineffectively, because we aren't grasping the problem. Israel has recently bombed Lebanon's army headquarters -- attacking the very people that are needed to rein in Hezbollah. America's actions in Iraq are equally inept -- we create more anger and insurgency by what we do.

I would concur with part of what Geyer says about tribalism, although I wouldn't be as dire about it. The tribalism she describes is mostly confined to third world countries that have never been beacons of democracy, secularism or reasoned thinking. At best, there have been briefly pacific periods where a particular Shah or Dictator presided over a non-militarized populace. It is true that more powerful weapons can now land in the hands of a few crazies. Her observation that nation states have reacted clumsily is also accurate. The US and Israel now need finesse much more than prowess. If you look at recent democracy experiments in the Middle East, you have:

• Palestine electing Hamas
• Lebanon electing Hezbollah (to 12% of their assembly)
• Iraq electing a prime minister who calls us 'butchers' and tells us to leave

Jefferson must be rolling in his grave, but at least the Middle East is not his legacy. A dose of healthy cynicism would be beneficial at this point (a la George Will). Democracy is like driving a car -- you need to have maturity, judgment, height, willingness and readiness. The Middle East may be ready for Drivers Ed or a Learner's Permit. In the meantime, beneficent dictators are about the best they will accomplish. The intellectuals of the French Revolution were horrified to discover that peasants wanted to reinstate a King. And France did end up with an Emperor (Napoleon). What the US could probably do is take logical steps to curb the violence. This isn't a French Revolution -- there will be no Ayatollahs deposed -- by us at any rate. Fundamentalist religion, tribalism and lack of education will confound this part of the world for years to come. Until they can understand that tolerance and multiculturalism are aspects of a healthy democracy, nations of the Middle East will roil in a violent misfortune of their own making.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

The Virus Within, the Virus Without

Rotavirus, courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Since various exotic diseases (HIV, Epstein-Barr, Hantavirus) became popular topics of the early 1980's, I've been interested in viruses, especially retroviruses. What makes the retrovirus interesting? It can copy its genetic material into a host cell, and make the imported material a permanent part of the host animal's genome. Scientists believe that as much as 8% of human genetic material is from ‘endogenous’ retroviruses, but can only guess what purpose any of it serves. The topic of retroviruses can lead to fanciful speculations (including my own, see last paragraph); several science fiction works cast a retrovirus as a villain’s modus operandi: Resident Evil, Doom and Stargate Atlantis to name three.

What adds to the story is that viruses are species-specific. A tobacco virus will eschew a pig, and a pig virus will shun a tobacco plant. The pig virus may take the great leap to something similar to a pig -- another mammal for instance. Is the virus making an intelligent selection? It certainly is expressing a chemical affinity, with seemingly intelligent results. Viruses also travel in ways almost as specific as a person booking a flight on orbitz.com. Methods of transmission include:

Mosquito
Ticks/Fleas
Skin contact
Breath droplets

There is speculation that a virus can alter the behavior of its host animal. Thus a mosquito could almost serve as a virus's private jet. Ticks and fleas themselves are species-specific, such that viruses on them (and in them) can make targeted landings. Obviously, skin contact is as direct as you can get -- a human who 'gets around' (Typhoid Mary let's say) could be a super-effective transmitter. Also worth noting, the least consequential viruses are normally those easiest to get -- breath droplets that give you the common cold for instance. The more 'intimate' connections seem to yield more astounding results -- permanent genome change or fatal disease. My own speculation is that genetic variety is sometimes enhanced by these mysterious viral agents, and the human body may 'open the door' for deliberate admission. Much like a company hiring a new employee, the immune system presumes it's chosen its new 'talent' wisely. This would assume that some viruses have a constructive purpose – who knows?

With biotic agents such as bacteria, you can’t judge them as universally harmful or helpful.. Some bacteria are flesh-eating deadliness at its worst. Other bacteria are actually good for you – bacteria that you get from yogurt benefit your digestion. Who is to say that the only good virus is a dead one? Maybe they perform in ways subtle and obscure – too minute for human observation. One thing to note – the virus makes it possible for genetic information to be exchanged outside of sexual reproduction. A truly permissive immune system might even admit genetic material from another species. Thus, a kiss is not just a kiss. A kiss may be very consequential – a genetic RNA infusion could result. You might or might not have physical symptoms. The world is a much more promiscuous, interesting place than we ever imagined. And these invisible cellular interlopers make it more so.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

A Dead Horse

courtesy TIME

by blogSpotter
Last week's TIME magazine had a cover story titled "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy". The authors, Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar, describe Bush's earlier neocon doctrine as "muscular, idealistic and unilateral". The doctrine basically is one that the United States carries a big stick, and will use it to pre-empt wars and acts of terrorism. Allen and Ratnesar go on to say how recent events in Lebanon, North Korea and Iran have severely tested the doctrine. Bush and his Cowboy ways have also given this blog lots to talk about. I have at least four prior blogs: How Will Bush be Remembered, Has Bush Gone Soft, Looking for an Exit Strategy and Orange Alert. In those blogs, I've gone on about Iraq and our lack of a plan for occupation. But I haven't really looked at it from a global view. Recent world events have made that a necessity; Allen and Ratnesar analyze this perfect storm in their TIME article.

After 9/11, the United States threatened to unleash the hounds on any country that created problems for us. North Korea and Iran noticed in recent months that we don't have that many hounds to release; those that we have are occupied in Iraq. On this week's Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich said that North Korea and Iran are playing the US like a ping pong ball. Imagine these two 'mice that roar' -- having fun at our expense. I'm reminded of the two squirrels in my dad's back yard -- each one in an oak tree, spaced 20 yards apart. One would race down the tree trunk, chirping at our squirrel-hating dog, Speckles. Speckles would race to kill the squirrel which easily scampered up the tree, out of harm's way. Then squirrel #2 would taunt Speckles from 20 yards away. Speckles would charge after it, with equally lame results. At best, Speckles got some exercise, and the squirrels got some entertainment.

Now there are statesmen that have more gravitas than Clint Eastwood quotes -- Collin Powell and Madelyn Albright come to mind. Such people would have proposed diplomatic solutions at the outset. Yes, we have a big stick. But we want to use it sparingly. We want other countries with similar risks and issues to share in the cost of the stick. We don't want to come up stickless because we've taken on too much. Allen and Ratnesar close their article by pointing out that our Iraq strategy has taken us away from other areas crying out for attention -- African development, international networks in Latin America or former Soviet Satellite nations.

My own optimistic interpretation is that it's not too late for diplomacy, even in Iraq. No mess is so big that someone with determination and the right attitude can't clean it up. But, that will not be this administration. Major concessions or revisions to the Bush policy would seem like repudiations to Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself. One other advantage of diplomacy -- it gives you more options at every turn, even when making a strategic U-turn.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

The Group is in Session

The Bob Newhart Show -- sitcom at its finest

by blogSpotter
It's been a while since I did any television reviews. Of course, my "TV Land" mentality has me channel-surfing thru the 70's, one of the best decades for TV sitcoms. I've already paid homage to The Mary Tyler Moore Show in a previous blog. Another MTM production that is excellent is The Bob Newhart Show which ran from 1972 thru 1978. Bob Newhart excelled at the sitcom formula of a deadpan, serious main character surrounded by a cast of loonies. His later show, Newhart borrowed the formula, but not as effectively. In The Bob Newhart Show (TBNS hereon), Bob plays Psychologist Robert Hartley. He is married to elementary school teacher Emily, played by the lovely Suzanne Pleshette. Together, they live in a nice, Chicago high-rise apartment. Across the hall is the flaky, squirrelly Howard Borden, a divorced airline navigator -- portrayed to perfection by Bill Daily.

TBNS plot lines struck a nice balance between Bob's work and home life. At work, Bob is blessed with the extreme wit of receptionist Carol, the single-man bluster of Jerry the orthodontist and the various 'wackadoo' patients. His patients such as the timid Mr. Petersen, the tact-impaired Mr. Carlin and assorted others provide the Mother Lode of all comedy. We have kindly old ladies making nympho remarks, a unibrow woman concerned about sexism and then also the tennis instructor whose problem is that he’s too handsome.

TBNS gave us the same nuance and credible character shading that was offered on Mary Tyler Moore. Nothing was over-the-top or gimmicky; there was no obligatory pandering, profanity or forced hipness like you see on today's sitcoms (a vanishing breed it seems). Like MTM, TBNS was made 30+ years ago and still seems fresh and modern. The casual attitudes reflect 2006 as well as 1976; the clothing and styles are still surprisingly attractive and current considering the decade. That's probably because the show portrayed urban professionals in their 30's and 40's. A hipster show would've given you more shag hairstyles and bell bottom pants, one has to figure.

TBNS was superbly done, in a subtle artful comedy style that seems to be lost. We now live in an age of reality TV programming with shows like Fear Factor and America's Got Talent. Sitcoms do seem like a dying breed. It helps to let go, by remembering some choice lines from TBNS:

Tennis instructor to Bob:
"Bob, you have no idea how hard it is, being good-looking".

Bob, to Emily (after losing a couples' tennis match):
"Emily, you run like a girl".

Carol, to Bob -- on overhearing office gossip:
"Bob, I heard it in passing. OK, your office door was opened and I happened to be passing.”

The Bob Newhart Show is now out on DVD – first 3 seasons. Go purchase a copy and see what sitcom at its finest was all about.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Onus of the Peace-Loving Muslim

A Pilgrim at Mecca

by blogSpotter
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the citizens of the US were horrified. McVeigh was reportedly angry over Janet Reno's handling of Waco's Branch Davidians in 1993. While many thought that Reno's actions were heavy-handed, Americans across the board thought that McVeigh should get the death penalty or life in prison. He wasn't embraced as a hero; his blond hair, blue eyes and Christian roots did not insulate him from any form of punishment. He was strapped to a gurney and sent to the next world with sodium pentothal just a few short years after his horrific deed.

Now, in Muslim countries, we have ambiguity in situations where there should be none. In Saudi Arabia's Wahabi-dominated region (origin of most 9/11 terrorists), not one madrasas school has been shut down, nor even much coerced to change curriculum ranting against 'infidels'. When some of the worst terrorist atrocities happened in recent years, the spokesmen of the Arabic world, scattered and coy, came out meekly to 'condemn' these actions. You can damn a man with faint praise -- did you know you can also praise a man with faint condemnation? In almost a winking concession that terrorism is wrong, the message appears more to be: "Don't get caught, don't make the infidels so angry that they invade our land". The gape-mouthed incredulity and moral outrage that should follow these actions is entirely missing.

This is a message to non-violent, non-terrorist Muslims. Pay particular attention if you physically look Middle Eastern and have an Arabic name. You are your brother's keeper. What your brother across the street does is a direct reflection on you. Every fiber of your being should be used to constrain Islamic zealots under your influence. The message you project should be that terrorism will not be tolerated. Many Muslims are equally terrified of their extremist brethren and of Americans. Rather than embrace a message of well-reasoned ideas, they calculate who will do less damage to a local market with bombs. This is a terrible way to navigate life -- almost a form of imprisonment without walls.

If the situation is never taken into hand better than it is now, it will necessarily devolve to one where Arabic people are universally distrusted – either as terrorists or as people who implicitly approve of terrorism. Many non-violent Muslims are essentially bullied and coerced by the violent Muslim Jihadists. Until they stand up to this most immediate form of intimidation, they will (as Shakespeare said of cowards) die a thousand deaths.

© 2006 blogSpotter.