This will have to be the second blog in a series, on those days when one feels one cannot come up with a topic for a writing piece. Whatsoever.

The news is always there. People always do things, and other people who make a living out of reporting what the first people do, run over to their desks, write, and get it published either in print, online, or both ways.

It could be that the blood, corruption, and just the general evils that permeate human life get too overbearing. The writer / journalist simply feels he cannot write about it any longer, that playing along with it would mean a simple regurgitation of the same pieces, same reprimands, same reproach, same laments. The daily task of bringing a certain event to the knowledge of the world suddenly consists of a mere placement of new names and the odd new small detail into one of several downtrodden templates.

The rape / suicide bombing / political corruption / legal dispute / etc. etc. story is nothing more than the same verbs and adjectives, mostly the same nouns, with the addition of a newer date and a different private name (which can be either new or familiar).

Commentary pieces expect the same fate. One must live up to the expectation of pontificating the prophetic wrath of yesteryear with the zeal of an Isaiah day in day out.

And the question that begged is Why? Why bother? Why revitalize every negative cell in the body, every morsel of anger in the soul, only to fuel the same, usually magnified emotions seething among the reading public.

Have we not seen it all already? Do we not yet know that the world consists of too many baddies and not enough goodies? Are we not tired of consuming this deluge of information?

And the answer is no.

The writer, each and every individual person who writes for a media source, must be committed to the watchperson's responsibility with which he/she has been entrusted.

The world is an evil place a lot of the time, and the calamities do come in templates, with contingent changes that fit into the mould. But the masses should know. The masses need that constant reminder that there is an innumerable number of parallel lives with so much suffering and grief. That there are dangers one must avoid as a private person and a society should avoid as a whole.

So there.

Rummaging through various Web-based information services, I came across a bizarre warning pertaining to the use of Abobe products worldwide.

The warning read "Adobe software products may not be acquired by nationals of certain countries or by certain individuals regardless of nationality."


The hound dogs went loose in my head immediately – why would anyone be denied use of this seemingly innocent software? More important – who was to enforce this ominous warning?

The first half of the warning sounds almost sensible – some countries should be denied the light of progress brought to the world courtesy of Adobe. Are there not nations lead by regimes of dark intent, poised to destroy the world with imaging and graphics software that serve as the wand of Justice, Wisdom and the Ultimate Good in the Western world?

The second half, however, was a true sign that something here is amiss: "Certain individuals regardless of nationality." Who could these individuals be? Who was to make sure such unauthorized individuals steer clear of gaining access to precious software know-how?

Seeing that Adobe is an American company, I could only guess that the nationalities to be denied the use of software must belong to the so-called Axis of Evil. In like fashion, the "certain individuals" could very well be nationals of innocent countries who have strong affiliations with the above dark nations – possibly acting as a fifth column in the midst of a peaceful society.

But in view of the lightness with which software can be obtained, legally or illegally, via discs, P2P hosts, hacking and various other such means, why is the warning there? If it is merely for legal purposes, to allow authorities try those felons should they be so bold as to violate the warning, I have news for law-enforcement agencies and concerned software producers: International terror is not deterred by the laws of Western countries. It does not view the incarceration and/or death of individuals at its service as a loss but as a necessary price on the road to obtaining its Final Cause.

The right answer, as always, is in the fine print. After prying into the depths of the legal advertisements on the site I found the detailed explanation as to why this warning is in place and who should adhere to it.

Software should not make its way to "the currently prohibited destinations" which are "Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria." And why? Because "Adobe products are subject to export restrictions under U.S. law, as some software may contain encryption technology."

So twice bull's-eye: The Axis of Evil is indeed to be denied the privilege of using Adobe software and the reason is the encryption technology that may benefit its nefarious operations.

Seeing that if one was to desire this software one would easily obtain it, a single conclusion surfaces: The Axis of Evil has a mole at Adobe that not only alerts it to the existence of advantageous software but also exposes its merits in the very fine print that supposedly "bars" the baddies from using it.

So much for wolves in sheep's skin.

It seems, especially of late, that Israel is yet to decide if it wants to be a genuine law-enforcing entity. It appears that if you have enough strength, at times sheer muscle power, you can have your way.

I'll start with two random stories I heard yesterday. A shop owner, who dabbles in criminal activity when he deems it necessary, had a surprise Tax Authority inspection when he was not at the premises. Alas, the inspection revealed a discrepancy between his records and the total cash amount in the register.

The man made his way to the Tax Authority offices in his city the next morn. Upon his arrival he made sure the inspectors were in the building and waited patiently for them to come out of a meeting they were attending. As soon as they did, he ascertained their identity and hit them smack in their faces, knocking both of them down to the floor.

No further inquiries have been made about his tax compliance since.

The second story is about a bank branch manager who came home to find the apartment swept clean by robbers. The loot includes Israeli artworks worth more than NIS 100,000. Police, as is the case, took a statement and made no false guarantees that the stolen possessions would ever be retrieved.

Incidentally, members of a famous crime family run their private accounts at the same branch this manager is responsible for, enjoying delightful relations with our poor manager. The robbery victim knows full-well all that needs be done is to inform these 'special clients' of the heist and the property would be returned. Swiftly, one might add.

At the other end of the scale, we have the Muslim riots in the Old City over Israeli construction works near the Temple Mount. On Friday a 3,000-strong police force quelled any violent manifestation of the protest, using state-of-the-art riot control gear, putting an end to rock hurling and other forms of civil discontent in no more than thirty minutes.

Ask wanted Palestinian militants if they are sound asleep at night; ask Syrian army commanders if their border control has been eased in recent years. What do think their answer will be?

What emerges from this brief comparison is the sad impression that the State of Israel is in many ways an empty shell. A very tough shell, at that, but nevertheless it is lacking in substantial sovereign content within.

The prioritizing of the use of force in order to assert sovereignty and the rule of law in this country are questionable. Fears of internal mini wars overtake concerns for the safety of the public and public servants. Leaving the ordinary citizen to his own devices in seeking to uphold a façade of a calm order of business is our daily reality.

The true problem is that decision makers will never experience the cold, harsh, reality resulting from their inaptitude. Their gold-solid salaries and pensions, car benefits, ties and sometimes state-funded security after retirement, will keep them hovering about the woes of the commoners. Come their landslide defeat in the elections as it may, their personal lives will feel nothing more than a nudge at the wing, to paraphrase ex-IDF Chief Dan Halutz.

At least they will join the ever-growing pantheon of bruised egos of Israeli politics. Could this be our only solace?

It seems, especially of late, that Israel is yet to decide if it wants to be a genuine law-enforcing entity. It appears that if you have enough strength, at times sheer muscle power, you can have your way.

I'll start with two random stories I heard yesterday. A shop owner, who dabbles in criminal activity when he deems it necessary, had a surprise Tax Authority inspection when he was not at the premises. Alas, the inspection revealed a discrepancy between his records and the total cash amount in the register.

The man made his way to the Tax Authority offices in his city the next morn. Upon his arrival he made sure the inspectors are in the building and waited patiently for them to come out of a meeting they were attending. As soon as they did, he ascertained their identity and hit them smack in their faces, knocking both of them down to the floor.

No further inquiries were made about his tax compliance since.

The second story is about a bank branch manager who came home to find the apartment swept clean by robbers. The loot includes Israeli artworks worth more than NIS 100,000. Police, as is the case, took a statement and made no false guarantees that the stolen possessions would ever be retrieved.

Incidentally, members of a famous crime family run their private accounts at the same branch this manager is responsible for, enjoying delightful relations with our poor manager. The robbery victim knows full-well all that needs be done is to inform these 'special clients' of the heist and the property would be returned. Swiftly, one might add.

At the other end of the scale, we have the Muslim riots in the Old City over Israeli construction works near the Temple Mount. On Friday a 3,000-strong police force quelled any violent manifestation of the protest, using state-of-the-art riot control gear, putting an end to rock hurling and other forms of civil discontent in no more than thirty minutes.

Ask wanted Palestinian militants if they are sound asleep at night; ask Syrian army commanders if their border control has been eased in recent years. What do think their answer will be?

What emerges from this brief comparison is the sad impression that the State of Israel is in many ways an empty shell. A very tough shell, at that, but nevertheless it is lacking in substantial sovereign content within.

The prioritizing of the use of force in order to assert sovereignty and the rule of law in this country are questionable. Fears of internal mini wars overtake concerns for the safety of the public and public servants. Leaving the ordinary citizen to his own devices in seeking to uphold a façade of a calm order of business is our daily reality.

The true problem is that decision makers will never experience the cold, harsh, reality resulting from their inaptitude. Their gold-solid salaries and pensions, car benefits, ties and sometimes state-funded security after retirement, will keep them hovering about the woes of the commoners. Come their landslide defeat in the elections as it may, their personal lives will feel nothing more than a nudge at the wing, to paraphrase ex-IDF Chief Dan Halutz.

At least they will join the ever-growing pantheon of bruised egos of Israeli politics. Could this be our only solace?

There's an expression in Hebrew to describe the dedicated wife who ever so faithfully contributes to her husband's success and prowess – The Woman by his Side.

Recently, we have been exposed to several such men of stature who have been subjected to judicial process for sexual offenses. A former justice minister convicted of an "indecent act" (i.e. sticking his tongue into the mouth of a flabbergasted 19-year-old solider); a temporarily incapacitated president soon to be charged with sexual assault, including rape (no need to parenthesize a description of the offenses); and Ofer Glazer, the husband of Israel's richest lady, Shery Arison, whose appeal against a conviction of indecent acts in several women was rejected yesterday by the Supreme Court.

Throughout their public appearances, these men made a point of treading the judiciary corridors walking hand in hand with their trusted Women by their Side. Agreeably, this is a necessary and inseparable part of their goodie-two-shoe persona: A dedicated husband who enjoys the unrelenting support of his faithful wife.

But certainly in the case of Haim Ramon, and quite definitely in the cases of Katsav and Glazer, the wife/partners know that their men had erred on the basic tenet of a normative relationship. The guys forgot about the "Thou shall not commit adultery" business in the bible.

What intrigues here is the interest these women have in backing their husbands, their men, at a time of crisis that has been one of the classic (and justified) reasons for a breakup of yore.

I think of Gila Katsav, who as a colleague pointed out to me, no one knew she existed until it became necessary for her to be the honorable President's Wife. I think of Ramon's partner, whose expressionless face cannot hide the steel grip her hand has of his. And I think of Arison, who is certainly more powerful and presiding than her husband and yet opted for the man who asked the matchmaking agency for 'a very wealthy woman,' as common knowledge has it.

Without being privy to any material evidence of the true nature of these three relationships, I think it would be safe to assume that in each case there is a deeply ingrained dependence of the woman on the man. A dependence that clinches hands in an interminable shake while hiding one form of helplessness or another behind the silence of the wives.

I cannot help think that there is something that is very wrong here. The bravery of the complainants should be matched with the bravery of the wives. Men should not find solace for their failing self-restraint in the bosom of those who suffer the most after the victims of their dirty deeds.

If there is one asset that should not come hand in hand with a senior political position or a platinum ticket to the business world it is this: Immunity from the wrath of the betrayed wife.