Extreme Makeover, World History Edition

Recently I picked up a brochure from an Islamic literature booth in a local mall. The pamphlet was entitled "Jihad," so of course I couldn't resist. While reading the column labeled "Is Jihad Holy War?" I about choked. You can read it below [click on the image to enlarge].

Let me summarize it for you: we Muslims didn't fight wars for religion until we learned it from you!

Well, that is an interesting interpretation of history. Simultaneously full of blame and void of knowledge. The author must have been either purposefully dishonest, or completely unacquainted with his own core religious texts and traditions.

I'll let the ever-erudite Bernard Lewis address this issue here. Please excuse his coughing. He's old.

...to the Shores of Tripoli

There seems to be a lot of discussion these days about the centrality of Christianity in the founding of the United States. This week I came across a compelling piece of text dating from the closing days of the 18th Century.

In those days, US shipping in the Mediterranean was being harassed and pillaged by pirates of the Barbary States of northern Africa. John Adams sent an emissary to work out a treaty. They eventually struck a deal and the Treaty of Tripoli was signed on November 4, 1796. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

• As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen...

The treaty was signed by the President, and ratified unanimously by congress.

Comments?

Prescient Moments

Here's an excerpt from a previous posting I made a few months ago:

• 'I predict that immigration will play an important part in coming elections throughout Europe. Don't be surprised to see parties with anti-immigraiton policies make significant gains, despite repeated charges of of "racism," "xenophobia," and "fascism" that will certainly be hurled against them relentlessly.'

It goes without saying, I wasn't very shocked at the results of the recent Dutch elections. The winner of the election was the Liberal Party (which, confusingly, is actually the center-right party) with 31 seats. Labor came in a VERY close second with 30 seats. Nothing too earthshaking so far. However, my prediction proved accurate when the far-right PPV (Freedom Party) more than doubled their number of seats to 24. It is very likely that a Liberal (read:conservative)/PPV coalition will end up ruling what is widely considered the most liberal country on the most liberal continent.

To really grasp the importance of the PPV, you must understand the person at the center of the party, Geert Wilders. He is the lone face (and Bouffant) of his party. He created the party, and he runs the party. He floats on a raft of typical conservative issues: low taxes, emphasis on sovereignty, etc. However, his extreme views on immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, is where he is unique among powerful European political parties (the BNP is not powerful). He has stated openly that he hates Islam (though is keen to emphasize that he doesn't hate Muslims). He is calling for a five year moratorium on immigration from non-Western countries. He has motioned for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands. He even directed a short film called "Fitna" which basically argues that Islam and terrorism go together like falafel and flatbread (this film is available on the internet. Just Google it).

It will be interesting to see what role the PPV will assume in the next government, and how far Mr. Wilders is allowed to enact his platform. More broadly, it will be interesting to see which direction the richer, more structured Germanic countries go as their less disciplined neighbors (and fellow EU members) to the south continue to implode economically.

A Kindred Spirit

Remember a few weeks back when I went on my "Conspiracy theories are dangerous" tirade (see "New World (Dis)order" from March 1st)? Well, I read an excellent article today on the Foreign Policy website that I can only assume was inspired by reading my brilliant posting. There are some suprising similarities between our commentary on this topic.

The author echos my point that these ideas are dangerous and that we dismiss them "at our peril." He also seems to support my position that these theories are becoming more popular. He quotes from a book entitled "Voodoo Histories" which says "we in the West are currently going through a period of fashionable conspiracism." This book is now on my To Read list.

The article gives some hope for a rational future though. He notes "the rise of a new culture of fact based skepticism" including "fact checking websites," "high-profile anti-conspiracists," and organizations like the British group "Skeptics in the Pub," which the author describes as "a drink-fueled debating society with a strong anti-conspiracy bent."

You know you're in dire straights when the best hope of honest discourse comes from British pubs!

Anyway, read the posting here if you have a minute.

What IS the financial reform bill?

As you have the left/right debate always, you develop the conditioning to always debate/disagree. So you learn to argue based on the camp you're in.

Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy.

Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html
The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they are had power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.

So we either have to learn to see through camp colored glasses, interpret their meanings, and split the difference, or we have to learn the actual discipline to a certain level of proficiency.
I believe the debate more correctly should be "Does central bank style Keynesian economics work for what we want, or would we be better off with a more hands off lasseiz-faire Adams approach?" And which style is the reform bill?

Two anecdotes on race relations in America

A few years ago I lived in Hampton Roads, an area in southern Virginia. While eating at a restaurants I saw a group of 12 to 15 people eating lunch together and having a good time. The members of the group were mostly middle aged and were a mix of black and white people. As far as I could tell, there was nothing at all exceptional about the group; they were probably just employees at a local business having a lunch meeting.


I now live in the Mountain West region of the US. I have a neighbor who is of a racial minority. This neighbor played on the school football team when he was an undergrad and has a very affable personality. Now, still at the same school, he is getting a joint Masters of Public Administration-Juris Doctorate degree. Last semester some people in one of his classes, most of whom were white, were talking about race relations in America. My neighbor told them that they have no idea what it's like to be a minority in the US. Despite all his success, he apparently still feels... Well, I don't know exactly how he feels, but I get the impression that he thinks there is still some room for improvement.

From Ability to Needs

After some study on the subject Socialism, I have come to some conclusions, but maybe even more questions. I begin this line of questioning that I may have a better understanding of it. Let's begin with observations then move on to the questions:

To me, the basis of Socialism seems to be the underlying assumption that man is a social creature that progresses in society better as a whole. That the individuality of the person is discouraged so that he may better utilize his skills to serve the community. The security, health, and care falls on the collective instead of the individual.

To me, placing the community above yourself and your family is not a trait naturally found in man. We all agree that man is fallible and corruptible, you can use religious or historical texts and find the percentage of actually good people to be quite small. Unquestioned and unchallenged authority more often than not leads to some form of dictatorship.

My question is this, can you ever really take the individuality out of a person? Does Socialism and Capitalism really boil down to this one difference? Is it my stuff or our stuff? What of the person who is in charge of handing out the communal stuff? What is in place to guarantee the stuff gets handed out exactly and only according to needs? How do we keep that system from turning into one of favors and priviledges? Why is it that in past socialist experiments, the end result was always one where there was a ruling and favored class at the expense of the community? Who is in charge of a socialist community? Is it the collective and do they vote on everything? Do they always elect a leader and if so, is that contradictory to socialism? Does Socialism believe in the inherent "goodness" in man? The best case I have come across was the Jewish Kibbutz, that did have a communal approach but ended after the government stopped subsidizing the communes. Even at the end, the Kibbutz members had their own clothes, food, and other items.

Is it as black and white as, "Is man an Individualist or a Collectivist?" Are there any in betweens? Because we can all agree that man is a social animal. He would not be able to farm, fish, and build his shelter if he were by himself. So he needs the support of the community. But is that individual drive to better his position for safety, security, and, dare I say, social standing, necessarily a bad thing?

Age and Place on the Political Spectrum

I saw a most interesting posting on one of my favorite blogs (cominganarchy.com) which I would like to share (and which they had copied from somewhere else). It graphically displays political affiliation by age. I don't really have a comment to make. It's just food for thought. The posting even offer some possible explanations for this relationship.


You can read about the (non-scientific) method they used to gather the data set in the original posting here.


Enjoy!

__________________________________________________

Extremism in the defense of liberty?

People on the left want abortion rights, but they want to limit gun rights. People on the right want their guns and they want to ban abortion. Neither side seems to have monopoly on liberty.

After proposition 8 passed, churches were vandalized. After the health care bill passed, the offices of Democrats were vandalized. People at the extremes seem to act similarly regardless of their beliefs.

People on each side have legitimate reasons to believe what they believe, be it God or secular humanism or whatever. How do people originally decide which camp they fall in? Intelligence? Life experience? Peer group? And once they have formed their opinions, why are they so reluctant to change them? Why are some so convinced that they are right that they are willing to use violence? Why do you believe what you believe?

Oh, the Humanity Indeed!

Check this puppy out. You think America is the bastion of liberty? Then check out the latest move by the city of Gilbert, Arizona.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589385,00.html

GILBERT, Ariz. — The national Alliance Defense Fund says a town code that bars religious assemblies in private homes in the Arizona community of Gilbert is unconstitutional.
The Oasis of Truth church began meeting at Pastor Joe Sutherland's house in November and rotated homes several times a week for Bible study and fellowship.
A Gilbert code compliance officer hit the church with a violation notice after seeing a sign near a road advertising a Sunday service.
A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.
The Alliance Defense Fund's Doug Napier says no neighbors complained.
The Scottsdale-based group has filed an appeal with the town of Gilbert, contending its code violates the U.S. Constitution.

Now this pisses me off and I don't care what side of the politial spectrum you're on. If you're a campist, it's time rethink your strategy, if it doesn't involve opposing legislation like this. The Private Individiual Rights better come first in a country that barred the gov't from these intrusions more than a half-century ago. Haven't we seen religious discrimination at work? Does it ever work? As a good friend of mine said once, Oh, the Humanity! Yes indeed.

Truthiness

As a sworn enemy of reality, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found a home in the ironically-named "truther" movement. He has publicly stated his belief that the attacks of 9-11 were a "big fabrication" and were a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan (read about his comments here).

In the context of my recent postings about world leaders and conspiracy theories, I thought this story was very interesting. While he doesn't represent any real executive power in Iran, it is certainly alarming that even a titular head of state can say such things in public. It's even scarier that these kinds of comments tend to rally his base, rather than embarrass them.

Are there ANY voices of reason out there?

New World (dis)Order

A few years ago I read a book called "Them: Adventures with Extremists." The book was written by a British journalist named Jon Ronson (the same guy who wrote "Men Who Stare at Goats"). The book chronicles Mr Ronson's experiences as he travels around the world (ok...mostly the US and the UK) visiting with extremists of all stripes, including firebrand Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, Klan leader Tom Robb, Randy Weaver (of Ruby Ridge fame), and radio shock jock Alex Jones. He attempts to understand and convey to the reader some integral parts of their world view. What he finds is that they all have the common thread of being conspiracy theorists. While they don't necessarily agree on many points, they do seem to think that the world is controlled by some shadowy cabal that seeks to enslave and/or subjugate everyone else.

I really enjoyed the book. Secure in the knowledge that this kind of thinking is relegated to the outer fringe of society, I found such ideas interesting. Even entertaining.

Not anymore.

I'm not sure if conspiracy theories have gotten more popular, or if I'm just more sensitive to this sort of thing, but they seem to be everywhere. From celebrities (Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen) to Heads of State (Chavez [see last posting] and even European leaders), everyone is espousing pet theories. It seems as though this has gotten out of control.

When contemplating the origin of all these theories, only one possible explanation emerges. The theories themselves were created by the Illuminati in order to measure intelligence. Only the dumbest, most useless oxygen thieves actually believe them. They will be the first to die when the zeta reticulans land. Don't believe me? Then allow me to create a pseudo-scientific YouTube video about it. Then you'll see. And if you say you don't believe it, then I'll just assume that you either a) stupid or b) one of "them."

In all honesty, I find this kind of thinking dangerous and destructive. It allows people to assume the worst of their leaders and institutions, and to form opinions that far exceed their level of actual knowledge. It can poison clear thinking and breed paranoia. And worst of all, it disguises lies to appear as truth.

Just to be clear; I'm not saying people don't conspire. But I am saying many of the popular theories out there are, in my view, complete BS. It seems like the nut jobs are monopolizing the microphone these days, so please allow me to add a voice of reason to the fray.


Eh hem!

May I have your attention please! You should be aware of the following:

• The moon landings were not faked. They really happened.


• 9-11 was not an inside job. Please, PLEASE do not try to refute this. I will lose. much respect for you. If you mention Building 7, I may explode.


• None of the earthquakes that have occurred were deliberately caused by the US.


• The US government did NOT blow up any levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (sorry Spike Lee).


• Obama is not using FEMA to build concentration camps around the US.


• There are no black helicopters waiting to pounce on the US.

So, let's talk about this. Has anyone else noticed an increase in this kind of thinking? Why is it happening? What makes a conspiracy theorist tick? Why do these ideas persist?

Love is Blindness

Romance in the Middle East can be a minefield. First there is the prevalent phenomenon of incestuous cousin marriages. Not only does it happen, it is often viewed as the optimal course of events. Forgive a culturally insensitive "yuck!" This issue is finally making some headlines casting some much-needed doubt on the practice.

Well, let's say you do it right, and are looking for a girl who isn't a close blood relative. Well, don't even think about trying to walk up and talk to them. You might just end up in a Saudi jail (read here). Instead, you'll need a willing mediator to help facilitate the relationship.

Which brings me to this (hilarious) story coming out of Dubai. It had all the makings of a succesfull Arabian marriage: engagement between non-relatives, a mother acting as mediator, and a wealthy diplomat who based his decision on a photograph provided by the mother. What could possibly go wrong?

They met on multple occaisions, but the bride-to-be donned the all-covering niqab (pictured above). But he had seen her photo, right?

Well....no. Turns out, the cunning mother provided the rich diplomat with a picture of the intended bride's sister (who must be pretty hot). He made this discovery when he lifted her veil at the wedding ceremony. To make a long story short, let me copy a line from the news item:

"An Arab country's ambassador to Dubai has had his marriage contract annulled after discovering the bride was cross-eyed and had facial hair."

Shocking! Everyone knows you should shave before your wedding.

Earthquakes and Idiots

This posting is about the earthquake in Haiti. You might be wondering how a posting featuring a picture of Hollywood superstar Danny Glover and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could possibly be related to the largest tragedy currently on the world stage.

In a word: Stupidity. Both of these guys had unbelievably silly things to say about the cause of the earthquake.

First, let's review Mr. Glover's brilliant comments. Here's Glover's quote taken from a commentary piece on Fox News' website:

• "And I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happens in Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know? They're all in peril because of global warming; they're all in peril because of climate change. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying? But we have to act now."

If you can cut through the rambling, quasi-retarded language he used, then you come to the conclusion that he thinks that global warming caused the earthquake. Huh? This from a grown man?

There are two interpretations of this statement that come quickly to my mind, both of which are stupefying.

1. The warming of the atmosphere by a couple degrees has caused the movement of the tectonic plates to change in their behavior. Leaving the debate about climate change aside, I'm having a hard time with this one.

-OR-

2. The Earthquake was a divine act of retribution to pay us back for our bad behavior at Copenhagen. In other words, God decided the best way to punish the polluting, industrialized portions of Earth's population was to destroy the capital city of the poorest, most benighted country in the Western Hemisphere. It's the Angry Old-Testament style wrath, but with bad aim.

Why not just come out and blame America for the Earthquake?

Well, that's exactly what Hugo Chavez did. Fox News, once again, carried the story (read here). Yes folks, the US has an Earthquake Weapon. The earthquake was used a pretext to occupy Haiti. As if we didn't have enough money-pits already.

How do you respond to something like this? Incidentally, the only other major news source I observed to report on Chavez's comments was a state-owned Iranian English-language Press TV (read here). I guess Rupert Murdoch and Ahmadinejad have similar news agendas.

And if you wanted a less crazy, more erudite reason to blame the US for the debacle in Haiti, then check out this article by a Swedish intellectual from Al-Jazeera English. Sigh... Can we do nothing right?

As a citizen of the country who is by FAR contributing the most to the rebuilding of that poor shattered country, I'm a little annoyed with so many fingers pointing blame at us.


*Cartoon taken from cagle.com.