Juxtapose that history with this, simple, yet complex.  Listen to the way certain notes are played, not just strength of those notes, but in how they come into their sound and how they fade out.

Even on his slower pieces, Beethoven would write notes like “play this part as if the notes are exhausted” to give even the simple and elegant, the depth of truly complex music.

Enjoy.

CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists, that terrorism and suicide bombings are not the way to make political points.

In the hearts and minds game, Egypt progressed past its beginnings to reach this point.  It has to be noted that Egypt worked hard at this and came about it only after many years, through the force of a moderate leader who was assassinated. (side story:  UN investigation into Hezbollah’s <funded by Iran> hand in the assassination is what brought down the Lebanese government) Culture is after all a generational problem (or benefit).

To see the full context, Stratfor’s piece on Egypt written in light of recent terrorist attacks within Egypt by Muslims against Christians is an excellent resource.  Stratfor starts by providing context, detailing Egypt’s ruthless efficiency for dealing with terrorists, even after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981.  Giving an underpinning to the reason why the terrorist attacks in Egypt deserve special attention; Egypt is entering a time of leadership change.  Therefore the two sides of Egypt, the more liberal side (liberal for the Middle East that is) against the Islamists (read entire piece here):

What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.

Yep, it takes a good grasp on reality, a complete understanding of the consistency with which humans fail to properly analyze people, and above all an understanding in the valuelessness of most fads (read: 99%) to have pushed this silly idea in the first place.

But with this firm grasp on reality, and several opinion articles throughout the sports world, MO legislators just couldn’t let the voice of the people go unanswered.  So without much hesitation, they eagerly followed the blind and move quickly; utilizing the power of the state to honor one Mark McGwire.

An Ode to Steroids: Mark McGuire Highway Signage

No worries that when the highway was built in the 1950s, it was named after the venerable and brilliant writer Mark Twain.  Meh, twas but a worn down speed bump on the lemming run to honor greatness, as evidenced by this facts strange absence in most press accounts… but there’s more.

No worries either that the steroid stories were just getting started, though clearly gaining momentum.

No worries, because time has this way about it.  It has that thing… that quality which is always lurking, the quality of a teacher.  Whether we humans like it or not, time has an infinite ability to show us the error of our ways.  It constantly proves to us that silly actions directed quickly towards cultural fads just don’t have the same end results as deliberate and thoughtful actions directed towards the long term.

& in 2008 time won this battle once again.  While 10 years too late, the MO legislators saw in their infinite wisdom to reverse course and rename Mark McGwire Highway back to Mark Twain Highway (here).

I wonder what Mark Twain would’ve thought about all this back and forth of naming a highway?  It’s pure speculation, but he likely wouldn’t have cared all that much.  If asked, you can almost sense his answer, the short quip, spoken in his long drawl, “Well, at least now it’s named after someone deserving of such acclaim.”

But the problem with idiots is that they have to be constantly challenged.    Left to their own devices, the Paris Hilton & Lindsay Lohan interchange isn’t far behind.

Which is a funny thought and unlikely, but idiots given too much free reign can actually make society poorer overall.

Enter Censorship

Really, the last refuse of the despot and idiot alike.  This time thankfully it’s not despots we fear, but only idiots as they take aim at Mark Twain… again.

Apparently, unbound by rational thought, educators have been pushing for years and have finally succeeded in getting a publisher to censor Mark Twain.

Please note here – I’m using educator as a place holder only, because this shameful behavior cannot be linked to any real definition of education.  Censorship is actually the polar opposite of educating, but that’s no concern as it’s not their goal.

The goal? As with most insidious subversions of thought, the goal is to protect you.  Contrary to the popular nursery rhyme, sticks and stones aren’t the only things that can hurt you, so in this case we have to protect you from bad words (see George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words).

Because they know better than you what’s best for you.  They know so much better and understand so much more… and of course care about all of you so very, very much, that they have to ensure this book, with its words, the book they’ve already read, cannot be read by others.

& let’s not forget, this goal is all important.  It’s so important that removing or changing words, words with real meaning and real historical context, all in an effort to protect your fragile brain and ears, it is in actuality, paramount.  This is evidenced by the proponents’ arguments which completely ignore concerns about the multitude of arguments against this idiocy including concerns about changing the substance of a text when you change the words.

I honestly thought we were past this.  It’s pretty difficult to express what I truly think about people who think changing key words written by one of the most celebrated of American writers, in one of the most celebrated of American literary treasures, is a good thing.

But… here we are.

& In the end, really, if anyone should be speaking to the censorship of Mr. Twain’s publications, it should be Mr. Twain himself.  & just like all great thinkers, his thoughts about censorship read as though they were planned for this very occasion, over 100 years later.

Mark Twain regarding censorship/ban of his book (here):

There’s nobody for me to attack in this matter even with soft and gentle ridicule–and I shouldn’t ever think of using a grown up weapon in this kind of a nursery. Above all, I couldn’t venture to attack the clergymen whom you mention, for I have their habits and live in the same glass house which they are occupying. I am always reading immoral books on the sly, and then selfishly trying to prevent other people from having the same wicked good time.

- Letter to Denver Post dated Aug. 14, 1902; also published in NY Tribune Aug. 22, 1902 (regarding banning of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the Denver Library.)

Concerns that (1) growth in developing countries could worsen the US terms of trade and (2) that increased US trade with developing countries will increase US wage inequality both implicitly reflect the assumption that goods produced in the United States and developing countries are close substitutes and that specialization is incomplete. In this paper we show on the contrary that there are distinctive patterns of international specialization and that developed and developing countries export fundamentally different products, especially those classified as high tech….

Which translated means, the US, one of their main agents in their research, has an economic dynamism (here & here)which results in the US never directly competing with other countries’ lower paid labor:

…Judged by export shares, the United States and developing countries specialize in quite different product
categories that, for the most part, do not overlap. Moreover, even when exports are classified in the
same category, there are large and systematic differences in unit values that suggest the products made
by developed and developing countries are not very close substitutes—developed country products
are far more sophisticated….

& this of course isn’t the only research making such conclusions (here & here).

But that’s not all.  We’ve seen historically that creating obstacles to free trade can hurt us severely (here):

One of the major causes of the Depression was Congress’s passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Smoot-Hawley placed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods. It halted the recovery from the 1929 downturn and resulted in retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners and a decline in U.S. imports and exports of more than 50 percent….

Though not all would say cause (here):

“The best estimates are that the multiplier is roughly 2. In that case, real GDP would have declined by about 3.4% between 1929 and 1931 as a result of the decline in real exports. Real GDP actually declined by about 16.5% between 1929 and 1931, so the decline in real exports can account for only about 21% of the total decline in real GDP.”

Irregardless, the research and economist communities agree on the benefits of free trade (here):

A 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States found that more than 90 percent generally agreed with the proposition that the use of tariffs and import quotas reduced the average standard of living….

Congress’ answer to all of this? A trade war with China (here):

The Democrat-backed bill passed by 348 to 79, and targets countries that hold down the value of their currencies, as many accuse China of doing….

The Senate’s answer?  A trade war with China (here): 

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Wednesday that the upper chamber is “poised” to legislation meant to hammer China for its currency policies…

To paraphrase an axiom:  With economic heavy weights like this as friends, who need enemies… but I’m sure there’s no way they’ll screw up health care, right?

The President? A trade war with China…. sort of no.  While he’s pushing China just as other presidents have (here):

The Obama Administration believes that China needs to take steps on rectifying its currency value, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said….

He hasn’t stated he would sign anything and other administration officials are pushing different views (here):

Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner said there was “no risk” of a global currency war during a wide ranging interview with Charlie Rose Tuesday evening….

Intelligently, he’s keeping his options open in this very way.  Though I’m not sure I want to bet that he continues down the road of economics considering his approval ratings., but a smart move overall.

Though under great stress, we humans tend towards the flight or flight response. True leaders however, can use these difficulties against themselves to provide both motivation and a sense of urgency to gain the ingenuity required for such challenges.

This is understood well in society. Like business leaders who understand innovation can be helped significantly by design constraints (here):

Great designers understand this. Charles Eames says design is all about innovating around constraints. And it’s the constraints – the scarcity – that fires the designer’s creativity. Smart business people “get it” too. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos embraces self-imposed scarcity saying, “One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.”

They understand that principle of economic scarcity. As do military leaders. Sun Tzu notes in the Art of War:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

For President Obama, the Tea Party & the Republicans taking back control of the House of Representatives could give him the opportunity to display true deft.

Assuming it does happen as predicted (here via the Philly Inquirer) however, the President is accorded a tough task ahead.

He would now have the body responsible for appropriations bills (all spending bills much start in the House & they are very important. For instance, they can kill health care by simply not funding it….) mainly in place due to running against him. Secondarily, while they don’t wish to be seen as obstructers, their willingness to work with Obama will be small even without their election strategy. Because any bill passed, regardless of how/why, if it turns out to be a good or well liked idea, Obama will naturally take credit to further his chances for re-election in 2012.

& the Democrats know that neither the President nor health care is a selling point for this election, even if they are communicating differently. The facts are that se hasn’t really made many direct candidate speeches, just backyard BBQs in key districts in key states. They are essentially, and correctly, playing against their weakness – his popularity.

Not a bad strategy in the short term, but I think people have heard him speak enough and any celebrity (yes, while the President is certainly more important and more powerful than any normal celebrity, s/he is still a celebrity) runs the risk of over saturation.

Irregardless, with Obama, the question is can he live inside those constraints?

What we know is given a new landscape, the answer for tomorrow’s question will not be the same answer as today’s. I think if he can push himself with a sense of urgency, surveys the landscape to see what he has and what he can accomplish with what he has. Then uses both the sense of urgency and strategic thinking by changing his game plan when the field of battle changes…. well, then we’ll see a real leader who may live up to his Nobel Peace Prize (here).

Or said more succinctly, it’s a crappy state of affairs you might find yourself in Mr. President, but challenges is how leaders prove themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to do it. I think he’s too insecure (here) about himself and his handlers seem to know little more than an approval ratings drop equals time for Obama to give more speeches. & I don’t honestly think that’s likely to change…. but predictions are better left to Ms. Cleo.

What is likely however is the people around him understand exactly this point.  They do know it. The question is whether their emotions towards their beliefs (see: Confirmation Bias here & here) combined with the difficulty of telling a President who gives great speeches to shut up. Not to mention game theory predicts leaders to surround themselves with “yes men”.

All of that makes significant and required change seem unlikely, but I’d never count out someone who made it to the Presidency, nor, the team that helped him get there.

So Mr. President, here’s your chance.