The world is, rather understandably, disconcerted by the inaction of Burma’s military junta with regards to their response to the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis. As many of you are aware, the regime has been hindering international aid efforts, causing the humanitarian crisis to worsen. As it stands now, some 78,000 to 100,000 people have been killed and a further 60,000 are thought to be missing.

While shocking to the layman, the Burmese regime has some cause for trepidation. We are, after all, talking about a military dictatorship that has imprisoned the country’s democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, on and off since 1989. The very same regime was also responsible for using lethal force against non-violent protestors last year, among a variety of other transgressions during their tenure.

No matter how many people have to suffer in the wake of the disaster, the retention of control is, to the regime, of the utmost importance. While they might be megalomaniacal, they’re not so far gone as to not realize that organizations, such as USAID, have been used in similar situations to provide foreign powers with covert footholds. Thus, their number one fear is very probably the consequences of allowing foreign agencies and their employees access to not just those suffering, but the people themselves. In doing so, such a connection could lead to the infusion of anti-government sentiment that is backed by foreign interests. And while I hate to admit it, foreign aid agencies that are federally funded have been used repeatedly in the past to do just that.

The bottom line here is that politics, power, and agenda have no place when it comes to a disaster of this magnitude and such immense loss and endangerment of human life. Not when the number one threat to those trapped in the affected area is a lack of clean drinking water.

While brutal at the best of times, the Burmese junta is by no means completely daft. They are well aware of the dangers of allowing foreign aid agencies unrestricted access and movement. Because with them comes conditions, the sort that they are not willing to meet. And while, on the surface, such matters are viewed as simply exercises in good will on the part of major world powers, conditions are always present when their assistance is accepted.

Lost, as always, in the political haze, are the tens of thousands of people that are now facing the onset of disease and starvation. In the end, international politics will hammer the death nails into their coffins, not a lack of global, public compassion. Ultimately, through their inability to accept foreign assistance, the Burmese regime could very well find itself guilty of crimes against humanity. Their inaction could also very well lead to renewed efforts by members of the National League For Democracy and Burma’s Buddhist monks to challenge their authority. Given that that movement is steeped in the tenets of non-violent non-cooperation, perhaps, after some time, they will finally secure a free and independent Burma without the assistance of the likes of the CIA, MI6, and others who would use this terrible disaster to plant seeds of their own.

We are all human. When one of us suffers, we all suffer. When one of us is faced with disparity we must all take responsibility for allowing it to happen. Governments are simply ‘things’, they are not, nor have they ever been, the masters of human compassion or at all accurate moral compasses. What is transpiring right now in Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis is a human matter, and therefore governments, nor politics, have no business usurping such fundamental truths.

One minute you’re eating your oatmeal, the next minute you’re not. One minute you’re walking down the street, the next minute you’re just another statistic that the world doesn’t want to hear about because there are already far too many statistics.

In a letter to James Madison in early 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote - “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Truer words were never spoken, and one wonders where that spirit has gone. It seems to me that four decades ago the world was on fire with thought, on fire with discussion, and venturing out in bold social directions because of injustices and hypocrisies faced. Indeed, the time was ripe for a little rebellion, though, in my opinion, it was never truly capitalized on.

Here we find ourselves four decades later, a hundred years and more after a century that saw the birth of some of the most radical thought in human history, in an era replete with the abuse of power, of premeditated wars, of genocides that are all but ignored, and you could, for all intents and purposes, hear a pin drop.

That’s not to say that there haven’t been a few glimmers of hope. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, more people protested against it on a global scale than at any time in human history. Unfortunately, once it began, that level of enthusiasm vanished. And while there are countless global initiatives focused on a wide range of issues, such as the genocide occurring in Darfur, there doesn’t seem to be any immediacy or impassioned defiance involved. We have, in many ways, come to view outrage as something best limited to those parameters perceived to be ‘workable’, and in doing so have considerably diminished our own sense of power.

No government on earth can quell or contain a populist movement once it begins in earnest. They may delay it for a time, they might even use force to deter it, but if the people possess unyielding conviction then there is no power on earth that can stop them. Because for every gun held in the hands of a government soldier, there are thousands beyond to remove that weapon. A clip only holds so many bullets, and certainly not a thousand of them. To combat a population to such a degree as to use lethal force to its fullest extent cannot even stop a people united. It may destroy them, but it cannot defeat their desire to see change affected. For with the decimation of the people comes the reality that there is nothing to govern save empty, charred earth.

To confront the status quo is to confront the proposition that conveniences and comforts will be lost in the process if real change is to occur. It means that the very lifestyle that we cling to has to be brought into question and examined for what it truly is – a mechanism of control, one that survives primarily through the exploitation of others secured in a variety of ways.

We live in free societies, yet do not have access to unspotted information. We live in free societies in which conflicts can be justified using the very same methods employed by those that we historically view as vile. We live in free societies in which dissent is viewed as unpatriotic forgetting that in the context of such societies it is the one element that must never be forsaken.

If we can put a man on the moon, look at the surface of other planets using robots, and create weapons that have the ability to destroy the world if used in number, then we have the ability to affect change. For if our greatest accomplishments are limited to the scope of the former, then the latter becomes our greatest failure - the insurance of the demise of freedom itself.

First, a video by the always-impeccable Dan Le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip…

Second, from North Carolina’s The News & Observer…

“Some conservative groups are urging parents to keep children home from school today if their fellow students will be taking part in the annual Day of Silence observation.
Thousands of middle- and high-school students across the nation, including some in the Triangle, plan to take a vow of silence today to bring attention to the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students.

Participation and support for the event, now in its 12th year, varies by school. It has long proved controversial among those opposed to homosexuality.

But this year, a network of local and national conservative groups is calling for a boycott. They claim that allowing some students to be silent in class will not only promote homosexuality, it also will disrupt education.”

Take note of one particular passage - “will not only promote homosexuality”.

How does one ‘promote’ something that is, whether conservative morons like it or not, not the choice of an individual but rather something they are born to be?

This ridiculous position that gay people are somehow ‘morally corrupted’, that they consciously make the decision to be gay one day as if they were merely deciding between a pair of shoes at a store, has to be one of the most mind numbing fallacies of our time.

If you’re against the ‘homosexual lifestyle’, which is actually not a ‘lifestyle’ at all but simply an ordinary life not unlike any other, ask yourself a simple question – how many gay people do you know? How much time have you spent conversing with them, getting to know them, and in doing so approach it from the standpoint that you are speaking with a human being of equal worth and not someone that you have prejudged?

If anyone out there wants to speak for God on the matter, remember that, in the context of your faith, God is the judge, not you. And if there is truly some sort of judgment after this life, then you will certainly not be present at the judgment of others, and therefore have absolutely no right to conduct yourself in this life as if you will be. Nor, dare I say, do you have the right to corrupt your children, to limit their social scope to something so narrow as to deny them the right to freely, and in good faith, meet their fellow man without having their hearts and minds corrupted beforehand.

To be honest, this sort of thing doesn’t just apply to the gay community, but to all communities. Ignorance is represented in our species by the reality that even though we all share the same emotionality, its usurpation by small-minded individuals limits our ability to view one another as one in the same. Thus, if there is anything out there to be mindful of, it is those that would promote division for their own ends, and, having realized that, wonder why the alternative is such a scary proposition to them.

The Israeli fuel blockade of Gaza is forcing the United Nations to suspend humanitarian relief efforts. That said; why should we care that 80% of those living in Gaza rely on humanitarian assistance? They are, after all, terrorists, or at the very least terrorists in training (even in their cribs, correct?). Because as we’re all aware, when you’re born and raised in the world’s foremost ghetto the enticement of striking back against those you perceive to be oppressing you isn’t a predominant factor. If only they would put down their weapons, or stop strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocents, the region would be at peace.

Easy, right?

We’re all aware that this is a one sided affair. Disregard the fact that it takes two to tango; you can’t impugn the Israelis without being labeled an anti-Semite. After all, the Nazi’s systematically murdered six million innocent Jews, which is absolutely undeniable and one of the most grotesque undertakings in modern human history. You’ll never, in a million lifetimes, get an argument out of me regarding that. Then again, how long will that tragedy be used as a promotional vehicle for Israeli justifications, especially in the West?

Of course, kids on the Strip that hurl stones as IDF tanks and troops had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and if those that hold sway in their lives claim that it didn’t occur, indoctrinating them with lies, then there is simply no defending such utter ignorance. I suppose the same thing can be said of those Americans that were brought up to believe that African Americans are inferior and non-human, that they were merely children caught up in a cycle of hatred that led to their indoctrination. In truth, it’s a phenomenon that is prevalent the world over, and it is also one that exists in Israeli as well.

The world is not a place of absolutes. There is no condemning an entire nation, an entire people, nor an entire religion based on the actions of a few, or even more than a few. Unfortunately, we live in world in which absolutes have infected popular thought, and the victim of that phenomenon is not only reason, but also compassion.

Turning to the geopolitical, today’s Washington Post has brought something to light that may be of interest…

“A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president’s efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush’s letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush’s peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza.

U.S. officials say no such agreement exists, and in recent months Rice has publicly criticized even settlement expansion on the outskirts of Jerusalem, which Israel does not officially count as settlements. But as peace negotiations have stepped up in recent months, so has the pace of settlement construction, infuriating Palestinian officials, and Washington has taken no punitive action against Israel for its settlement efforts.

Israeli officials say they have clear guidance from Bush administration officials to continue building settlements, as long as it meets carefully negotiated criteria, even though those understandings appear to contradict U.S. policy.

Many experts say new settlement construction undermines the political standing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — who is to meet with Bush today at the White House — and adds to Palestinian cynicism about the peace process. Palestinians view the settlements as an Israeli effort to claim Palestinian lands, and in a meeting yesterday with Rice, Abbas said settlement construction was “one of the greatest obstacles” to a peace deal.”

And whom, in all of it, do the Palestinians have to point to with regards to justifying their actions? They remain a people placed into convenient categories – terrorists, extremists, and so forth. That is how we ultimately view them. They have no past abomination to embolden their struggle, to secure the world’s never ending sympathy. They remain, no matter their singular beliefs, a people largely viewed by the West as the root of a problem, as obstacles of peace. That isn’t to say that there aren’t those amongst them that fit that description. Then again, the same thing can be said of countless others elsewhere. Even right here at home.

In the documentary 11th Hour, former CIA Director James Woolsey, of all people, makes a very important point with regards to the correlation between consumerism and industrial opportunism and the ability to affect change in a very short period of time given what are traditionally viewed as ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Woolsey’s point of reference was the transformation of the US auto industry into an industrial mechanism with which to produce aircraft, tanks, and a variety of other military necessities during the early stages of America’s involvement in the Second World War. That transformation took, believe it or not, merely six months. Put into context, if the disastrous environmental reality that we are currently facing was seriously addressed by government, the implementation of alternative energy use, that being non-carbon based energy (fossil fuels), could be introduced in a very timely fashion. It would also create jobs, which would replace those lost in the transformation. The only loser in that transformation would be the corporate oil sector, which possesses such enormous influence that, in truth, they are largely responsible for the inability, or unwillingness, of government to act. Ultimately, greed has become the foremost factor in the inability to seriously implement alternative energy sources that would significantly impact the amount of damage that fossil fuels do on a daily basis.

Of course, many economists will argue tooth and nail that such a transformation would be disadvantageous. But that supposes that the economy is of greater significance than the environment. The only problem with such logic is that economies can grow; as can populations and the waste they produce. The environment, on the other hand, cannot expand to match it. It is a limited and immovable thing, and therefore unalterable with regards to meeting the demands of economic growth.

In the last half of the twentieth century the world’s population has grown faster than at any other point in human history. In fact, during that period it has increased so much that that increase alone constitutes a figure greater than the population of the planet at any time prior to the industrial revolution. During that increase, the primary source of energy used by the population of the planet has been carbon based – which includes everything from food production to transportation to the production of electricity.

For the majority of human history our species relied on available sunlight for energy. But since the discovery of fossil fuels, we have become wholly dependent on an energy source that is not only unsustainable, but also catastrophically damaging with regards to its impact on the environment. Thus, we now find ourselves in an era in which we are forced to make a very important choice – to either disregard the realities of that dependency and its ramifications or to address our dependence on fossil fuels and work to eliminate it.

In the end, and despite our intelligence, our species may very well constitute nothing more than a global parasite, one that, having been given the chance to grow and consume the benefits of its host may very well find itself the author of its own destruction because of it. Given that, it should also not be overlooked that despite the damage caused, our host will outlast us, no matter how superior we believe ourselves to be. It has, in the billions of years of its existence, seen life forms come and go, and to think that we are somehow immune to that natural eventuality is, perhaps, the primary reason that we refuse to alter our perspective.

Of course, there are those that faithfully believe that a higher power created the world and that what we do to it doesn’t matter because is it, in the end, part of a greater divine plan. There is little that can be said to such individuals regarding this subject, only that if a divine plan does exists, our eventual demise is a part of it, and that the endurance and eventual reconstitution of the natural world is as well. Unless, that is, God’s plan is to also destroy the natural world in the process.

I’m going to go on a bit of a tirade, so prepare yourself.

Let’s cut the shit and be honest - Muslims blow people up, right? Since September the 11th, and even preceding it, that has been much of the Western world’s perception. Since 9/11, Islam has been attacked by right-wing hacks the world over as being a faith that is steeped in intolerance and hatred. Of course, those same people, even if they’ve read the Qu’ran, usually have zero experience with regards to Muslim cultures. Their intolerance of Islam is steeped in a perspective that lumps an entire faith into a single category – that being one represented by extremists.

That said; how many of you Catholics out there appreciate being branded child molesters simply because there are those within the church that have been guilty of it? What if I were to say that you’re all child molesters – every last despicable, Papist one of you?

Let’s get off our high horse and, for once, smell the bullshit. The current tensions in the Middle East have roots. One of them is the creation of Israel without the involvement of the Arab League. The other is that much of the region was exploited by imperial powers for centuries.

The latter of those two was reason enough for the people of the American Colonies to rise up against the British and employ both conventional military force and the use of militias to oppose them. Of course, some of those same freedom loving people, now historically glorified, were also responsible for genocidal practices with regards to various Native American peoples. But we needn’t dwell on that.

A very long time ago, numerous Popes - that would be God’s chosen representative on earth - proclaimed that killing Muslims was the path to heaven. In fact, that belief held water for two entire centuries. During that time, Christian nations in Europe sent armies into Palestine, among other places, to retake what they deemed rightfully theirs and to wipe out whomever happened to disagree with their views. And the Jews? Well, they were demonized as well.

Interestingly, if you open a history book, you’ll discover that during the 4th Century Jews were banned from Jerusalem altogether by a Christian Roman Emperor, lasting until 638. And what happened in 638? Well, Arabs captured the city and, believe it or not, allowed Jews access to it again. In fact, up until the first Crusade, Jews and Muslims both worshipped openly in Jerusalem. And then, in 1099, Christian Crusaders murdered the majority of its population, Jews and Muslims alike, during and after their siege of the city.

In the centuries that followed, Jerusalem was ruled by a variety of others – Muslims again, Christians again, the Turks, the Mamelukes, the Ottomans and the British. Ultimately, thousands of years after last controlling it, the creation of Israel established much of Palestine as a Jewish state, including parts of Jerusalem.

But I digress.

One of the highest crimes during the Inquisition was being labeled a ‘Jewdite’. The punishment? Death. If you were suspected of being Jewish in Spain during that time you faced ‘The Question,’ were imprisoned, and then put to death. Of course, conversion was always an option, but that didn’t automatically mean that your life would be spared. The same went for Protestants, though they would employ their own special brand of intolerance in those parts of Europe that were under their control, doing the same to Catholics.

In any event, you’ve got well in excess of a thousand years of Christian brutality, extremism and murder to reflect on. And that’s not even taking into account those conquests of the new world sanctioned by Rome that inevitably led to the eradication of entire peoples.

So do you honestly believe that when it comes to religious extremism we possess the moral high ground? If you do, you’re one of two things – either on crack or looking for some.

If you scan the headlines right now, you’ll be confronted by the news that militants killed eight Israelis today in Jerusalem. In Gaza, news of the murders was met with celebratory gunfire. Given what’s happened in Gaza over the last two weeks, it doesn’t surprise me that sympathetic morons would shoot bullets into the air to celebrate the cold blooded murder of innocent people. But that’s to be expected, just as Western bias regarding what transpired over the last two weeks in Gaza is to be expected. As for the Israeli government, what happened today shouldn’t come as a surprise. I mean, after the events of last two weeks, what did they expect? In the words of Forrest Gump – stupid is as stupid does.

They’re extremists, the lot of them. They just conduct their wars of piety and revenge, of ideology and intolerance, in ways that can be spun to suit the rage required to sustain dedication to such moronic behaviour on both sides.

Killing’s, killing’s, killing’s kids. 54 people were blown to bits in Baghdad today, with another 100 more injured. But it’s just another day in Iraq. Iraqi extremists, or foreign extremists that have ventured to Iraq to play their little role in a game as ignorantly old as the sun and the moon, killed innocent Iraqis. It’s to be expected. Muslims blow people up, right?

Old news, or not white people, or not steadfast allies. Eight dead Israelis, on the other hand, is news – and certainly vastly more important than the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Because Muslims blow people up, right? Theirs is a faith steeped in violence and hatred and intolerance and that’s proven to be the case since its inception, right? Ours, on the other hand, is a belief steeped in love and glorious instant noodle salvation.

In God we trust. I’ll tell you this, flat out – God, in his many forms, is an untrustworthy fucker. Because if you’re going to buy into the belief that it’s best to put your faith in placing all of your eggs in one basket, then if you drop it you lose everything. And that, at its core, is nothing but the roots of extremism.

Religion is as old as man. So is stupidity. Coincidence?

The photograph that you are looking at was taken in 1914. In it, British and German soldiers are standing together in no man’s land on the Western Front on Christmas Day. On that day, hostilities were halted and the two sides fraternized in the spirit of the season before returning to their respective sides and attempting to annihilable one another.

Rather than write something high minded about the holidays, about the birth that Christmas commemorates and what the child, as a man, radically stood for in the face of aggression, I wanted to make a very plain statement, and the above photograph demonstrates it well enough.

We are not at war with one another, nor have we ever been. We are merely the instruments of the lunacy of others. The thing is, and never forget this - there will always be more of us than them, more of those that would rather climb out of the trenches and walk that distance towards those on an opposing side because of a shared understanding of what madness it all truly is.

If there is anything to be celebrated, let it be the hope that sooner than later we will act on that reality.

My very best wishes to each and every one of you, no matter where you are, no matter what you believe, and no matter how high the walls of your trench may seem.

3:16 AM, raining again, maybe a gunshot in the distance, sirens a few blocks away. The sound of shopping-cart wheels click on the sidewalk below my window, stopping every twenty feet or so probably so that a garbage bin can be rummaged through. The ironic sound of a street cleaner hums below the din of the sirens, its brushes spinning against the concrete, new polish for the same old streets.

Life is death. She goes in for surgery tomorrow to see if they can remove it. If something is amiss she’ll have to get chemotherapy in the new-year. I can’t see her without that long, flowing hair framing her face. I’m not sure I’ll sleep tonight, even though I’ve been lying in bed trying for hours now. But life is death. As unique as we all might be, as uncommon as we all might be, in the end we all find ourselves in the ground, our ashes discarded at some place of sentimental significance, or simply lost or discarded because circumstances wouldn’t allow for such dignities. Live in a mansion, drive an expensive car, live in a shack in the woods, drive a rusted out pickup truck – everyone punches the same ticket. It doesn’t matter if you go to the gym seven days a week, consume the strictest of diets, down vitamins on a daily basis, or spend hours baking in some yoga studio – everyone goes. There’s nothing for it, only the reality that what you do in this life, the impression that you ultimately leave, is all that will remain. And even then, in most cases, it will be fleeting. That has been the way of the world since man straightened himself and took those first awkward, upright steps.

Will God be waiting for you? Will some imperious demon? Does what you fear in this life regarding the next limit your understanding of life itself? Even more, does it interfere with the universal acceptance of human finality?

My eyes opened, the lights were bright. I sucked in some air and fought the urge to laugh. I still don’t know why. I was pretty drugged up, nothing came out, but I still thought it amusing. Was that it, I thought? Like a film hyped to be something more than it actually is, that is how I found nothingness - all hype.

I used to have nightmares about getting hit by a car and being thrown across the pavement, my skin ripped away to the bone. But after that night I don’t dream about it anymore. In fact, the thought of it happening doesn’t bother me. Life is death, and that being the case; there are no secrets to it. It remains the one unalterable in a world of alterations, in a world gripped by the fear of the one thing that can never be avoided or overcome. How there is not comfort in that I don’t know.

Fear it if you must, and in doing so fear life. They are one in the same in the end. For to be born is to die, that’s the deal.

When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…

“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.

“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.

“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”

“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”

While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.

As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.

In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?

In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.

I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?

If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?

I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?

Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.

The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.

Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.

When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.

No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.

There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.

For some bizarre reason, three people have mentioned the Victoria Secret Fashion Show to me today. To be honest, I have no idea why.

Let’s get one thing straight about lingerie – sure it can make you feel pretty, sure it can be a turn on for guys, but in the end everyone ends up naked and no amount of lingerie is going to save your Victoria Secret wearing ass if, once you’re naked, you feel less sexy than you did when you had it on.

Sexual confidence is, in truth, far sexier than sexy lingerie. In fact, the hottest woman in the world could be standing in front of a man wearing it and if, once it’s off, her confidence evaporates it doesn’t matter how beautiful she is. Sure, there are those that don’t mind that, that prefer something that just looks good – the same applies to women as well - but the truth is that confidence and belief in ones self remains the sexiest thing in the world.

Now, when I say ‘confidence’ I am not referring to the sort that is actually manipulation disguised as confidence. In truth, that’s just low self-esteem, something that most of the worlds hot men and women suffer from. That would be the reason why they spend so much time focusing on their appearance. If you need to spend a considerable amount of time focusing on that which is without then chances are there’s something wrong within. Of course, modern pressures have a great deal to do with that as well. Walk by your average magazine stand and you’ll be bombarded by photo-shopped perfections symbolizing everything that is supposedly wrong with you. There is no question that those, and other influences, play a significant role in the usurpation of our confidence. We are, without a doubt, living at the societal height of such manipulations and distractions. They’re everywhere we turn – in film, on television, online, in magazines, on billboards, and a dozen other places.

But everyone ends up naked in the end. And, as far as I’m concerned, no amount of hot lingerie can make up for a lack of confidence, no matter how beautiful on the outside we perceive ourselves, or others, to be. The truth of ourselves comes out when we are at our most vulnerable, everything else is just a shield.