Those who know me know I have a problems with the notion of security through obscurity — the idea that one can achieve some measure of real security by hiding the item or knowledge which needs to be protected. As a security measure, obscurity has been around since man first hid from a predator. It has never been a consistently successful strategy. The pilfered tombs of the Pharaohs illustrate that no matter how cleaver or determined one is to hide something away, an equally cleaver thief will eventually find the treasure. That the most guarded secrets of the cold war usually flowed between adversaries in a matter of weeks speaks to the ineffectiveness of obscurity when confronted with a determined and resourceful foe. Nonetheless, obscurity remains with us as a natural response to threatening situations. The desire to protect ourselves, or our possessions, immediately invokes the evolutionary response to hide from threats.
I was fascinated to read a recent NY Times article on the obscurity devices of Aya Tsukioka. Ms. Tsukioka has created camouflaging fashions for Japan’s urban dwelling population. Though violent street crime is down in Japan sensationalist news reports have created an air of fear among city dwellers. Among Ms. Tsukioka’s inventions is a skirt which allows the wearer to disguise oneself as a vending machine:
The wearer hides behind the sheet, printed with an actual-size photo of a vending machine. Ms. Tsukioka’s clothing is still in development, but she already has several versions, including one that unfolds from a kimono and a deluxe model with four sides for more complete camouflaging.
Other creations by Ms. Tsukioka include a purse which can be disguised as a manhole cover — presumably to be thrown into the middle of the street when the carrier feels threatened — and backpack which allows a child to disguise her/himself as a fire hydrant.
There is something more then a bit disturbing with the idea that women and children should need to take on the appearance of common inanimate urban objects in order to protect themselves. Certainly it can be argued that historically these two groups have been objectified in this manner for thousands of years, and the need/desire to obscure the body in this manner is a reflection of a conservative cultural mindset. Fear, in general, tends to evoke the most primitive of responses in the human mind. The response suggested by Ms. Tsukioka’s creations is that we need to hide our humanity until the fear passes. I couldn’t disagree more.
Last week Citizen Lab released a kind of everyman guide to circumventing Internet censorship. The guide is by no means exhaustive, but offers some well known and simple methods for bypassing Internet content control systems used by some of the most repressive governments in the world. It has been said that we now live in the information age. Certainly this is what governments around the world believe to be true. The desire to control citizen’s access to information and uncensored media has become prevalent across more then half the globe. In places like China, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and others direct filtering of political and social commentary is common. Most governments seem to believe it is necessary to ‘protect’ their citizens from certain ideas or types of content. Here, in the United States, arguments about COPA and CIPA have lead to numerous court cases — CIPA is currently under review to see if it can be extended to block sites like myspace.com and facebook.
As governments and corporations extend their power and influence, their need to limit access to ideas which contradict theirs will continue to grow. The ability to bypass Internet filters or hide one’s identity will become more and more essential. This guide offers a helpful start for everyone.
Despondent over the lack of of action against the Burmese dictators recent murder and repression, an activist group in Thailand has organized women to send their underwear to the Burmese government offices and embassies. The Panties for Peace protest is designed to first keep the ever saddening plight of Burma in the minds of the media and policy makers, and secondly to play upon the masculine superstitions of the Burmese depots:
Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments - clean or dirty - will sap them of their power, said Jackie Pollack, a member of the Lanna Action for Burma Committee.
“Not only are they brutal, but they are also very superstitious. They believe that touching a woman’s pants or sarong will make them lose their strength,” Ms Pollack told Guardian Unlimited.
It never ceases to amaze how common the fear of women’s naughty bits is among despotic authoritarians. During a visit from the Pope last year the Polish authorities banned the sales of lingerie and tampons. The sale of tampons, by unlicensed medical professionals has also been banned in Taiwan. Authoritarians seem to have some innate fear of the female body. Nearly all the anti-homosexual rhetoric, here in the states, focuses on the feminizing of the male body by emphasizing stereotypical female characteristics such as physical weakness, passivity, and of course an obsession on the penetration of the sexual body.
The despots of Burma seem to believe that simply touching a pair of panties, which may have been in the proximity of a vagina, imparts femitons which attack the precious masculine bodily fluids. It is no coincidence that this fear of women’s bodies has created a policy of using rape as a political and military weapon. Their fear and hatred of women’s bodies allows these men to justify performing the most unspeakable acts against them.
Next week on October 24th, the US Campaign for Burma will be holding a grass roots media awareness day. They hope to bring more pressure on the UN — and particularly China — to take action against the brutal leaders of Burma. There is still some hope for the Burmese people that the world can force the government to recognize the duly elected leaders of Burma and provide some relief to the brutalized citizens of this small country.
There are days when my mind just can’t keep up with the insipid reasoning of the rightwing. I generally try to avoid engaging the poorly reasoned ramblings of the bloviating pundit class. But just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.
Over at the conservative site, townhall.com, Dinesh D’Souza announced that he will be debating Christopher Hitchens on the subjects of God and religion. D’Souza has been considered to be one of the ‘great thinkers’ in the modern conservative movement. So how is this intellectual conservative defend Christianity and religion? He invokes laughable a prioric argument of Anselm of Canterbury, also known as the ontological argument for the existence of God.
For those who are unfamiliar with Anslem’s argument — later extended by Descartes — it can be stated simply as: “Humans can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (ie. God); This perfection is greater then any other perfection humans can conceive of; thus, the knowledge of this being must be a prioric, or innately known to be true; therefore this being, God, must exists.”
As any first year philosophy student will point out, Anslem’s argument is easily susceptible to what’s known as the ‘overload objection’. In other words, humans can conceive of any number of fantasitcal creatures which do not exist, pegasus, unicorns, and even invisible pink unicorns. The fact that these creatures can be conceived of but are nonexistent undermines the notion that God exists because we can conceive of God. We are left with the Anslem’s and Descartes notion of the ultimate perfection of God. We can only conceive of a single being of unmediated perfection - that being must be God.
This, however, leads to a different problem for D’Souza and others: that this perfect being is by no logical reasoning Christian. This is essentially the same problem suffered by Pascal’s Wager. We may argue that, perhaps, some God figure exists, but the arguments lead towards no evidence of the nature of that being. Even if we would blindly accept the a priori argument for God’s existence there is nothing in the argument to suggest that Christianity reflects the nature of God. If fact, we can conceive of an ultimately perfect being which is completely ambivalent towards mankind; thus, negating any need for religious devotion.
It is also worth mentioning, at this point, Immanuel Kant’s objection to the a prioric argument. Kant argues that mere existence is not a quality which defines the actual existence of an object. But that actual existence is defined by more specific properties of a thing.
Nonetheless, the silliness of D’Souza is to suggest that he can logically define or prove the existence of God in the first place. There is no rational argument which can prove the existence of God, and most conservative intellectuals have even given up trying. Even Michael Gerson, a conservative Christian and speech writer for George Bush, in a recent screed against atheists didn’t try to prove the existence of God, but instead focused on the necessity to believe in God. Gerson, like many conservatives, argues that man needs God to have moral order in this world and the next. God becomes an authoritarian necessity — an excuse to accept the ‘natural order’ and to defer unpunished injustices to the next world. For many rational conservatives this is the natural argument for the necessity, not the existence, of God.
D’Souza — who was once heralded as the new example of conservative intellectualism — seems to miss the fact that his argument for existence was dismissed over a hundred years ago and is now taught as a logical fallacy in most universities. It’s a fact that most conservatives would find it politically difficult to argue that religion is necessary for social order but has no basis in fact. This the primary reason why conservative theorists don’t engage in arguments about religion. Instead they leave those debates to the true believers. Those who — with no rational arguments — believe in their theology which supports the conservative authoritarian ideology. D’Souza is seemingly trying to bridge this gap between faith and the mind. From his essay it is abundantly clear that he lacks the intellectual ability to even begin such a meditation, let alone participate in any real discussion of the issues.
I want to make it clear that I have no love or admiration for Christopher Hitchens. I find him to be overbearing and much of his arguments flawed. His continued support of the war in Iraq has shown him to have lost any connection to a rational reality. His logic at a recent conference speaks for itself: sickening.
It is often a sad fact of life that people who shine with brilliant insight at one moment remain imprisoned by their dark prejudices throughout their lives. Such is the fate of Dr. James Watson. In 1962 Dr. Watson won the Nobel Prize for his work on the discovery of the DNA double helix, this week Dr. Watson made the claim thats dark skinned people are less intelligent then lighter skinned ones:
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.”. He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Of course Dr. Watson’s opinions have no basis in scientific reasoning or fact. But the mere notion that a Nobel accredited scientist should utter such nonsense gives credence to racist theories and policies throughout the world. Dr. Watson has never been a good spokesman for the common humanity of man. In the past, he has suggested a link between skin-tone and libido, and has suggested that a woman may wish to abort her child if it can be shown the child would be a homosexual.
It’s not clear if Dr. Watson is simply so egomaniacle that he believes his discovery of fifty years ago is the golden key to understanding all of societies problems — and that we can ignore historical and economic movements like colonialism, slavery, and genocide to explain social/economic problems among people. Or if he is simply, like so many, a prisoner to the prejudices and racism of the culture of his youth. In either case, it is sad and disturbing to see a man who pioneered our understanding of the common biology of humanity to espouse discredited and divisive 19th century views. It all seems to suggest that no matter how far we extend our intelligence we must continue to fight the ignorance of our personal prejudices.
Usually, I pay little to no attention to the ravings of Ann Coulter. She’s crass, vapid, and incendiary: she is the Andrew Dice Clay of punditry. However, this week she instigated one of her patented kerfuffles when she was interviewed on CNBC and I couldn’t resist commenting. Ann declared that Jews are good people that simply haven’t been perfected by Christianity:
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they –
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
…
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you’re not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That’s not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were - if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists
…
DEUTSCH: That isn’t what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or –
COULTER: Yeah.
…
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
…
DEUTSCH: But that’s even a scarier thought. OK –
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
Since her appearance, Coulter has been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and other for being antisemitic or simply theologically ill-informed. Ann Coulter, ill-informed? Shocked, I am! Shocked, I say. . . But Ann, and her defenders, insist that she is not antisemitic, simply ‘pro-christian’. And they are correct; Ann is no more antisemitic then Christians have been throughout history. She is simply expressing a tenant of her faith — as a conservative evangelical Christian.
Conservative and fundamentalist evangelicals believe that they have the only inside scoop on ’salvation’ and are the only true Christians. But good conservative evangelicals understand the God singled out the Jews in his operator’s manual, the Bible, as special. Pastor Hagee, the fundamentalist founder of the powerful Christians United for Israel, has built a religious and political empire on his theology of imperfect Jews. For Hagee, Jews combined with the state of Israel form a prophetic key which opens a magic gate and allows Jesus to return. Unfortunately, this prophetic ‘happening’ doesn’t bode too well for the Jews, as Bruce Wilson has pointed out:
Many Christian Premillenial Dispensationalists — the theological persuasion Pastor John Hagee belongs to — believe that the majority of the Jews currently living in Israel will be killed in the period of warfare that follows the “Rapture,” when “believing” Christians ( fundamentalist Christians, that is ) are bodily transported up to safety in heaven. The standard interpretation is that 2/3 or more of Israeli Jews will be slaughtered during this period but that a righteous “remnant”, who have realized the error of their ways and converted to Christianity, will survive what Christian Zionists often call the “final Holocaust” or the “second Holocaust.”
I am not trying to assert that Ann Coulter shares Pastor Hagee’s theology, simply that the belief that Jews are imperfect is one which is very prevalent in contemporary conservative Christian culture. Certainly Coulter and Hagee share similar notions of America’s role in the world. Both desire America to attack Iran, both view Islam as threat to world order, and both see secular conspiracies all around them. And, it would seem, that both share the notion that Jews need to accept Christ as their savior or messiah in order to be better human beings.
What Ann Coulter did this week was to speak a tenant of her faith, one which is not usually spoken out loud. She voiced a tenant that is understood among believers, but rarely spoken of outside of prophesy. For this she should be applauded. Her honesty and childlike recitation of dogma helps others to better understand conservative evangelical Christianity. Her words have helped spread a knowledge of her faith, and we can only hope that those words reverberate so that every American can understand the faith which has asserted itself as the true American Christianity.
Congratulations to President Mr. Gore on being the recipient of this years Nobel Peace Prize. Though snarkly derided by the right wing pundits, the award of this prize to Mr. Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change demonstrates that there is a different heralded path for our world. One which is not based upon division, bombast and invasions. The Washington Post compares the path of the two leaders.
Those who know me know I have a problems with the notion of security through obscurity — the idea that one can achieve some measure of real security by hiding the item or knowledge which needs to be protected. As a security measure, obscurity has been around since man first hid from a predator. It has never been a consistently successful strategy. The pilfered tombs of the Pharaohs illustrate that no matter how cleaver or determined one is to hide something away, an equally cleaver thief will eventually find the treasure. That the most guarded secrets of the cold war usually flowed between adversaries in a matter of weeks speaks to the ineffectiveness of obscurity when confronted with a determined and resourceful foe. Nonetheless, obscurity remains with us as a natural response to threatening situations. The desire to protect ourselves, or our possessions, immediately invokes the evolutionary response to hide from threats.
cult of fear, fashion, security
