Enraged by President Bush's plans to withdraw US troops from South Korea, thousands of angry protesters demanded the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea.
Hat tip: Baldilocks, Rachel Lucas.
2004-08-17
2004-08-15
Conversations in the Park
As I write this, today's scheduled Muslim/Jewish picnic in Portland's Gabriel Park seems to have become a Jewish/Jewish event; apparently there was a SNAFU in the scheduling. I'll post an update as soon as I find out more.
This is part of an ongoing series of events promoted in part by Rabbi Joey Wolf and Congregation Havurah Shalom of Portland, Oregon, as well as many members of Portland's Muslim community. Past events have been, without exception, enormous successes. All those involved in the planning and promotion of these Jewish/Muslim events deserve our unreserved thanks and respect.
Today's event started at 11am and I left about 12:30pm. I'm back home blogging now (it's about 1:30 Pacific time). I have to thank the numerous folks I chatted with (in the predominantly liberal Jewish crowd) about freedom activism and today's Mideast. This might be a good place to address some of the questions I was asked.
How can you support right-wingers like President Bush and Goli Ameri if you're advocating for human rights and democracy? This is really at the heart of a lot of the questions people ask. My answer? Funny, I thought those were LIBERAL issues! If the so-called "Democratic" Party has been lax in promoting these things in the Middle East - where they are in such desperately short supply - then that is the fault of the Democrats for betraying their own stated ideals. If, further, these same values are being promoted, effectively and successfully, by a conservative, Republican president, then liberals should demonstrate their own open-mindedness by putting principle ahead of partisanship and supporting President Bush on these important matters. (That doesn't mean you have to agree with GWB about everything; I certainly don't.)
Are the peoples of the Middle East ready for democracy? I refer you to the Iranian-American writer Amir Taheri, in an article published January 20, 2003:
'When Iraq's opposition leaders gathered in London this past weekend to discuss the future of their country, one of the few words they agreed on wasn't even of Arab origin. The word is "dimuqratiah" (democracy) which was first introduced to the Arabic political lexicon in the mid-19th century as the Nahda (Awakening) movement spread in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. ... By the start of the 20th century the constitutionalists had won in both Constantinople and Tehran, establishing the first Western-style parliaments in the Muslim world. A Martian visiting the Islamic world in the final years of the 19th century would have noticed the almost unanimous support that the democratic ideal enjoyed among Muslim elites. ...'
Please read the rest of Democracy in Arabia, and take note of what Mirza Agha Kermani wrote in the late 19th century about the secret of the West's success: "The rise of the Western powers as masters of the world, and the decline of Muslim nations into abject servitude, are due to one fact only. In Europe, governments fear the people. In Islam people fear the government."
What about the Patriot Act? What about gay rights? I have a lot of problems with the Patriot Act; so do many conservatives, particularly libertarians. And a surprising number of conservatives also oppose legislation like the Federal Marriage Amendment, either on ideological ("small-government") grounds, or (in the case of David Brooks, who unequivocally supports gay marriage) on moral and humanitarian grounds. But please let's keep a sense of perspective here: we are talking about important civil-rights and civil-liberties issues, but millions of people in the Mideast cannot even begin to discuss such issues as these. Free speech, women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are NONEXISTENT in places like Iran and Syria. Under the Ba'athist regime, Iraq was nothing less than a giant concentration camp; today, it promises to become the first modern democracy in the Arab world. In plain English: first things first.
So, does single-issue politics put you together with a lot of people who have different beliefs? I don't agree that the freedom/democracy movement is "single-issue politics"; in fact, in many ways I think it is the ONLY issue. The right of people to live as free beings in charge of their own destiny is fundamental; it is the basis for all politics and all social activism; and all individual issues emanate from it. "What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else - all the rest is commentary." Our responsibility as human beings, and as free citizens of the most powerful country on earth, is to help our fellow humans to achieve the same blessings we take for granted and consider our birthright: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How best to do this? We must learn from the insights and experiences of others - "all the rest is commentary, now go and study it." This is not single-issue politics; it is the very foundation of what we hold dear as Americans, as Jews, and as human beings. All the rest is commentary; this is the one thing that matters.
Many thanks to all those who took the time to speak with me about the freedom movement; I value your insightful and thought-provoking questions.
This is part of an ongoing series of events promoted in part by Rabbi Joey Wolf and Congregation Havurah Shalom of Portland, Oregon, as well as many members of Portland's Muslim community. Past events have been, without exception, enormous successes. All those involved in the planning and promotion of these Jewish/Muslim events deserve our unreserved thanks and respect.
Today's event started at 11am and I left about 12:30pm. I'm back home blogging now (it's about 1:30 Pacific time). I have to thank the numerous folks I chatted with (in the predominantly liberal Jewish crowd) about freedom activism and today's Mideast. This might be a good place to address some of the questions I was asked.
How can you support right-wingers like President Bush and Goli Ameri if you're advocating for human rights and democracy? This is really at the heart of a lot of the questions people ask. My answer? Funny, I thought those were LIBERAL issues! If the so-called "Democratic" Party has been lax in promoting these things in the Middle East - where they are in such desperately short supply - then that is the fault of the Democrats for betraying their own stated ideals. If, further, these same values are being promoted, effectively and successfully, by a conservative, Republican president, then liberals should demonstrate their own open-mindedness by putting principle ahead of partisanship and supporting President Bush on these important matters. (That doesn't mean you have to agree with GWB about everything; I certainly don't.)
Are the peoples of the Middle East ready for democracy? I refer you to the Iranian-American writer Amir Taheri, in an article published January 20, 2003:
'When Iraq's opposition leaders gathered in London this past weekend to discuss the future of their country, one of the few words they agreed on wasn't even of Arab origin. The word is "dimuqratiah" (democracy) which was first introduced to the Arabic political lexicon in the mid-19th century as the Nahda (Awakening) movement spread in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. ... By the start of the 20th century the constitutionalists had won in both Constantinople and Tehran, establishing the first Western-style parliaments in the Muslim world. A Martian visiting the Islamic world in the final years of the 19th century would have noticed the almost unanimous support that the democratic ideal enjoyed among Muslim elites. ...'
Please read the rest of Democracy in Arabia, and take note of what Mirza Agha Kermani wrote in the late 19th century about the secret of the West's success: "The rise of the Western powers as masters of the world, and the decline of Muslim nations into abject servitude, are due to one fact only. In Europe, governments fear the people. In Islam people fear the government."
What about the Patriot Act? What about gay rights? I have a lot of problems with the Patriot Act; so do many conservatives, particularly libertarians. And a surprising number of conservatives also oppose legislation like the Federal Marriage Amendment, either on ideological ("small-government") grounds, or (in the case of David Brooks, who unequivocally supports gay marriage) on moral and humanitarian grounds. But please let's keep a sense of perspective here: we are talking about important civil-rights and civil-liberties issues, but millions of people in the Mideast cannot even begin to discuss such issues as these. Free speech, women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are NONEXISTENT in places like Iran and Syria. Under the Ba'athist regime, Iraq was nothing less than a giant concentration camp; today, it promises to become the first modern democracy in the Arab world. In plain English: first things first.
So, does single-issue politics put you together with a lot of people who have different beliefs? I don't agree that the freedom/democracy movement is "single-issue politics"; in fact, in many ways I think it is the ONLY issue. The right of people to live as free beings in charge of their own destiny is fundamental; it is the basis for all politics and all social activism; and all individual issues emanate from it. "What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else - all the rest is commentary." Our responsibility as human beings, and as free citizens of the most powerful country on earth, is to help our fellow humans to achieve the same blessings we take for granted and consider our birthright: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How best to do this? We must learn from the insights and experiences of others - "all the rest is commentary, now go and study it." This is not single-issue politics; it is the very foundation of what we hold dear as Americans, as Jews, and as human beings. All the rest is commentary; this is the one thing that matters.
Many thanks to all those who took the time to speak with me about the freedom movement; I value your insightful and thought-provoking questions.
2004-08-13
Further Remarks on Gender and Sexuality
(This is a follow-up to my previous post, Iran in Transition?)
The key to the IRI regime's approval of male-to-female gender reassignment ("sex change") is the assumption that all transgender people are heterosexual-identified; that is, they want to transition to the desired gender (in this case female) and then have relationships with the "opposite sex" (men). But in fact, leaving aside for a moment all the misogyny and homophobia of the islamist regime, this is a false assumption. While accurate statistics are hard to come by, transgender activists now estimate that about half of all TG's - both male-to-female and female-to-male - are gay identified. That is, they are born as males and become lesbians, or are born as females and live as gay men.
"But if you were born as a guy, and you like girls, or you were born as a girl and you like guys, then why go to all that trouble? Why make life twice as hard for yourself?" Because gender identity and sexuality are distinct from one another - although they are interrelated. Everyone knows that men and women are different, and that therefore a relationship with a man is different from a relationship with a woman. By the same token, doing a relationship as a woman is different from doing a relationship as a man; there's simply a different dynamic to it.
The subject of "transhomosexuality" and its evil twin "transhomophobia" (to use the ten-dollar words currnet in the queer community) is still new. There has been tremendous progress in the gay world in recent years. (And for you nitpickers, I'm using "gay" in the broad sense because I hate having to hit caps-lock every time and say "GLBT".) But before we go further in discussing lesbian- and gay-identified transgenders, we need to take a quick look at the relations between the transgender and lesbian/gay communities in the West in recent years.
One of the ironies of the gay movement of the 1970s was its quiet disenfranchisement of the transgender community. Ironic because many of the activists of the Stonewall rebellion (most notably the late Sylvia Rivera) were either cross-dressers ("drag queens") or transgendered people. Ironic, too, because the gay liberation movement began mirroring the same prejudice it experienced from the outside world.
The gay movement believed that "fitting in" was the key to success. (I realize this is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'm referring to the mainstream gay movement, which by definition had to be ... well, mainstream.) Gay and lesbian stereotypes were frowned on - but in a telling asymmetry, butch lesbians were accepted while effeminate gay men were not.
During the same period, a similar tactical move occurred in the feminist world. Feminists bought into the fallacy that "in order to be equal to men, we must be like men". Consequently, it became "politically incorrect" to acknowledge any innate differences in gender, other than the obvious reproductive differences. All apparent gender differences in behavior, mannerisms, temperament, language, style of learning, and so on, had to be dismissed as the result of "gender stereotyping" and the "nurture" school prevailed over "nature".
So women tucked themselves into unisex business suits in the "dress for success" fashion, while gays worked hard to prove they were just like everyone else ... except for the small matter of being gay.
These intellectual fads had serious consequences for the transgender world: because if there are no internal differences between women and men, how are we to understand the case of someone who believes they properly belong to the opposite gender? For women throwing off the shackles of patriarchy, it could only mean one thing: betrayal. Women who wanted to be men were betraying the cause of their feminist sisters, and must be trying to gain "male privilege" by going over to the other side. Even worse, men who wanted to be women were charlatans, trying to take away from "real women" the one thing women could call their own: their identity. Such were the attitudes of early feminists toward transsexuals.
Transsexuals represented undesirable "baggage" for the gay and lesbian community, by being visible, and different, and everything gays weren't supposed to be. Perhaps they also made gay men uncomfortable, as many gay men have experienced harrassment for their own feminine mannerisms. Certainly lesbians, being both gay and (perforce) feminists, did not take kindly to the thought of biological males - even postoperative transsexuals - intruding on their world. This was the era in which "womyn-born-womyn only" music festivals like the legendary Michigan Womyn's Music Festival were born.
But as Meg famously declared in A Wrinkle in Time, "Like and equal are not the same thing at all." Countless experiments in egalitarian child-rearing, and mountains of laboratory studies, eventually dispelled the notion that gender differences could be ignored. As lesbians became freer to explore their own sexuality, they discovered that some of their own number were so far at the "butch" end of the butch/femme spectrum that basic assumptions about gender had to be called into question.
In recent years, the lesbian community in particular has made dramatic advances toward the acceptance of differently-gendered people. The MWMF, which still strictly excludes transsexuals, has engendered a protest movement, and the policy is now a matter of serious debate in even the most orthodox lesbian circles. And major lesbian magazines were affected: Girlfriends confronted its readers with the news that one of its columnists, veteran activist Pat Califia, would soon be Patrick Califia; and Curve, in a groundbreaking article titled The Opposite of Opposite Sex, tackled the unique challenges of transgender relationships. [Note: if the article is no longer available at the original link, you can view it at my reference page.]
And now we are back to transhomosexuality. In the previous post, we saw that some authorities in islamist regimes can accept transsexuality within certain limitations. But it is these limitations that tell us everything. No mention is made of female-to-male transitions. Nor does the article say anything about lesbian relationships; but we may assume that transsexual women in Iran face the same prohibitions as other women, including this one.
In the West, of course, things are much better. But it's instructive to look at traditional attitudes toward gender and sexuality, because they often reflect an internalized model of a "gender hierarchy" which has difficulty grasping relationships that don't fit a particular paradigm. And I'll write more on that soon, but I have to stop for now.
The key to the IRI regime's approval of male-to-female gender reassignment ("sex change") is the assumption that all transgender people are heterosexual-identified; that is, they want to transition to the desired gender (in this case female) and then have relationships with the "opposite sex" (men). But in fact, leaving aside for a moment all the misogyny and homophobia of the islamist regime, this is a false assumption. While accurate statistics are hard to come by, transgender activists now estimate that about half of all TG's - both male-to-female and female-to-male - are gay identified. That is, they are born as males and become lesbians, or are born as females and live as gay men.
"But if you were born as a guy, and you like girls, or you were born as a girl and you like guys, then why go to all that trouble? Why make life twice as hard for yourself?" Because gender identity and sexuality are distinct from one another - although they are interrelated. Everyone knows that men and women are different, and that therefore a relationship with a man is different from a relationship with a woman. By the same token, doing a relationship as a woman is different from doing a relationship as a man; there's simply a different dynamic to it.
The subject of "transhomosexuality" and its evil twin "transhomophobia" (to use the ten-dollar words currnet in the queer community) is still new. There has been tremendous progress in the gay world in recent years. (And for you nitpickers, I'm using "gay" in the broad sense because I hate having to hit caps-lock every time and say "GLBT".) But before we go further in discussing lesbian- and gay-identified transgenders, we need to take a quick look at the relations between the transgender and lesbian/gay communities in the West in recent years.
One of the ironies of the gay movement of the 1970s was its quiet disenfranchisement of the transgender community. Ironic because many of the activists of the Stonewall rebellion (most notably the late Sylvia Rivera) were either cross-dressers ("drag queens") or transgendered people. Ironic, too, because the gay liberation movement began mirroring the same prejudice it experienced from the outside world.
The gay movement believed that "fitting in" was the key to success. (I realize this is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'm referring to the mainstream gay movement, which by definition had to be ... well, mainstream.) Gay and lesbian stereotypes were frowned on - but in a telling asymmetry, butch lesbians were accepted while effeminate gay men were not.
During the same period, a similar tactical move occurred in the feminist world. Feminists bought into the fallacy that "in order to be equal to men, we must be like men". Consequently, it became "politically incorrect" to acknowledge any innate differences in gender, other than the obvious reproductive differences. All apparent gender differences in behavior, mannerisms, temperament, language, style of learning, and so on, had to be dismissed as the result of "gender stereotyping" and the "nurture" school prevailed over "nature".
So women tucked themselves into unisex business suits in the "dress for success" fashion, while gays worked hard to prove they were just like everyone else ... except for the small matter of being gay.
These intellectual fads had serious consequences for the transgender world: because if there are no internal differences between women and men, how are we to understand the case of someone who believes they properly belong to the opposite gender? For women throwing off the shackles of patriarchy, it could only mean one thing: betrayal. Women who wanted to be men were betraying the cause of their feminist sisters, and must be trying to gain "male privilege" by going over to the other side. Even worse, men who wanted to be women were charlatans, trying to take away from "real women" the one thing women could call their own: their identity. Such were the attitudes of early feminists toward transsexuals.
Transsexuals represented undesirable "baggage" for the gay and lesbian community, by being visible, and different, and everything gays weren't supposed to be. Perhaps they also made gay men uncomfortable, as many gay men have experienced harrassment for their own feminine mannerisms. Certainly lesbians, being both gay and (perforce) feminists, did not take kindly to the thought of biological males - even postoperative transsexuals - intruding on their world. This was the era in which "womyn-born-womyn only" music festivals like the legendary Michigan Womyn's Music Festival were born.
But as Meg famously declared in A Wrinkle in Time, "Like and equal are not the same thing at all." Countless experiments in egalitarian child-rearing, and mountains of laboratory studies, eventually dispelled the notion that gender differences could be ignored. As lesbians became freer to explore their own sexuality, they discovered that some of their own number were so far at the "butch" end of the butch/femme spectrum that basic assumptions about gender had to be called into question.
In recent years, the lesbian community in particular has made dramatic advances toward the acceptance of differently-gendered people. The MWMF, which still strictly excludes transsexuals, has engendered a protest movement, and the policy is now a matter of serious debate in even the most orthodox lesbian circles. And major lesbian magazines were affected: Girlfriends confronted its readers with the news that one of its columnists, veteran activist Pat Califia, would soon be Patrick Califia; and Curve, in a groundbreaking article titled The Opposite of Opposite Sex, tackled the unique challenges of transgender relationships. [Note: if the article is no longer available at the original link, you can view it at my reference page.]
And now we are back to transhomosexuality. In the previous post, we saw that some authorities in islamist regimes can accept transsexuality within certain limitations. But it is these limitations that tell us everything. No mention is made of female-to-male transitions. Nor does the article say anything about lesbian relationships; but we may assume that transsexual women in Iran face the same prohibitions as other women, including this one.
In the West, of course, things are much better. But it's instructive to look at traditional attitudes toward gender and sexuality, because they often reflect an internalized model of a "gender hierarchy" which has difficulty grasping relationships that don't fit a particular paradigm. And I'll write more on that soon, but I have to stop for now.
Iran in transition?
Thanks to Jane for forwarding this piece.
Iranian Truth: Sex Change in Iran
It's a response to a New York Times story reporting the increasing acceptance of gender reassignment surgery (commonly known as "the sex-change operation") in Iran. I don't have much to add to the post's main points, which are (1) increasing acceptance of transsexual/transgender people anywhere is a good thing, but (2) we cannot necessarily infer (as NYT writer Nazila Fathi apparently does) that a more tolerant policy toward transsexuals means a more tolerant Iranian regime. In fact, this is not the case.
There's a widespread assumption in the West that transsexuals are simply an "extreme" form of homosexuals. This isn't true, and clearly the IRI, for all its prejudices, is operating from a different set of assumtions. In their minds, transsexuals can be "OK" because, and only because, they are not considered homosexuals.
Because of the way civil rights evolved in the West, transgender people are seen as more "out there" than conventionally gendered gays, and, by extension, the transgender rights movement is still seen as a footnote to the gay rights movement - the "T" that comes, almost as an afterthought, at the end of "GLBT".
In revolutionary Iran, there was no Stonewall, no Sylvia Rivera, no gay rights movement. There are no gay rights, period. Transsexuals successfully transitioning male-to-female will be recognized as women, with all the rights enjoyed by women - i.e., none. Please see my earlier post on a gender transition in Kuwait.
Social conservatives in the West should resist the temptation to see this development as a sign of increasing "liberalism" (whether good or bad) in Iran. Rather, they should reconsider the widely-held assumption that transsexuals seek gender reassignment on a whim, or as a fad, or as some kind of misguided political statement.
Social conservatives should ask themselves: Why, under a ruthlessly misogynistic regime, would anyone want to be a woman?
Iranian Truth: Sex Change in Iran
It's a response to a New York Times story reporting the increasing acceptance of gender reassignment surgery (commonly known as "the sex-change operation") in Iran. I don't have much to add to the post's main points, which are (1) increasing acceptance of transsexual/transgender people anywhere is a good thing, but (2) we cannot necessarily infer (as NYT writer Nazila Fathi apparently does) that a more tolerant policy toward transsexuals means a more tolerant Iranian regime. In fact, this is not the case.
There's a widespread assumption in the West that transsexuals are simply an "extreme" form of homosexuals. This isn't true, and clearly the IRI, for all its prejudices, is operating from a different set of assumtions. In their minds, transsexuals can be "OK" because, and only because, they are not considered homosexuals.
Because of the way civil rights evolved in the West, transgender people are seen as more "out there" than conventionally gendered gays, and, by extension, the transgender rights movement is still seen as a footnote to the gay rights movement - the "T" that comes, almost as an afterthought, at the end of "GLBT".
In revolutionary Iran, there was no Stonewall, no Sylvia Rivera, no gay rights movement. There are no gay rights, period. Transsexuals successfully transitioning male-to-female will be recognized as women, with all the rights enjoyed by women - i.e., none. Please see my earlier post on a gender transition in Kuwait.
Social conservatives in the West should resist the temptation to see this development as a sign of increasing "liberalism" (whether good or bad) in Iran. Rather, they should reconsider the widely-held assumption that transsexuals seek gender reassignment on a whim, or as a fad, or as some kind of misguided political statement.
Social conservatives should ask themselves: Why, under a ruthlessly misogynistic regime, would anyone want to be a woman?
2004-08-12
Taheri: The Muslim World's Civil War
... is not about winning an argument. In an especially fine piece, Amir Taheri explains that the West's infatuation with the notion of a 'clash of civilizations' ignores some important realities of today's world: it is the Muslim world itself that is the chief battleground of the conflict, and many of the islamist movement's leaders have been educated in the West; so we cannot assume that the problem is a lack of information about the West. The 9/11 Commission's emphasis on a 'hearts and minds' campaign is misguided, Taheri says, and is symptomatic of such assumptions.
In plain English: It isn't all about us.
Taheri enumerates several important nations in the Muslim world that have been battlegrounds in the struggle for the soul of Islam: Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Malaysia. Although the article does not mention Sudan, it might well be added to the list as a prime example of intra-Muslim conflict. Continuing atrocities show us what can happen when Islam's Klansmen, the Janjaweed, are allowed to operate unopposed.
The article names two of the chief architects of islamist ideology, Abu al-Ala Maudoodi and Sayyed Qutb, who had extensive contact with Western values and education in their own lives. Qutb is extensively profiled in the excellent book 'Terror and Liberalism' by Paul Berman.
To Taheri's article I would only add that while the war in Islam is not only about the West, it cannot be separated from the West either. It isn't all about us but it is, partly, about us. To put it another way: both islamists and non-islamists often speak of moderate, progressive forms of Islam as reflecting "Western" values. But it is also possible to say that many of the values embraced by the West (and, to be plain, America more so than Europe) are the values of liberal Islam as this piece at "Armies of Liberation" demonstrates.
Taheri concludes that 'As for Osama bin Laden, even his fellow Wahhabis have put him beyond the pale. But that has not prevented the Bin Ladenists from pursuing their campaign of terror wherever they can. This war is about finding and neutralizing the killers, not educating them or winning an argument against them.' As more and more Muslims experience islamofascism first-hand, ordinary people in the Muslim world will understand that the enemy is their enemy, and the choice is their choice: surrender to slavery, or fight for freedom.
In plain English: It isn't all about us.
Taheri enumerates several important nations in the Muslim world that have been battlegrounds in the struggle for the soul of Islam: Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Malaysia. Although the article does not mention Sudan, it might well be added to the list as a prime example of intra-Muslim conflict. Continuing atrocities show us what can happen when Islam's Klansmen, the Janjaweed, are allowed to operate unopposed.
The article names two of the chief architects of islamist ideology, Abu al-Ala Maudoodi and Sayyed Qutb, who had extensive contact with Western values and education in their own lives. Qutb is extensively profiled in the excellent book 'Terror and Liberalism' by Paul Berman.
To Taheri's article I would only add that while the war in Islam is not only about the West, it cannot be separated from the West either. It isn't all about us but it is, partly, about us. To put it another way: both islamists and non-islamists often speak of moderate, progressive forms of Islam as reflecting "Western" values. But it is also possible to say that many of the values embraced by the West (and, to be plain, America more so than Europe) are the values of liberal Islam as this piece at "Armies of Liberation" demonstrates.
Taheri concludes that 'As for Osama bin Laden, even his fellow Wahhabis have put him beyond the pale. But that has not prevented the Bin Ladenists from pursuing their campaign of terror wherever they can. This war is about finding and neutralizing the killers, not educating them or winning an argument against them.' As more and more Muslims experience islamofascism first-hand, ordinary people in the Muslim world will understand that the enemy is their enemy, and the choice is their choice: surrender to slavery, or fight for freedom.
2004-08-09
Why, yes, Wretchard, as a matter of fact ...
... I do believe the "war on terrorism" is about making the world safe for homosexuals, not to mention transsexuals, women, Jews, Africans, Christians, Muslims, and even straight white males.
2004-08-08
Rice Vows to Stop Mullahs' Nuke
Condoleezza Rice expressed confidence that the international community will put strong pressure on the Iranian regime to dismantle its nuclear program, but refused to say whether the US would act alone if necessary, according to this news item on Rice and Iran's nuclear program.
'"The United States was the first to say that Iran was a threat in this way, to try and convince the international community that Iran was trying, under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, to actually bring about a nuclear weapons program," Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I think we've finally now got the world community to a place, and the International Atomic Energy Agency to a place, that it is worried and suspicious of the Iranian activities," she said. "Iran is facing for the first time real resistance to trying to take these steps." ...
She also said, "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen."'
'"The United States was the first to say that Iran was a threat in this way, to try and convince the international community that Iran was trying, under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, to actually bring about a nuclear weapons program," Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I think we've finally now got the world community to a place, and the International Atomic Energy Agency to a place, that it is worried and suspicious of the Iranian activities," she said. "Iran is facing for the first time real resistance to trying to take these steps." ...
She also said, "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen."'
Goli Ameri: Say No to Terror
In a June 18 news item, congressionial candidate Goli Ameri responded to terrorist acts with a vow to stand firm against terror if elected to represent Oregon's First District. "These terrorists hate Americans because we are pluralistic, prosperous, and free. There is no negotiating or reasoning to be had with these fanatics. We must find them and destroy them before they can realize their evil intentions. ... In Iran I watched as radicals gained power through the use of terror and maintained it through fear. These terrorists are attempting to cow Americans in the same manner. Today’s atrocity should strengthen our resolve to win this deadly, painful, but necessary war," Ameri said.
2004-08-06
Haunted Iraq
Do not miss this post from Zeyad. There are some stories there that H. P. Lovecraft would be proud of.
Interesting detail about Zeyad's grandmother, who is a psychic. It's ironic because Zeyad is a confirmed atheist/skeptic/rationalist. Also the part about amulets is interesting: makes me think of the Necronomicon, or the Key of Solomon. There are amulets in the Jewish tradition too (cf. the Book of Raziel).
I've never had a paranormal experience, but I don't discount them. Anyway, I've got to stop here as it's almost Shabbat. See you Saturday night.
Interesting detail about Zeyad's grandmother, who is a psychic. It's ironic because Zeyad is a confirmed atheist/skeptic/rationalist. Also the part about amulets is interesting: makes me think of the Necronomicon, or the Key of Solomon. There are amulets in the Jewish tradition too (cf. the Book of Raziel).
I've never had a paranormal experience, but I don't discount them. Anyway, I've got to stop here as it's almost Shabbat. See you Saturday night.
The Terror War
The latest weekly newsletter from Debka informs me that "The al-Qaeda Threat to America is Serious."
Well, duh.
As we recall, the September 11 attacks were in the works for five years or more, so we shouldn't be surprised if "old intelligence" bears on events affecting us now. A few days ago when the press reported that the threat to Wall Street was out of date, I assumed (just as the leftist press intended) that it meant our CIA and Homeland Security folks had screwed up. Fortunately a number of LGF readers clarified the situation. (There's discussion at this thread.)
No doubt, we can expect an attempted large-scale attack on America by the end of this year. Whether it succeeds in causing harm or not will depend on a lot of things; but whether it succeeds in demoralizing us will depend only on ourselves.
Well, duh.
As we recall, the September 11 attacks were in the works for five years or more, so we shouldn't be surprised if "old intelligence" bears on events affecting us now. A few days ago when the press reported that the threat to Wall Street was out of date, I assumed (just as the leftist press intended) that it meant our CIA and Homeland Security folks had screwed up. Fortunately a number of LGF readers clarified the situation. (There's discussion at this thread.)
No doubt, we can expect an attempted large-scale attack on America by the end of this year. Whether it succeeds in causing harm or not will depend on a lot of things; but whether it succeeds in demoralizing us will depend only on ourselves.
The Blogging Will Continue Until Morale Improves
These are dark times and it's easy to get discouraged. I know I do. Sometimes I wonder what's the point, or else I wonder whether any of us can make a difference. As you know, I do get out of the house once in a while, but my social life is fairly limited and there's really no one I can openly converse with about the things that matter. (Memo to self: first dates are not the place to talk politics. It's not such a good idea on second or third dates, either.)
Nevertheless, we've got to do something, and this little keyboard is all the weaponry I've got these days. I can't stay away from it for too long, or I feel like I'm abandoning my post.
Nevertheless, we've got to do something, and this little keyboard is all the weaponry I've got these days. I can't stay away from it for too long, or I feel like I'm abandoning my post.
2004-08-03
The New Republican: The Case Against "The Case Against Bush"
The New Republic didn't endorse John F. Kerry in the Democratic primaries. The magazine (quite sensibly) backed Joe Lieberman. Never ones to stifle dissent, the editors also ran articles endorsing Wesley Clark (by J. Peter Scoblic), John Edwards (Michelle Cottle), Richard Gephardt (Michael Crowley), and even Howard Dean (Jonathan Cohn). (A sidebar in that same issue presciently observes of Kerry: "The core problem with Kerry's candidacy ... has been that the man has never had a clear rationale for running. He has no Big Idea, no passionate constituency, no unique ideological niche." Thank you, Michael Crowley.)
But Democrats will be Democrats, and Kerry was the man they picked to represent them in this year's election. So TNR dutifully rises to the occasion and puts together a two-part series titled (mark this well) "The Case Against George W. Bush." Part 1, by Franklin Foer (July 5/12 print issue), takes the President to task for his approach to expert advisers; Part 2, by Jonathan Chait (July 16), criticizes the administration's transparency, or lack of it. Do they make some fair points? Sure. But they don't convince me that Bush is unfit to be President, or that a Bush presidency imperils the future of the nation. So it is really not a "case against Bush"; it is a list of criticisms, some of them perhaps valid, others almost certainly oveblown. What we're left with at the end is: So what?
The red-shirted DNC activists in my neighborhood have apparently heeded the Kerry campaign's injunction against negative politics, so now instead of "Wanna help get George Bush out of the White House?", they greet you with "Wanna help elect John Kerry?" Well, as they say in Yiddish, Das helft gornisht. That's the problem facing the Democrats in general and TNR in particular: It's not enough to criticize the Bush administration, even if you elevate the criticism to a "case against". You've got to offer an alternative. So what's the alternative to George W. Bush? John F. Kerry, of course.
The New Republic didn't make a "case for John F. Kerry" during the primary, and it still hasn't made one. That's a shame, because a good magazine like TNR ought to be able to put on together.
Say, maybe I can help.
(Scroll down ... )
But Democrats will be Democrats, and Kerry was the man they picked to represent them in this year's election. So TNR dutifully rises to the occasion and puts together a two-part series titled (mark this well) "The Case Against George W. Bush." Part 1, by Franklin Foer (July 5/12 print issue), takes the President to task for his approach to expert advisers; Part 2, by Jonathan Chait (July 16), criticizes the administration's transparency, or lack of it. Do they make some fair points? Sure. But they don't convince me that Bush is unfit to be President, or that a Bush presidency imperils the future of the nation. So it is really not a "case against Bush"; it is a list of criticisms, some of them perhaps valid, others almost certainly oveblown. What we're left with at the end is: So what?
The red-shirted DNC activists in my neighborhood have apparently heeded the Kerry campaign's injunction against negative politics, so now instead of "Wanna help get George Bush out of the White House?", they greet you with "Wanna help elect John Kerry?" Well, as they say in Yiddish, Das helft gornisht. That's the problem facing the Democrats in general and TNR in particular: It's not enough to criticize the Bush administration, even if you elevate the criticism to a "case against". You've got to offer an alternative. So what's the alternative to George W. Bush? John F. Kerry, of course.
The New Republic didn't make a "case for John F. Kerry" during the primary, and it still hasn't made one. That's a shame, because a good magazine like TNR ought to be able to put on together.
Say, maybe I can help.
(Scroll down ... )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)