To whom is this sort of “protest” supposed to appeal? I’m referring to disruptions of Christmas events by pro-Hamas groups (see the link for details; there are plenty).
I don’t think the demonstrations frighten anyone for more than a moment, and they probably make enemies of some people who might ordinarily be more sympathetic. I suppose the disruptions appeal to those who are already onboard with support for the genocidal jihadis, but is there anyone else who might be moved towards support? I really can’t think of any group.
Or maybe the point is merely “performative.” That is, perhaps the people doing this get off on it, and that’s the most important thing of all. It makes them feel powerful and active and as though they’re changing the world. As best I can recall from my formative years in the 1960s, that was always a big draw for a lot of activists.
This poll is of our supposed allies, the Saudis. The leaders have been instituting some reforms in recent years in terms of education and cutting out some of the hatred. But it doesn’t seem to have borne fruit, if the poll is accurate:
A Washington Institute poll conducted from November 14 to December 6, a nationally representative sample of 1,000 Saudi citizens measured how Saudi attitudes have shifted due to the Israel-Hamas war. According to responses, the Saudi popular attitude towards the outcome of the war is clear: the overwhelming majority (91%) express agreement with the statement that “despite the destruction and loss of life, this war in Gaza is a win for the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.”
A win? And lest you think that maybe, just maybe, many of the respondents think it’s a long-term win because it will lead to the destruction of Hamas – not an illogical thought to have – take a look at the next sentence in the article:
And as for the role of the broader Arab world, almost all (96%) agree with the proposal that “Arab countries should immediately break all diplomatic, political, economic, and any other contacts with Israel, in protest against its military action in Gaza.”
Ninety-six percent?
And yet, as is true in so many polls lately, the results are somewhat conflicted. For example:
While Hamas as a movement remains unpopular among the majority of Saudis [although the poll says that Hamas’ popularity has risen even among the Saudis] — in contrast to a new trend of widespread popular support in countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt — just 16% of Saudis say that “Hamas should stop calling for the destruction of Israel, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution to the conflict based on the 1967 borders.”
The way I interpret that is that the Saudi population doesn’t approve of Hamas, but they think the destruction of Israel is just fine.
But I think the most important part of the survey is this:
Nor do most believe that Hamas’s attack on October 7 targeted Israeli civilians — the overwhelming majority of Saudis (95%) responded that Hamas did not actually kill civilians when asked about whether they believed the Hamas killing of civilians was against Islam. This view is widespread across the eight countries polled by TWI, and similar results appear in a recently released poll of Palestinians from PSR. There, the overwhelming majority reported that they had not seen any videos of Hamas members committing atrocities, and only 10% of Palestinians (17% of Gazans and 5% of West Bankers) stated that they believed that Hamas committed war crimes in the current war in comparison to 95% who say the same about Israel.
Is the news being kept from them in terms of blocking on the internet and by their own MSM? Or are they in denial, as so many are around the world? Whatever the reason, it makes far more sense that they hold the other opinions they do if they actually truly think that Palestinian hands are clean and Israel is killing so many civilians with far less provocation.
Hamas’ increased popularity in this poll parallels similar increases in polls there when there are conflicts in the Palestinian/Israel theater. Interestingly, these spikes have been short-lived in the past. A huge majority also think that Israel is weak and divided and can be defeated “some day.” As for attitudes towards Jews, they haven’t really changed since the war – but they were absolutely awful prior to the war:
When Saudis were asked in August whether they agreed with the proposal that “We should show more respect to the world’s Jews, and improve our relations with them,” just 5% agreed. This is much the same from when the question was posed in 2021, and stands in marked contrast to attitudes on a similar 2021 question about Christians, where Saudi attitudes were split.
But here’s another contradiction, at least as I see it:
Three quarters express support for Arab diplomatic involvement in “Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, offering both sides incentives to take more moderate positions” (75%), and all the more so to provide humanitarian support to Gazans. Moreover, when posed with the suggestion “Regardless of what’s right, there’s no military solution to the conflict with Israel, so there will have to be political negotiations for a Palestinian-Israeli agreement some day,” an even larger majority (86%) agree.
The good news about polls such as this one and others is that it becomes clearer and clearer what we’re up against. That also is obviously true regarding the events of October 7, which have clarified things both for many in the US but for even more people in Israel. And what’s become even more clear than ever isn’t just the genocidal nature of Hamas and other jihadi groups; but also the lies, bluster, and hatred in the Arab world, and the growing decadence and Leftism in Europe and the US.
[NOTE: This small poetic effort of mine has become somewhat of a holiday tradition at the blog. I forgot it last night – the true “night before Christmas.” But here it comes again – just like the holiday itself.]
‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ‘sphere
Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near.
Their laptops were turned off and all put away
The bloggers were swearing to take off the day.
Their children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of extra time danced in their heads
With a father or mom not distracted by writing
No posts to compose, and no links to be citing.
But we all know that vows were just meant to be broken
And the vows of a blogger can be a mere token.
There’s always a chance that some sort of temptation
Will rise up to make them of fleeting duration.
For instance, there might be found under the tree
A sleek Mac; well, what better sight could there be?
And who could neglect it and wait the whole day?
It cries to be tried out, one just can’t delay.
Or maybe somewhere there’s a fast-breaking story
Important, and possibly leading to glory.
It can’t be ignored, there’s really no choice,
So add to the din every blogger’s small voice.
And then there are some who may just like to rhyme
(I’m one who at times must confess to this crime),
And it’s been quite a while since Clement Clarke Moore
Wrote his opus (though authorship’s been claimed by Gore).
So it seems about time it was newly updated
And here’s my attempt – aren’t you glad you all waited?
Forgive if it sounds a bit awkward to read.
In writing, I set a new record for speed.
I had to get under the wire and compose it
Before Christmas Day. Now it’s time that I close it.
But let me exclaim (or, rather, I’ll write)
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!
Here’s a video of the original, with some 50s-type nostalgia for those who remember. There are a few odd anomalies (“safe in their beds” instead of “snug in their beds”). But it brought back memories of pincurls, and the days when parents were assumed to sleep in twin beds (even though I don’t recall that most people did).
I’m pretty sure I had the book on which this is based. The illustrations look very familiar:
Commenter “huxley” had AI perform an interesting exercise. He asked ChatGPT 3.5 to do the following:
Write song lyrics like “Why Can’t a Woman Be More like a Man” based on “Why can’t a Nothing be more like a Something.”
Before I get to critiquing ChatGPT’s effort, take a look at some of the actual lyrics to the song, and watch this video of the number in the movie “My Fair Lady.” I saw the play on Broadway as a young child, with the original cast, and enjoyed it immensely. I had no trouble understanding the wit of the song, and Rex Harrison’s light yet arrogantly self-congratulatory delivery was just perfect:
Note how the last line of each verse builds on the theme: why can’t a woman “be like that,” then (to Pickering) “be like you,” then “be like us,” then “be a chum,” and lastly “be like me.” The back and forth with Pickering is also brilliant and so very funny.
Now for AI’s effort (there apparently was more to this poem, but it was in the same vein as this sample):
(Pre-Chorus)
But in the emptiness, a spark begins to gleam,
A longing for substance, a chance to redeem.
Oh, the void may wonder, in shadows it may hide,
Dreaming of a presence, where nothing can’t abide.
(Chorus)
Why can’t a nothing be more like a something?
Yearning for substance, a symphony to sing.
In the dance of nothingness, a silent ballet,
Echoes of existence, where nothing fades away.
…
(Verse 3)
Why can’t a silence break into a melody?
A pause in the universe, a whisper to set free.
In the void of nothingness, where echoes may sway,
Yearning for a sunrise, in the darkest gray.
(Outro)
So let the void evolve, let the silence sing,
For even in nothingness, there’s the essence of everything.
In the dance of existence, where shadows find their way,
A nothing becomes a something, in the grand cosmic ballet.
This is quite a fascinating set of verses, although they bear no resemblance to the original song lyrics save the lines, “Why can’t a nothing be more like a something?,” and “Why can’t a silence break into a melody.” The poem has no humor at all: zero, zilch. But it seems to be describing the quantum theory idea that something can emerge from nothing. My guess is that it has been fed scientific information about that and is drawing on it for the poem.
The AI poem isn’t much of a literary work. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to memorize it for its beauty, for example. It does have meter and rhyme, but it lacks the felicitous phrase, the line that touches the heart – even though, interestingly enough, it characterizes “nothing” as having emotions: it longs for substance, it “wonders” and “hides,” it “dreams,” and the word “yearning” characterizes it twice. AI know about emotions, but does it know that only sentient beings have them?
Or does AI have them? Personally, I think not, but I’ve seen speculation …
“huxley” also asked ChatGPT 4.0, the new improved version, to perform the same task. The program said the result was “a playful take on song lyrics inspired by the theme ‘Why Can’t a Nothing Be More Like a Something,’ reminiscent of the style of ‘Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man’ from ‘My Fair Lady.’” And indeed, it is more playful, which is more in the style of the original song. But “more in the style” certainly doesn’t mean actually in the style, or anywhere near it:
(Verse 1)
Oh, why can’t a Nothing be more like a Something?
With color and shape, not just empty and bluffing,
A Something has substance, it’s clear and it’s bright,
While Nothing just lingers, like shadows in night.
(Chorus)
Why can’t a Nothing just learn how to be,
A Something with joy, with spirit, with glee?
Why must it float like a ghost in the air,
When Somethings have so much more flair?
(Verse 2)
A Something can dance, can sing, can play,
It brightens the world in its own special way.
But Nothing just hovers, unseen and unheard,
Like a silent, invisible, weightless bird.
(Bridge)
But then I wonder, as I ponder and think,
Is Nothing just Something that’s missing a link?
A canvas not painted, a story untold,
A mystery waiting, a wonder to behold.
(Chorus)
So why can’t a Nothing just learn how to be,
A Something with stories, with dreams, with a key?
Perhaps in its silence, it’s saying a lot,
A lesson in being, in just being not.
(Outro)
Oh, why can’t a Nothing be more like a Something?
Perhaps it’s a Something, in its own cunning,
A space for the new, for the yet to be born,
A Nothing and Something, together, not torn.
So, it’s more “playful” in the sense that it’s not about quantum theory. But it’s more silly than the other AI effort rather than more clever. It’s almost nonsensical if you really parse it, and reminds me of a student trying to fill out an allotted number of lines with BS. I think the worst lines are “silent, invisible, weightless bird,” “A Something with stories, with dreams, with a key?” (why a key – what on earth?), “in its own cunning” (which doesn’t even rhyme with another line), and “A Nothing and Something, together, not torn” (where “torn” is an especially bad choice).
I could go on with this, but the basic point is that this isn’t an effort that sounds like poetry and it certainly partakes of none of the cleverness of the original song. The only line in both AI poems that is at all interesting is “A lesson in being, in just being not.” That, in turn, reminds me of a far more clever portion of Dr. Seuss’ book Happy Birthday to You, which I basically memorized after reading it over and over to my son when he was little:
If we didn’t have birthdays,
you wouldn’t be you.
If you’d never been born,
well then what would you do?
If you’d never been born,
well then what would you be?
You might be a fish!
Or a toad in a tree!
You might be a doorknob!
Or three baked potatoes!
You might be a bag full of
hard green tomatoes.
Or worse than all that…
Why, you might be a WASN’T!
A Wasn’t has no fun at all.
No, he doesn’t.
A Wasn’t just isn’t. He just
isn’t present. But you…
You ARE YOU!
And, now isn’t that pleasant!
Call me stupid, call me unimaginative, call me just plain wrong, but I don’t see AI as ever writing such a thing. The clever playfulness, the appeal to a child’s mind, the images, the serious commentary on existence – I think only a sentient being could come up with that.
There have been a lot of stories (for example, this one) about how Trump is mulling over the possibility of Nikki Haley as his VP. Perhaps they’e even true; who knows? Haley wouldn’t be such a bad choice in the sense that she is perceived by moderates as more level-headed and even-keeled than Trump, not quite as far right, and of course is also a woman.
But Haley is also not liked by most Trump supporters. Would they abandon him if he chose Haley? Some might, although I doubt many would.
But there have also been a bunch of stories saying that his associates and allies have told him not to do it:
Haley’s polling surge has alarmed some staunch Trump confidants who are acutely aware that the former president pays close attention to survey data. In interviews and public appearances, they have emphatically swatted down the idea of Haley for vice president in hopes that Trump won’t warm to the idea. …
Trump’s campaign has dismissed any chatter of vice president picks as premature, maintaining that he is focused on winning the upcoming primary contests. A campaign spokesperson did not comment for this story. A Haley spokesperson declined to comment as well. …
Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, took to Newsmax to declare he would “go to great lengths to make sure” his father didn’t pick Haley. And Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News host who is frequently in touch with the former president, said on a conservative podcast this week that he would “advocate against” a Trump-Haley ticket “as strongly as I could.”
Republican strategist Roger Stone, a longtime outside adviser to the former president, told POLITICO that he too would be “personally opposed to such a selection, because I believe that [Haley’s] views are so antithetically different than President Trump’s views.”
I wonder who Trump would choose as a VP though, and whether that person would accept.
On YouTube there are a series of interviews of survivors of 10/7, done by the USC Shoah Foundation. The interviews are long, and I’ve only watched a few. But – unlike Holocaust survivor interviews, which I’ve also watched – these were not recorded after the passage of great time. They were done less than two months after the massacre, and therefore the interviewees are psychologically raw. PTSD affects people differently, based on the peculiarities of their experiences during the trauma, as well as their own unique personalities. But there are certain patterns that are often exhibited, including intense anxiety and/or emotional shutting-down.
I was struck by the following woman’s story. She exhibited a sort of leadership and strength during part of the time she and some other young people were under fire, making decisions that turned out to be the correct ones for the small group of which she was a part. She had been at the NOVA music festival, and after running and running, she ended up hiding under some brush near trees. She describes having decided, while she was lying there, that she was going to die and yet feeling a sort of strange peace that nature – the nature she was seeing all around her – would go on. So she had accepted her death and yet survived. But now that she’s safe, here’s how she describes her feelings (I’ve cued it up just for this small 5-minute part, but you can go to YouTube and watch the whole thing). Here’s a sample quote: “I mourn my old self because she’s gone, and my new self – I don’t know who I am.”:
The interviews I’ve watched so far are all powerful, difficult, and individual. Here are two more.
NOTE: The way the woman in the first clip describes her thoughts while lying on the ground, accepting her own death and yet loving nature and being glad it would go on, reminded me of this passage from Tolstoy’s War and Peace:
Prince Andrew understood that this was said of him and that it was Napoleon who said it. He heard the speaker addressed as Sire. But he heard the words as he might have heard the buzzing of a fly. Not only did they not interest him, but he took no notice of them and at once forgot them. His head was burning, he felt himself bleeding to death, and he saw above him the remote, lofty, and everlasting sky. He knew it was Napoleon- his hero- but at that moment Napoleon seemed to him such a small, insignificant creature compared with what was passing now between himself and that lofty infinite sky with the clouds flying over it. At that moment it meant nothing to him who might be standing over him, or what was said of him; he was only glad that people were standing near him and only wished that they would help him and bring him back to life, which seemed to him so beautiful now that he had today learned to understand it so differently. He collected all his strength, to stir and utter a sound. He feebly moved his leg and uttered a weak, sickly groan which aroused his own pity.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused almost all proceedings concerning former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C. as the courts above her decide on his claim that he has presidential immunity.
Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite a review of Trump’s claims of presidential immunity.
The expedited review was denied by SCOTUS, which means the whole thing will proceed more slowly and a trial may not be completed before the election. Smith was determined that it start on March 4 – the day before Super Tuesday, what a coinkidink. But that won’t be happening.
Nevertheless, holding the trial over Trump’s head may be just as good, as far as the Democrats are concerned, as concluding it. Then again, they are somewhat distracted at the moment trying to figure out if there’s a way to give The Man Who Came to Dinner, Joe Biden, the hook for 2024.
But to never discuss the underpinnings of morality is a problem. So my hope is that she [the woman who was discussing anti-Semitism in the video], and you, in other situations, are able to defend against “Well, that’s just your opinion.”
If you’ve been blogging as long as I have, you find that there are a huge number of topics that you’ve at least touched on – if only you can remember what they are, and then locate the posts in which they’re discussed. This post from 2020, itself a recycling of an earlier post, is highly relevant to “Bill K’s” remarks. The comments there are worth reading as well. The post deals with natural rights versus relativism and “openness.”
I also recommend reading this post from 2008 on moral relativism. It is probably even more on point in terms of the topic of the underpinnings of morality. An excerpt:
[The anthropologist] Kluckhohn spent a goodly portion of his career attempting to derive these universal moral rules, although it’s not clear that he was especially successful in doing so. But the idea that there is a universal morality, and that we can ascertain (or receive through divine revelation) its laws, is the basis of most ethics (and of most religions).
The Jews happen to have been one of the first peoples to declare that there are some universal moral codes by which all humans should live. Other religions that came after Judaism also aspired to offer a universal morality, but unlike Judaism these were proselytizing religions (for example, Christianity and Islam) that considered it their destiny to spread their own particular faith throughout humankind as well. Of course, by adopting those religions, a convert would adopt their rules. But Judaism was unique (at least, as far as I know) in being a non-proselytizing religion that nevertheless still endeavored to suggest some basic rules for moral human behavior that would apply to all people.
These rules that Judaism offered to the world were not the Ten Commandments, as some might imagine. No, the Ten Commandments were originally meant for Jews only (in fact, there are supposedly 613 commandments that observant Jews are supposed to fulfill). I’m referring instead to what are known as the Noahide Laws, which according to Talmudic tradition were given to all humankind: Noah’s descendents, survivors of the flood.
These rules are related to but somewhat different than the Ten Commandments. According to the Talmud, not just Jews but “Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come,” and righteousness is defined as following these Noahide rules:
1. Prohibition of Idolatry: There is only one God. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: Revere God and do not blaspheme.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws.
The details of these laws and how they came to be are less relevant to the subject of this post than the mere fact that Judaism posits that there are such laws for all cultures and all peoples, which of course is not very relativistic of it.
Likewise, the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in certain truths that held for all humankind …
