Of Geese and Ganders

Whatever the ultimate wisdom of possessing nuclear weapons, the idea that one country--specifically, a nuclear-armed country--can dictate whether another, non-nuclear-armed country may be allowed to develop such weaponry has always struck us as hypocritical at best. We are not naive; we realize that might makes right, and that a nuclear power will predictably claim certain prerogatives over less powerful states. Still, we wonder if this pre-emption is more trouble than it's worth.

Recently, the United States sought to assure Israel that Iran will not achieve "breakout" nuclear capabilities in the immediate future, and, further, that if Iran engaged in a "dash" for nuclear weapons, the US and/or Israel would have time to consider military options. The idea was to convince Israel to forego unilateral military strikes against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

We have no desire to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's finger on the nuclear trigger. But the more we think about it, we wonder why this thought scares everyone so much. Of course, Ahmadinejad's inflammatory, anti-Semitic, anti-American, Holocaust-denying rhetoric strikes most of the civilized world as somewhat, shall we say, unhinged. But since when is sanity a pre-requisite for nuclear club membership? Stalin was hardly a paragon of mental stability.

Israel worries that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat. Of course, Iran could say the same thing about a nuclear-armed Israel. Israel is a solid democracy with generally liberal values and has proven itself a trustworthy member of the international community--its questionable track-record when it comes to settlement-building notwithstanding, and the same cannot be said of the repressive Iranian regime. Again, though, there's a certain eye-of-the-beholder quality to this: Plenty of people both within and outside of the Middle East remain unconvinced of the Israeli government's fundamental beneficence.

Still, let's take the "existential threat" argument at face value; let's say that Ahmadinejad is sincere in his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Does this mean that the US--or even Israel--should launch a military attack, potentially setting off a conflagration that drags the entire region into war, just to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

No.

Bear with us.

When Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, everyone wondered just how long would it be until this at-best-semi-democratic country launched a nuclear attack on its hated rival India? Could India, itself a nuclear power, resist the impulse to launch its own pre-emptive attack? After all, these countries had fought three wars already and were in a state of perpetual hostility. It was only a matter of time before mushroom clouds bloomed over the subcontinent.

Except. . .they didn't. Even when the two countries went to war in 1999, they managed to refrain from launching nuclear missiles at each other. What went right?

Mutually assured destruction. Balance of terror. Phrases hardly conducive to peaceful slumber. Yet they do contain a certain dark logic. These concepts kept a cold war cold for some 50 years. We may fear that Ahmadinejad--as opposed to Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, or, more recently, Singh and Musharraf--is just crazy enough not to care about the vaporization of Iran that would follow immediately upon any nuclear attack on Israel, but we don't think this is likely for two reasons:

One, despite his presidential title, Ahmadinejad has limited authority in Iran; true power resides in the theocracy, and the Ayatollahs are actually a little more sensible about the issue of nuclear annihilation. More importantly, while nuclear weapons remain just an idea, Ahmadinejad can rant and rave to his petty heart's content; if Iran actually gets the weapons, though, he (and his bosses) will quickly realize that inflammatory rhetoric may be taken very seriously and result in unwanted martyrdom.

With great power will come great responsibility, whether the powerful want it or not.

Maybe Scorcese Can Direct "Chipmunks 3"

The ads for the new "Nanny McPhee" movie amuse us. At the end, the announcer mentions the fact that the movie stars "Academy-Award winner Emma Thompson." We couldn't help but wonder to whom that tagline was meant to appeal: the toddlers who comprise the movie's target audience are probably unimpressed by academy credentials and their parents are unlikely to be suckered by the pitch into thinking that they're about to see a performance to rival "Remains of the Day." They may love Emma Thompson--hell, the Solipsist loves Emma Thompson--but even an Emma Thompson completist will only go to this movie when dragged by the aforementioned toddlers.

Maybe it's in Emma Thompson's contract that all advertising copy for her movies has to identify her as an Oscar recipient. But then why not call her a two-time Academy-Award winner? We know that's what we would demand.

(Image from costumzee.com)

Reach Out and Touch Someone--But Be Specific

One of the most common complaints we hear from our students is that they have trouble coming up with ideas. This manifests itself in paragraphs that lack specifics and, frankly, bore the bejeezus out of us.

Today, we discussed the concepts of subject, audience, and purpose; that is, what one writes about, whom one writes for, and why one writes. We realized that students--and, probably, most writers--begin by thinking of a topic. This makes sense. At the same time, though, we think this might be the source of our students' perpetual case of writer's block.

In our classes, we provide our students with topics. The thing is, these are broad, general interest topics--college, television, computers, etc.--things about which our students probably have some knowledge. One of the students' tasks, then, is to narrow the topic sufficiently so that they can write meaningful paragraphs or short essays--a concise piece of writing that makes one or two specific points about a very general topic.

It occured to us this morning that, in order to narrow a topic and come up with specific details to support that topic, students might benefit from thinking first NOT about the subject, but about the audience and purpose. If students don't take this approach, they most likely think their audience is the teacher: One can imagine how conducive to creativity that is. What if, though, they begin by choosing a more appealing--or less intimidating--audience?

Say, for example, a student must write a paragraph about television. If writing for a teacher, a student worries about giving a "right" answer (whatever that means). They take care not to say anything too provocative. We cannot count the number of times we have heard about how "The Simpsons" and "South Park" are exemplars of inappropriate television; we can only assume it is because they think, wrongly, that no educated person (i.e., teacher) could possibly enjoy such vulgar fare.

But what if students could write to anyone they wanted? Write a paragraph about television to your best friend; to your parents; to President Obama. Then, think about a purpose: WHY write something about television for this person--what do they hope to accomplish? To persuade your best friend to watch a particular show; to convince your parents to let you get premium cable channels in your room; to let President Obama know that, if he wants to get his message across to college-age kids, he sould adopt a different media strategy and appear on different shows or channels. Ultimately, once the student chooses an audience and purpose, the necessary details--the support--become obvious.

Will this be effective? We'll keep you posted.

The Brewing Pogrom

As others have pointed out, there is great irony in the continuing uproar over the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque. In theory, the mosque represents everything that Teabaggers and other assorted right-wing crackpots purport to stand for: bedrock constitutional principles such as freedom of speech and worship, as well as the idea that small government entities (e.g., community boards and city planning departments) are best equipped to make and enforce local laws (e.g., zoning decisions about, say, where a mosque may be built). The greatest irony, though, is that the uproar over the mosque project has effectively quashed the possibility that it will not go forward.

Let's say this whole thing had stayed relatively quiet, low-key, and above all civil. Let's say a group of well-intentioned but sincerely concerned citizens had come forward and spoken with Feisal Abdul Rauf, the moderate imam behind the project, and expressed the idea that feelings were still too raw for such a grand Islamic structure to be built so close to the site of the 9/11 attacks. Maybe it would have changed nothing, but maybe some compromise could have been reached.

Now, however, any such compromise would either not go far enough to assuage the lunatic fringe or, worse, inspire them to commit even greater affronts to Muslim dignity and American values: "Look, guys, we've got them terrorists on the run. Let's finish 'em off!" The mosque must be built, if only to show that the bullies don't own the playground.

As a Jew, the Solipsist feels no affection for radical Islamists who advocate the a medieval worldview or the destruction of anyone who fails to acknowledge the holiness of Allah. But as a Jew, the Solipsist feels even more uneasy when he hears the baying of the mob, shrieking about the "dirty Muslim." We've seen that movie. We know how it ends.

Do You Know Where Your Children Are? (A Brief Post)

Driving to work today, we found ourselves behind a minivan. Both the minivan and the Slopmobile slowed down as we approached a light that was changing from yellow to red. Suddenly--and quite clearly AFTER the light had turned red--the minivan sped up and zipped through the intersection.

None of this is especially noteworthy, except for the fact that the minivan was a business vehicle. The sign on the back: Happy Lion Day Care.

Because isn't that what everybody looks for in a childcare provider? Lawless Daredevilry?

Having a Ball

Consider the ball.

More to the point, consider the innovator, whoever he was, who first saw the potential of the ball as an object of delight.

It goes without saying that the human urge to toss things to each other--to "play catch"--dates to antiquity, to prehistory. But before the ball, what must people have tossed? Cubes? Pyramids? Dodecahedrons? For how many millennia must cavefraus have run about, wringing their hands, imploring their offspring to be careful with their reckless horseplay lest they put out an eye--how many millennia before a forward thinker (we're guessing Egyptian) stumbled upon the solution: the sphere!

Now, now could children of all ages heedlessly indulge their flingophilia! Now could little Johnny--or Hatshepsut, as the case may be--hurl and pitch and sling to their hearts' contents their suddenly harmless projectiles. No longer would a pickup game of "Back n' Fro" (as we like to imagine it would have been called) lead to family tragedy! Little boys could finally experience their full childhood's allotment of a quarter-score years before they had to give up the simple joys of ballplay for the adult responsibilities of family, tribe, and caste.

Consider the ball, dear Sloppists. And give thanks!

(Image from gnwco.com)

Sunday Paper Recap

Today's top story reports on the US's "secret" war against Al Qaeda--the one being waged not on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan but clandestinely in other parts of the world, particularly Yemen. The most interesting part of the story, though, was this:

Attacks by Qaeda militants in Yemen have picked up again, with several deadly assaults on Yemeni army convoys in recent weeks. Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch has managed to put out its first English-language online magazine, Inspire, complete with bomb-making instructions. Intelligence officials believe that Samir Khan, a 24-year-old American who arrived from North Carolina last year, played a major role in producing the slick publication.

First of all, "Inspire" sounds like the name of a Jehovah's Witness publication. We're not saying that Al Qaeda and the Jehovah's Witnesses are the same thing. Of course, we've never seen them both in the same room at the same time. More importantly, though, how did we not get a subscription offer to this magazine. We subscribe to everything else. We would have assumed that our subscription to The Nation would have gotten us an offer for at least 73% off the newsstand price and a free alarm clock/calendar/AM-FM radio.

Perhaps we could get an educator discount. It is back-to-school season, after all. Get ready to go shopping for school supplies, which now could entail a trip to the cleaning supplies aisle. Thanks to the stagnant economy--well, let's face it, "stagnant" would probably be an improvement--school districts look for cuts anywhere they can find them. Lately, this includes janitorial supplies, so students are being asked to bring to school--in addition to looseleaf paper, crayons, and glue--such items as paper towels, cleaning supplies, and even toilet paper. As an instructor, the Solipsist would like to request that his students also swing by Bevmo for some Stewart's Orange 'N Cream soda and perhaps some microbrews.

Look, we understand the need for schools to find ways to economize, and we don't even think it's completely inappropriate to enlist the aid of schoolchildren (or, more accurately, their parents) in obtaining basic supplies. We want to make it known, though, that if a hypothetical Solipsist, Jr., is asked to bring toilet paper, he will do so. But he ain't going to share.