The Land of Milk and Money

"A pair of ultra-orthodox Jewish newspapers altered a photograph of the new Israeli Cabinet, removing two female ministers from the shot, the BBC reported. The papers printed the doctored images last week.

In one of the newspapers, female ministers Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were replaced by two men in the inaugural photo of Israel's new 30-member Cabinet, which is headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The other publication blacked out the women.

Why? Because many ultra-orthodox Jews view publishing photos of women as a violation of female modesty."

Good to see it noted that crazy-ass-Jews are as crazy as crazy-ass-(insert belief system based on imaginary forces, here).

Iran isn't nearly as bad about this stuff (the repression of women) as many of our "allies," say, like parts of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia or some of the smaller Gulf States. No, Israeli women don't have to wear a head-scarf in public by law, like in Iran, but many must have their head's covered according to orthodox Judaism, anyway.

Similarly, restrictions on where and with whom women are allowed exist in both countries. Indeed, because this, and more, is compulsory under law in Iran—not just culturally/traditionally, as in Israel—it’s argued women are more repressed in the Islamic country.

But if the ultimate affect on women is the same, is there a difference? And if so, what?

With Western culture bound by the "rule of law," instinctively, we think that religious tradition made into law is always more of an affront to personal freedom.

Perhaps.

Yet, what is more stultifying to a youngster's identity formation: a law that, while generally followed superficially and publicly by the majority, is derided by them privately as dated at best and oppressive at worst, or a situation where the fear of supernatural retribution is pushed as communal tradition, with no dissenting voice of reason?

Forward looking, it might be that laws can be changed more readily than an ingrained cultural paradigm.

So, maybe, reform could come easily to an ever increasingly globalized Iran. Remember, in the country’s pre-Islamic-revolution history, only about 30 ago, they were as modern as most "western" countries—except, of course, that they had a corrupt military dictator installed by the U.S.

From Wikipedia.com:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, 2000

Ironic how the Taliban, as opposed to the Shah, came to power. Hmm. The first filled the vacuum left after the Cold War ended, by suddenly uninterested "super powers." The other was a direct result of Cold War-era non-detente mishigos.

Perhaps, historically, the U.S. couldn't care less what kind of regime they support/install (or depose, for that matter)--democratic, dictators, religious crazies, secular, oppressors, good or bad--as long as privatization and “free” markets were a result.

One of the CIA's first big successes after its inception, post-WWII, the role it played in Iran also (mentioned above) showed to what degree the government would act as proxy for corporate interests in controlling access to natural resources, which would go on to be duplicated again and again in Latin America for decades. You could argue, what is going on now in the Gulf is, in part, related to this competition for resources (oil).

What I'm getting at is this: exactly where does Israel fall on the spectrum above? Perhaps this revelation about Israel will, at least, allow us to question the unquestionable: is Israel simply a good, non-crazy-religious, non-oppressive democracy?

Not if all residents aren't voting citizens--ala Jim Crow South or, as Jimmy C. likes to say, S. African apartheid. Ha!

Greed isn't good. (or: The Ayn Rand/Mike Boolmberg non-exclusivity)

So says Collin Ferguson about Bernie Madaoff (see below) debacle, but specifically about the lacking in goodness of greed--despite the claims of Michael Douglas (see above).

In a rare defense of capitalism (of course, I recently gave a equally rare applause to capitalism), late night or otherwise, Ferguson reminded everyone that its guiding principle need not be greed, rather, "the money goes here, goes there," not to be hoarded up by a few. And though at first naive sounding, he's actually right.

In reality, that's exactly what usually happens. That's why trickle-down doesn't work as a stimulus--the rich are the only people that can afford to hoard monies received via tax breaks and not spend it in the economy. Middle and working class folks don't have the same luxury, they must spend.

I barely remember the banking meltdown of the late eighties; Wall St. mishigos and a housing bubble, then as now, was mostly to blame if not totally responsible for the mess. It was probably the first time I thought of a bank other than simply a place to keep money, ostensibly, safe. What I learned is that they weren't completely safe, actually.

I do remember the FDIC, and the little plastic plaques that were stuck up on the cold marble or bullet proof glass--depending on the neighborhood--that stated how individual savings accounts would be covered up to $100, 000. It seemed like a lot of money, at the time, and still does.

Of course, recently, the limit of protection has been increased to $250,000--for the rest of the year, anyway. So, if you have greater than $100, 000 and less than $250, 000, you'd better hope your bank fails by December 31st.