Sunday, August 29, 2010

Ayaan Hirsi Ali




Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in Nairobi under the thumb of Islam. She was not permitted to read or write, but she smuggled books into her house, and read them, secreting them into the pages of the Koran. Comics, spy stories, geography, everything she could get her hands on. Her mother was illiterate, and hoped that her daughters would be, too. Then she was shipped to Europe by her father to be part of an arranged marriage, but escaped to Amsterdam and was granted political asylum.

Those who got out of communism and came to our shores were often artists and intellectuals, sometimes Christian. The Solzhenitsyn's of Islam, on the other hand, are its women.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes to western readers at the end of her book The Caged Virgin, "We Muslims come from collectives. We come from tribes. We missed the Enlightenment. You give us your compassion, your medicine, your money. But instead of your wealth, share with us your values. Protect us from the bearded men in long robes from Medina and Mecca" (177).

Bush, Blair and the other conservatives have largely taken up the mantra that Islam is peaceful. We went into Afghanistan and did allow women to be educated. Some 9 million women are not illiterate thanks to Bush and Blair. But Afghanistan is still a one-religion state, and the publishing houses are not exactly pumping out feminist texts, or secular poetry, or algebra manuals. The press is tightly guarded, and publishes next to nothing that they didn't publish before. If we leave, the Taliban would destroy these 9 million women as apostates. Would the left say anything? No, they would not. It would be racist to see anything in the third world as bad.

Meanwhile, Islam spreads west, but it is against the law for Christianity or atheism, or any other religion to spread over there. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks, in an address to Australians,

"Why, in this wealthy nation, do you allow Saudi Arabia to finance schools here? The kids who attend these so-called Muslim schools are Australian citizens. Should they not be groomed to become Australians with Australian values of life, freedom, and tolerance? Why abandon them and look the other way as their hearts and minds are filled with the Day of the Overwhelming Event?" (176).

In many western countries, genital mutilation continues to be practiced. Children cannot defend themselves against surgeons who come in the name of religion, especially when parents are aligned against them.

"Did you know that Australian doctors are struggling to treat victims of female genital mutilation? Little girls who tell the doctors it hurts to urinate; teenagers who tell the doctors that menstruation hurts; and girls, of twelve, thirteen, and fourteen who are married and have difficulty giving birth. Yes, you heard me: these are child brides, not in Saudi Arabia but in Australia!" (176).

One wonders if tolerance isn't just a matter of sticking one's head in the sand, as we appear to be doing with the victory Mosque at Ground Zero. The Ground Zero Mosque is an obvious Trojan Horse.

The intellectuals of Troy did not rejoice when they saw the horse. Cassandra spoke out against it, as did others. But they were overruled by the happy few who wanted to believe so badly in peace that it cost them their whole culture.

Our intellectuals praised Stalin as he put millions into gulags. A few piped up. Orwell spoke, and some others. But most intellectuals got on the train, or were only too happy to look the other way, and to believe the propaganda. It's far easier to believe the propaganda, especially if you can get tenured.

The Muslim world is corrupt. They still have royal families who control the levers of the military and the courts in places like Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalist Islam is an uprising against those families, but it seeks to create a theocratic state with no human rights for women. Massive emigration to western Europe and other places like Australia has allowed some of the frustration to dissipate. But the problem remains. There is intellectual stagnation throughout Islam. About 300 books a year are published in the entire Islamic world. Anyone unlucky enough (especially women) to be born under the flag with the moon on it (a sign of lunacy) has only one chance of escape: the west.

The war we fought with the communists was difficult, but now, aside from a few western intellectuals like Michael Berube, communism is a spent force. A few misguided head-in-the-sand-types continue to revel in it, and to think that redistribution from the hard-working to the indolent, disorganized and drug-addicted will create justice.

The few governments that remain communist are embarrassed by those who seek to flee from their nightmarish grip. Tens of thousands walk out of Zimbabwe every day. North Korea would be a desert if they opened their borders. Vietnam has finally opened up to individual entreprenurial efforts, as has Red China, but still monitor information very tightly. They are embarrassed states: red with shame.

The leaders of Islam are not embarrassed. They are quite certain that they are the one true religion. Of course, everyone who says differently gets killed. This is how the communists remained in power for so long. But one feels the grip of the imams slipping. They rescinded the fatwa on Rushdie.

In thirty years, it may be that there will be no more Islamic countries, and the only true believers will be in American universities.

Many academic birdbrains think to go against Islam is racist. But Islam isn't a race. It's a religion, as Hirsi Ali points out. And she asks us in the west who have so many freedoms, while those in Islamic countries have nothing. "Whom do you help by saying nothing? It's selfish not to want to appear racist," Ali asserts (75).

Race trumps gender. Gender is taking a beating under the (matriarchal) imams. but to say anything is racist, so no one says anything. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks, but why don't we take her more seriously?

When the recent Newsweek edition ranking countries came out, all the Lutheran countries were in the top ten. No Islamic countries are in the top fifty. But could Newsweek have said something?

Could Obama say something? His father was a Muslim from Kenya, the same country that Ali was raised in. But Obama doesn't have any brains, and he has less guts. Ali has plenty of both. Obama seems to see no problem at all with Islam. Imagine what it would take to get Obama to wake up to the problems of Islam. Obama is the representative of the American academy, and its whole way of "thinking."

As dumb as they are, even the Republicans are smarter. Which is why I'm a Republican.

32 comments:

J A DeLater said...

Kirby, one example of an ex-Muslim turned evangelical Protestant who crusades for women's rights and against sharia law's oppressive and barbaric strictures is Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian writer and lecturer.

While her father, an Egyptian officer, was killed in the 1950s during an Israeli counter-insurgency raid, she helped form a group called "Arabs for Israel." Her most recent book is "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law" (2009). Though she's lectured at a number of US colleges and universities, several of her lectures have been cancelled (at Columbia and Princeton) due to pressure from Muslim groups.

Just to sample unfavourable opinions of her and her work, I read a seething article written by James Sostrun, a Marxist anti-Israeli English professor at SUNY-Buffalo on a notorious pro-Islamist blog site called "Loonwatch."

She argues strongly against the stultifying and oppressive nature of sharia law (which Imam Rauf finds so compatible with our laws and constitution) and writes:

"After 9/11 very few Americans of Arab and Muslim origin spoke out and from my experience it took us a long time to get noticed by Western media. Western media still regards Muslim organizations such as CAIR as representative of moderate Muslims in America. This is not the case. Muslim groups in the U.S. try to silence us and intimidate American campuses who [sic] invite us to speak. I often tell Muslim students that Arab Americans who are speaking out against terrorism are not the problem, it’s the terrorists who are giving Islam a bad name. And what the West must do is ask the politically incorrect questions and we Americans of Arab and Muslim origin owe them honest answers."

Understandably, she too opposes Imam Rauf's GZM project.

Kirby Olson said...

James, I just read the Nonie Darwish wiki page, and came off thinking ah finally, someone with an actual brain from Egypt. What a wonderful thing!

I especially liked this:

"Darwish believes Islam is an authoritarian ideology that is attempting to impose on the world the norms of seventh-century culture of the Arabian Peninsula. She writes that Islam is a "sinister force" that must be resisted and contained. She remarks that it is hard to "comprehend that an entire religion and its culture believes God orders the killing of unbelievers." She claims that Islam and Sharia of forming a retrograde ideology that adds greatly to the world's stock of misery.[11]

I'd like to read her book. Often when I read the kind of thing: Islam is all peace, all the time, and it's just 20 people that got on a plane once that were the problem I just can't believe it. Doesn't anybody actually read any more? doesn't anybody ponder the millions and millions of dead in the Sunni Shi'a war between Iraq and Iran?

Has the world gone mad?

It's nice to find here and there a few witnesses to the truth. Writers are either witnesses to the truth or I have no idea what they are.

I'm kind of a pessimist about Islam, and to a stronger degree about communism. There is something in both ideologies that leads people down a very very dark path.

I'd love to see Kim Jong-Il have a conversation with Bin Laden.

jh said...

oh here we go
finally
the clitorectomy dialectic

why is that any different than breast implants
is it just the fact that nobody is holding a person down
when they get implants

i mean sheesh
right up until the
19th century they were still
making castratti
in mens' choirs in europe
nobody raised any huff about that

this has gone way too far
how can we have decent conversations
about genitals

can't we have a political conversation about economix without referring to vaginas

kirby i think before you go criticizing the whole muslim world you should go live in a muslim country for a year and see what they're really like

i was amazed when i read tariq ali
(the book of saladin)how sophisticated the islamic people were in fighting for jerusalem against the franks...it seems there was an ease of understanding between jews and muslims in the middle ages that was somehow lost
when the christians played tough as the 16th century unravelled

anyway
enough of this clitorectomy stuff

let's keep things above the belt line
i get so queezy
when things go in the direction
of mutilations
i feel like i'm going to be sick

o and kirb
i think you should go back and review the speech obama gave in cairo
i mean the guy thought that whole thing through
he can't be as brainless as you claim

did you catch the big white glenn beck fandango in DC
yahoo
let's get real
glenn beck has a dream
he's been to the mountain top
poor oppressed asshole
somebody should liberate that
mofo
from tv
for ever

o sorry
bad language

i'm sure he's just a fine white mormom or a marmot

jh

Kirby Olson said...

JH, I am unlikely to go anywhere these days. And I am not the one being critical, simply because I don't have a tremendous amount of experience in this area. The first time I realized that Muslims exist was on 9/11. I mean I knew they were over there somewhere, much as I know that Mars exists, or that black holes exist, but this was the first time they had had any direct effect on me.

I think the left immediately aligns with any group with which we are at war, because the left hates Amerikkka, much as Ward Churchill does, and any enemy of America, is a friend of the left.

The left was delighted when the twin towers came down.

They were delighted when Katrina hit New Orleans.

Maybe Obama had willed both of these acts of destruction, so that he could step in as our savior, and tell the world what a bad country this is, and how he and his wife Michelle have been ashamed of the country, but now there's nothing further to be ashamed of, since he will publicly shame us at every opportunity.

A thousand Mogadishus!

However, there remains the prickly matter of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I like her book pretty well. My talking points such as they are come from her. Since this is standard practice (clitorectomy) in the Muslim world, and since it is often does with a piece of glass, or a shaving of metal (according to her testimony), and often leaves the women half-crippled, I think it's relevant. I think the lack of literacy is also relevant.

I think the fact that no Muslim country is in the top fifty in terms of livability, even according to the crazy rag Newsweek, is relevant.

That so many are trying to get out of those psychotic countries is relevant.

The Middle Ages isn't relevant, since they were so long ago.

No one is saying that Muslims are GENETICALLY inferior. It's their system that is holding them down. When they had the notion that knowledge was a good thing (which they had until about 1260) they were prosperous and functional. Now, there is only one book that most of them are allowed to read.

And it doesn't contain any algebra.

Now it's true that I can get along pretty well without algebra, but I don't think engineers can. It sort of holds the society back.

They then turn and blame this on us.

The left agrees. Please, knock our buildings down and kill our soldiers. We're bad! Kill us, so we can turn communist!

There are a lot of funny problems here, and they are all on the table.

jh said...

kirb kirb kirb
hyperbole becomes you
of course
but the left is not that
callous
the left was weeping too
when the buildings crumbled
i was there in jersey
i saw the left weep
everyone went out and bought the koran
i mean everyone
i didn't i found a copy in the library
i tried to understand jihad
why i asked
then i saw the struggle in my own heart
christ is the end of jihad
is he then playing

i would opt for some inquiry into
what is good
true and beautiful in islam

it can't be only the reactions

what i never heard from the right was
oh
perhaps we might to some extent
have brought this on ourselves
perhaps out of ignorance
they kept talking about faulty intelligence
i think it was rather deliberate
ignorance or
an ignorance emerging out of contentment

the things milton friedman didn't think about

we do well to consider the draconian and the barbarik in
our righteous law system

i find it interesting that spokespersons for islam in america tend to be women
are these women mutilated
many of them are obviously american women
what
they want more structure more discipline in life

i am a little concerned about the topic of love poetry in islamic society

i mean they must know the tingle of attraction the desire for union
the austerity of lonliness the visceral dance of copulation
the parting kiss
it can't be all war

i truly hope ayaan does not come to the american convents and tell the sisters her stories
i dread that
then the sisters will be talking about mutilated vaginaz
and i will get ill

what we really need is for these marginal muslims to become more catholic

the confusion is about universalities
and how we make that happen

the crusades were terrible failures
all the way around
a hard hard lesson learned on the church

the left thinks that maybe people can read and be enlightened
the right thinks that the international market for armaments is simply a good business venture

i think i have september before me

jh

Kirby Olson said...

JH, even if I were to go to a Muslim country I would only come back decapitated, and therefore, unlikely to be able to relate anything that I had discovered.

Far better to read the work of someone like Ali who has spent a lifetime inside a Muslim country, then fled to the west, to tell us about it, although having to have a barrier of security services around her to protect her from her religion.

In Ali's newest book, Nomad: from Islam to America: a Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations (Free Press, 2010), she writes that Catholics and Protestants are the only thing that can save this country from Islam. People want religion, and if there is only one on offer, they will take it. You can't leave Islam. Once you're in, the only way out is to be decapitated.

Ali writes, "Christian schools are often poles of excellence in an otherwise blighted educational landscape, particularly in inner-city neighborhoods ... They teach only only the full range of sciences and humanities, but also about a God who created reason, and told humankind to let reason prevail" (Nomad 250).

Instead of hiding away in a monastery, come on out and talk to the kids, and help them get on board with the one true God, she is saying. She is herself not a Christian (she's an atheist), but like Orwell she realized that the resources of Christianity are the only thing that could stop the Marxists (and stop them we did), and are now the only thing that can stop Islam.

Islam's weak point is that it doesn't have any real educational apparatus. It doesn't teach the men very much about the modern sciences or humanities except that they should shun them, and it teaches the women to remain completely illiterate.

She thinks that Christianity has been much more permeable to Enlightenment critique, and thus, is now more flexible. We do occasionally have a shooter, like the madman who shot Tiller, but they are very far form the norm.

Ali presents a very simple call to action for Christians. If you actually care about the poor and the ignorant, convert them. Get them involved in a functioning christian church. Love them.

Don't just abandon them to Islam.

It's an interesting idea, and gives the activists something real to do, if you ask me. But no one asked me.

Brett said...

"The left was delighted when the twin towers came down.

They were delighted when Katrina hit New Orleans."

The same 'left' that supported Bush?

His approval ratings were sky-hi for a long time after the attacks.

Maybe I'm making a false assumption, but I don't see the right being as forgiving and supportive wrt our president if the same thing were to happen under Obama's watch.

You need a few adjectives before the word 'left' here... Maybe 'fundamentalist', which would be playful, or 'extremist,' or what-have-you...

Because otherwise everything much of what you're saying is wrong, and as someone who IS part of the 'left' in this country, I take offense at your accusation that I wanted the twin towers to fall, or wanted Katrina to hit the gulf...Not only as a single person, but also for the hundreds of people I count as friends who are 'left.' (I have a lot of conservative friends too, but tbh the number is probably more in the dozens...)

Kirby Olson said...

I was making a jocular reference, Brett, to the weird thing that Obama said that somehow he had willed the oceans to rise. I forget exactly what it was that he said. It was something quite funny.

It was in that sense that I was talking about Obama's will causing Katrina (which didn't help Bush), as well as the Towers, which helped Bush, esp. afterhis neat lil' 5 min. speech that turned me from a Democrat into a REpublican (Ward churchill's remarks helped push me in that direction, too)

I still think your superpeaceful imam has some splainin' to do wrt his remarks about how the west was complicit in the fall of the towers.

His remarks are no different from Ward Churchill's the faux-Indian who I think has lost his tenure at UC Boulder (but he's appealed, so it may not come to pass who knows).

I can't see how the left could condemn Churchill (few supported him outside of Ethnic Studies -- even Michael Berube who I think of as a bellweather of the left said he thought Churchill was a -- I can't remember the precise word he used, but it was one of dismissal).

Still, how different is the supremely pacifistical imam's remark from that of WC?

I think you and Stu tend to believe in what people say, Brett.

That's fine.

I tend to believe in what people actually do, and not to put much truck at all in what they say.

Stalin said all kinds of things. He did other stuff. Who was Stalin? The nice guy who spoke to the American left, or the genocidal fascist who killed 20 million or more in nightmare purges of paranoia?

This imam may say he's one thing and be another.

The three Stooges on the SCOTUS who claim to be conservative Jews probably aren't since they are pro-abortion.

Well, I can't see how you can be Jewish and be for abortion.

The stipulation Thou shalt not kill would seem to be binding if you were REALLY Jewish.

But what do I know?

I myself believe that the practice of abortion should be legal, just as I think suicide should be legal.

But I think it's supremely selfish, and gross.

Brett said...

"I think you and Stu tend to believe in what people say, Brett."

I believe the same of you! Weird...

Kirby Olson said...

I often find a funny symmetry in these conversations where both sides see the other as committing the same intellectual fault. This really is funny, and something Mullah Nasruddin has probably commented on in one of his parables.

Kirby Olson said...

JH, the clitorectomy dialectic is another aspect of the child abuse that religious faiths have practiced. I think it's important to leave it on the table.

It's easier to see that Islam is a religion that is very hard on women. It is almost a crime against women from their childhood through their entire lives. Reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book makes it clear how really violent the whole system is toward women, and how it is all about controlling them. There may be some other justification for Islam, but through her eyes, it becomes a system of mutilating women. Even the end of the suicide bombers is supposedly to get at 72 virgins.

Ali, as a member of Dutch parliament, tried to get a law passed that would allow Dutch doctors to inspect Muslim girls for clitorectomies. These are often botched jobs that make the girls incontinent so that they have to wear diapers their whole lives. She compares it to men having their balls chopped off, and the penis chopped off, leaving only an empty sack.

I don't know how adequate the comparison is.

But the law didn't pass because, something like the Arizona law that would have targeted illegal aliens,

"Yet another sophistic legal objection against the introduction of a screening program is that it contradicts our constitution by singling out a specific group to be screened and not the entire Dutch population. These obstructionistsargue that imposing a compulsory medical examination on a group of people from high-risk countries is a form of discrimination" (100).

There are tens of thousands of Muslim girls in Holland, and they continue to have this weird crime done to them.

I think western women in feminist classes don't want to deal with this, as Emmy says, because it would distract them from their own issues, and present western men as comparatively civilized, something they would be loathe to do, as it would break up the race, gender, class triumph-virate, and turn it against itself.

"If children had their noses, orpart of their ears cut off, the government would not be able to get away with its policy of passive tolerance" (107).

One of the few feminists I've seen who has gone after this problem is Andrea Dworkin in an essay on the inequalitiesin Saudi Arabia.

"genital mutilation fits under the definition of child abuse" Ali writes (104).

I think that when it comes to children, we can't afford to look the other way. Even Stu admits that there might be a problem of social justice on this issue. It could be a point of traction.

But how would you get American feminists to give up their condemnation of American men long enough to take on a real global issue that affects a fourth of the world's population?

jh said...

world conscious feminists in
the w H o
they know and rage against the practice...catholic nuns in africa have spoken intensely about it

i argue
it's impossible for us to know anything about living in a contained village
none of us do
i probably do more than anyone commenting here
the psychology of intense common life is an area of complete ignorance for most of us

i understand very little of what passes for enlightened thinking in the west as progress
i tend to see it as going the other way
and the "wisdom" of enlightenment thinking does not strike me as particularly wise

a clitorectomy from one point of view seems quite a bit more civilized than abortion
and we endorse that in this country
in a spirit of secretive enthusiasm

o yes free choice and all

but persons are murdered

it behooves us to perceive what is good and beautiful in the culture of islam

i may be wrong about this but the practice to which you allude is not an "islam" practice per se but a remnant of african tribal practice

do saudi women experience this
do iranian women
do polynesian muslim women get the sharp steel cut against the trembling labia

there were over a million christians in iraq before 2003 and as horrendous as saddaam hussein may have been he was not oppressive to christians
thanks to the warhungry policies of our former fearless leader in the bush over half of the christians have fled
churches were bombed
priests kidnapped murdered
bush might've consulted with some of these christians before attacking but NO

i suppose one of the great differences between the position of ayaan ali and sexual abuse as we know it in this civilized country is that her wounds are evident she could i guess if she wanted to show them to everyone but i guess we have to accept her at her word

it's harder to know what happens
with sexual abuse
i mean we have to take it seriously but it also seems evident that many of the accusations are fallacious

and the other aspect to keep in mind is that it has virtually nothing to do with religion
it is not some kinky wierd secret that exists in catholic culture
it is a human problem
a problem that gets hollywood attention because the church is the church and there is nothing more enjoyable than flinging shit at the church
from radical rightist conservatives like john ashcroft
to liberal demented leftists like most ardent feminists
i am convinced that there is far more fiction than fact in the whole
affair...whose testimony can be believed?

there are intellectuals in islam who are as intelligent as anyone we can put out there in the west
and they prefer to remain muslim

are they simply stubborn

i look at the piercing culture and i hear tell that a rather favorite little new rite is the peg or the ring in the clitoris

well i guess it's different
we're free
they're not

don't kid yourself pal
there are ardent feminists out in the fields of the countries of the world who despise the culture of female mutilation and they regard the catholic church in the same light

for myself
i look at it very objectively
as an anthropologist would
i find it very interesting

let's take a look at ritual circumcision of young males
ouch
or the filing of teeth
or the ringbands on the necks of masai women

the necessary enlightenment for all these human atrocities will not come from USA
this i know

primitive body adornment meets 21st century monastic life
monks with welts and tattoos and lip extenders
big earrings
and stones sown into the gnarly bone

i look at the young adults in the urban jungles
they look abused
and pierced and
demented

how can we pretend to help anyone

my heart goes out to miss ali
i hope she is able to write one good love poem before she dies

next

jh

jh said...

ok
it's really phuqqing strange
i go to publish a comment
and they tell me to either press continue or exit
i press either one
and they both do the same thing
it's an editing thing i suppose
a screening device
for rhetorical pussies

jh

Kirby Olson said...

James, what are your sources on these new revelations?

Quite wonderful how everybody is keeping me up to date with this mosque.

J A DeLater said...

Kirby, on the "mosqueteer" developer, Sharif el-Gamal I found the story at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/28/2010-08-28_park51_developer_sharif_elgamal_has_a_history_of_runins_with_the_law.html

Guess we can be grateful at least at this point that he's only acted the thug and slumlord and not the terrorist.

Sharif's partner in the firm that bought the site, Sammy el-Gamal, also has a rap-sheet of misdemeanor offences in Florida, including petty theft and larceny; in addition to the near quarter-mil in property taxes owed on the site, he apparently owes $22,000 plus in back state taxes. Reference for this other "man of peace" is:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/brother_load_of_trouble_for_mosque_05dDGK3FrZVAnBWBrZDpNK

Kirby Olson said...

James these are good sites, but I couldn't open them.

Here is a video with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I think she is sensible and well-spoken. She is apparently extremely well-spoken in Dutch, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EYqwyns-k

jh said...

kirby james et al
i perused the videos
interesting
she does seem like an interesting lady
and of course i'm like a spoiled brat i grew up in the lap of luxury and what do i know of suffering

when the suffering speak

although
she looked quite happy
quite comfortable with herself
almost
a sense of humor

still i maintain
the only way to disarm the violent
is to regard them as your brothers
and sisters
if you kill one they are multiplied instantaneously by X6

this is a great conversation
i fully appreciate all the contributions here
i am greatly enlightened
and humbled

bows all the way around

thanks

jh

Curtis Faville said...

Kirb:

I think you're confusing a lot of concepts here. One of your best qualities is combinative thinking, but sometimes you get carried away, or a bit careless.

Damning Islam for being "7th Century" is disingenuous. Christianity has been around for centuries, too, and has been responsible for a lot of tyranny and suffering. My sense is that religion, as a generic institution, is the source of the problems, rather than the competition of sects you see.

When people settle on a certain world view and try to stop history in its tracks to suit that view, things quickly get out of hand. If we look dispassionately at Islam, we see a highly structured view of society and the role of men and women and children which looks and feels like a very old paradigm. But you could say the very same thing about Catholicism. In the West, we abandoned the rigid dogma of the church. In the East, they had a different history. They didn't go through an enlightenment--democracy didn't happen there--so their religions continued to exert tremendous influence on society and governance.

Is there a "good" Islam which can be separated from the "jesuitical" extremism which is causing all the furor? That's a complex question, but, like you, I'm skeptical of people who try to pat my head with reassurances about how we can all learn to live side by side, in a democracy, while one side is subduing women and limiting education to a memorization of the Koran. This kind of cultural cleansing could spell doom for American freedoms. Am I fear-mongering by asking this question?

Should our tolerance extend to welcoming people who believe in the demise of our freedom? I have less of a problem with letting Islam thrive in its own sphere. I don't like having to die and spend our treasure to "save" the East from itself. But entertaining it here, under our "multi-cultural" banner of bygones and exaggerated tolerance, seems naive.

Kirby Olson said...

Curtis, the issues are confusing. You said I was confusing issues, but you didn't spell out how I was doing that.

But I admit I am confused about what to think about Islam.

Last night on C-Span they had a panel of three supposed Muslims who teach at various institutions of higher learning in America. These two men and one woman made the case that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is very much like Jefferson (the woman, whose name is Aziza Al Hibri, made the case that Jefferson had cribbed some of his ideas from the Koran, basing this on the fact that he had owned a copy of the Koran, and one sentence by Jefferson resembles one sentence in the Koran).

This same woman later said that there is NO MUSLIM country which is aligned with how SHE sees Sharia Law. Therefore, they are ALL out of compliance, and so she's willing to rule out all of Islam in PRAXIS as not theoretically Islamic, and therefore NOT Islamic. She is the one true arbiter of what is and is not Islam, and the whole world of Islam is out of alignment with her definition, and therefore, faulty.

It reminded me of the debates in which Marxists will claim that no Marxism in PRAXIS is in fact a real Marxist country, because they have it all wrong, and our theorist is right.

This was the worst panel I had ever seen. They spoke in the most mindlessly illogical sentences and the audience nodded dimly, and threw them very light questions, and everyone went away feeling good.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn't come up. Clitorectomy didn't come up.

Terrorism did come up, but all the panelists could say was that this was not TRUE ISLAM, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that what the terrorists said on the planes CAN BE FOUND IN THE KORAN.

And therefore, it is a correct interpretation of ISLAM.

http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232041

It's an hour and forty minutes of sugar-coating. I think Brett and Stu would find some good talking points in it.

Curtis, you are an isolationist in foreign affairs. You want to keep the Mexican illegals out, and you want American to keep its nose clean, and stay out of the murder of little girls in Afghanistan for the crime of learning to read (not mentioned even once in the mindless C-Span panel hearings!), and so on.

I do think America and the UN have responsibilities toward global human rights especially where genocide and gendercide are concerned (have I just now coined this term or does it exist already?).

Gendercide is something we can't look away from, any more than we could allow the Jews to be exterminated again in Europe.

Committing sin is one major problem for America, and the left is constantly screaming about what the CIA has done in chile or in some other Godforsaken hellhole or another around the globe.

But omission is also significant. Looking the other way while genocide takes place is wrong. Ayaan Hirsi Ali looks right at problems and defines them calmly and clearly.

She doesn't flinch.

This is why she's useful. The C-Span panelists were just diversionary in their disregard for real problems. It may as well have been a panel of ostriches.

Take a look for yourself: it's amusing, if you can stand spin-meistering:

http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232041

Curtis Faville said...

One of the things that brought the Soviet system down was its belief that it had "the answer"--that it was "responsible" in effect for the whole world's fate, that "the word" (Communism) had to be spread around the globe, either by might or by insidious incursion.

This messianic view that we must "spread" democracy (along with televisions and cars and credit cards etc.) everywhere is equally deluded.

It may be that the course of history is in our favor, that eventually there will be one world, divided into peaceful partners in the development of cooperation and mutually beneficial intercourse of all kinds. In the meantime, we're still a world of nations. Each nation owns its own sovereignty, and deserves to manage its own affairs and its own destiny. We may not agree about each others' best destiny, but that doesn't entitle us to shoot people who disagree with us. 9/11 was the tip of a sword which was a symbolic symptom of a resentment in the Third World (particularly the Middle East) which had been festering for some while. Polls taken in Iraq and Afghanistan recently show those populations still resent America and its incursions. For right or wrong, those resentments will continue, because the cultural inertias which propel them will continue for generations. I think the chances for positive change are much greater, given the model of China, which is transforming itself to suit the capitalist model, something we could never have militarily "forced" upon them.

I think the only chance we'll ever have to undermine the least attractive aspects of Islam is by maintaining open ties with those countries. The example of a single, liberated, educated, articulate woman amongst the bearded patriarchs of Islam is more powerful than all the guns and bombs and foreign aid we could throw at them.

Change may happen slowly, but real change always does. We can overthrow "dictators" but we can't change the culture in less than three generations (or even more). That's my "liberal harangue" and I'm sticking to it.

Kirby Olson said...

Japan was completely redone in ten years.

Germany, in about a year.

Both countries had stronger traditions of literacy to build upon.

I think we should have put freedom of religion as the #1 in both of our most recent interventions. Without that, nothing much can happen. You need the first amendment.

That's why our communists are so busy undermining it on American campuses.

With the first amendment, totalitarian states simply can't be maintained. If a government or campus is very insistent on the first amendment, anything can be achieved within a year.

Curtis Faville said...

"Japan was completely redone in ten years."

It's interesting you should bring up Japan. I lived there for a year (1985), and that was a very revealing experience. I don't think much changed in Japanese culture after the Bomb. Defeat, for the Japanese, wasn't the occasion for a change of heart. They have been very reluctant to acknowledge their sins in Manchuria, for instance, and their tendency to worship a macho-driven militaristic power structure is as strong as it ever was. Have you kept up with the recent reports of military build-ups by the Japanese and Chinese lately?

"Germany, in about a year."

Perhaps. But there's an underlying bed of skepticism in the German population regarding their "capitulation" to the victors. You will still hear common people whisper about "Jews" and "gypsies" in private. It's entirely unlikely that this kind of prejudice will be tapped into soon, but it's still there.

"Both countries had stronger traditions of literacy to build upon."

It isn't just literacy. It's hundreds of years of tradition. The usual historical explanation for the fascism of the 1930's is it came to "late" nations (Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey--and now the "nations" of the East). That's still a good explanation. Literacy doesn't necessarily support democratic institution-building.

"I think we should have put freedom of religion as the #1 in both of our most recent interventions. Without that, nothing much can happen. You need the first amendment."

How do you reconcile this with Islam's growth in the West? I thought you had serious misgivings about it.

"That's why our communists are so busy undermining it on American campuses."

Sorry, I don't see the connection. What's "why" refer to?

"With the first amendment, totalitarian states simply can't be maintained. If a government or campus is very insistent on the first amendment, anything can be achieved within a year."

Freedom of expression supports all kinds of speech, including the kind you don't like. The First Amendment supports Islam's right to proselytize anywhere here. Do you support that?

J A DeLater said...

JH, thanks for your kind words; I think there is much to admire in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story. We don't often agree on politics, but know that that's what keeps the exchanges on Kirby's blog site lively and spirited, and occasionally spiritual.

There's something to be said for Curtis Faville's thoughts on the potential incompatibility of Islam as practised in many Muslim countries with American laws, customs, traditions and values. Many strictures of Sharia law are quite antithetical to these fundamental aspects of American life. Now there are what might be called conventicle-like religious communities (e.g., the Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, strictly Orthodox Jews, some Catholic monastic orders, some Protestant evangelicals, etc.) that have remained apart from mainstream American life but nevertheless pose no threat to it. Nor do some Muslims, though there are some others who do, so like Kirby, I'm not sure. But First Amendment protections are afforded Muslim proselytisers as all others.

On First Amendment protections, I agree with Kirby that the PC left has on too many occasions tried to to restrict or hinder these protections especially on PC-friendly university campuses--that's why civil liberties organisations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education are so important--and so busy.

And I'm not nearly as sanguine about China's role and influence in the world as is Curtis. It's a serious serial human rights abuser, and its growing military power is certainly more of a threat than Japan's. Just because its authoritarian regime is not as egregiously vile as N Korea's, Iran's, Sudan's, Myanmar's, etc., that's not necessarily a great consolation. But Kirby, Chile's certainly now no hell-hole, but rather comparatively prosperous as it goes.

Kirby Olson said...

James, I share all your concerns, and do agree that Chile is apparently emerging from the darkness and is becoming a solidly middle class country.

Would that have happened under Allende?

Probably not.

I'm not sure what to think about that -- Chile is not a country I've ever thought about but have a friend with connections there and he says it's just like being in Germany or Switzerland to be in Chile these days.

One of the few to overcome the curse of the Spanish language. I don't know the particulars of how they did it.

The Chinese, as you say, are terrifying. What they did to Tibet is pretty much what they do to any civilization they come in contact with.

I'm not sure why Curtis thinks that someone muttering something about Jews is a big threat. As long as that kind of thing doesn't become official policy, and the muttered speech become a dark deed, we're fine.

Last night on the C-Span program the three propagandists for moderate Islam were saying that Muslims have been in the US since before the year 1600. What I wanted to ask is:

So, what have they contributed? Do we have a Muslim artist or scientist in American history that we should know about?

Just being here isn't much to brag about.

Ali asks in her book ,or says that in Holland someone asked the question, "In the last 700 years, what have Muslims contributed in Art or Science? If nothing, do you agree that Islam has stagnated?"

She repeats Huntington's thesis that almost every conflict in the globe involves Islam.

Ali presents a fairly clear case that this is a very bad system, esp. for women. But even if you page through Newsweek's top countries, you don't see any Muslim countries anywhere near the top fifty, even though there are 52 Muslim countries.

People born in those countries are losers because the system stagnated in the year 1260.

I don't quite know the details. They misinterpreted something.

Is Ali their Luther?

Is she their Solzhenitsyn?

I think she wouldn't accept those roles. She is a kind of flare. I think some with more flair, and perhaps more of a spiritual side (she's atheist) will come through the door she's opened. Maybe she's a kind of Erasmus.

stu said...

JADL,

I'm curious, after all the outrage you expressed about the so-called "VA Death Book" a while ago as to your reaction to Senator Simpson's comments of a couple days ago, in the context of VA costs associated with Vietnam era service and their impact on the federal budget: "The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess." Personally, I find such efforts to disavow responsibility for injuries sustained as a result of service to the country to be a reprehensible breach of faith, and I'm reasonably confident that had a Democrat said this, it would be the lead story on FOX for a couple of weeks as it would play so well into their narrative that the left doesn't respect those who serve.

But it seems to me that this is an issue where your opinion is relevant, for if I understand correctly, you are a Vietnam era veteran, you did sustain injuries while in the service, and you have since availed yourself of the very services that Senator Simpson thinks that you (out of a sense of duty, I suppose) ought to be willing to forego. Because if you don't, it won't be possible to sustain the Bush-era tax cuts on people making more than $250K/year, and that just wouldn't be right. Right?

J A DeLater said...

stu, thanks for calling my attention to this issue, of which I hadn't yet heard. I read the most widely-circulated AP story on this, including former senator (R, and military vet) Simpson's remarks you quoted above. In the contexts of the issue and the statements of Senators Akaka and Webb (Ds and military vets) on the Senate VA committee, so far I've found nothing at all disturbing in Simpson's remarks.

True, I'm a "Vietnam era vet" (better: "Vietnam vet," for the issue concerns the effects especially of exposure to dioxin compounds in the defoliant "Agent Orange" during the war in Vietnam--though it seems to have been used elsewhere, but somewhat sparingly--in any case, only the Vietnam claims are relevant to this issue). Though I received the forms and encouragement to make a claim for health damage related to my exposure to AO, I forewent that offer. I also forewent a claim on the nerve damage to my left arm for decades--a rough calculation of the savings to the government in direct compensation yields a figure of c. $120,000, let alone the cost of free priority VA health services during those years. But over the last few years I've been plagued more with the effects of this injury, so on individual case-by-case basis exams by orthopaedists and neurologists, I was awarded a small monthly amount last year in addition to priority VA care. There was no doubt on the part of the examining specialists that the injury was service-related.

Since Simpson's remarks concerned the policy of blanket "presumptive cause" (not established by an Institute of Medicine review) costs not judged on a case-by-case basis for certain diseases such as diabetes (currently the most frequently compensated ailment by the VA), you see that his remarks have no relevance whatever to my own case and, contra te, your claim that Simpson has suggested that the services I receive should be foregone is fallacious.

I'm somewhat sceptical of some blanket "presumptive cause" disease awards for AO exposure, but I think independent medical advice to be most weighty in the issue.

And yes, I support extending the Bush tax cuts to individuals AND businesses (as small businesspeople often file as individuals) above the $250/K a year level.

stu said...

JADL,

I found your reply interesting at a number of levels. I'm delighted that it raises issues that I wasn't aware of, and which require a thoughtful response.

I'd like to begin by remembering Yossarian's premise, "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on, and that includes Colonel Cathcart. And don't you forget that, because the longer you remember it, the longer you might live."

You've framed the context here very rationally in terms of the debate over VA benefits for veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange, a defoliant that has proven to be correlated with a variety of long-term medical conditions, ranging from various leukemias to diabetes. At one end of the spectrum, we have conditions like Hodgkin's disease which are relatively rare in general population, but occur much more frequently among people with exposure to Agent Orange. Exposure dominates other risk factors within the exposed population. At the other end of the spectrum, we have relatively common conditions like diabetes, where Agent Orange exposure increases risk, but not so much as to make exposure an especially significant risk factor within this population.

The rational question amounts to where and how you draw the line. One place where the line might be drawn is based on a provable connection between a given injury/physical state and service/exposure. The line used to be drawn at wounds which left visible injuries. You literally had to spill blood for your country to be eligible for veteran's care. This line ruled out traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, as well as cancers. These days, we're willing to consider epidemiological proofs of injury, i.e., on statistical analyses of populations rather than arguments based on direct physical causality in individual cases. The problem with this, as exemplified by diseases like Hodgkin's disease, is that it is not possible to distinguish cases that were caused by exposure from cases that were not. Therefore, any policy is going to involve tradeoffs between erroneous coverage and erroneous denial -- the fundamental choices are not black and white, and the issue of what do we do with the grays should be where we divide, with the traditional liberal view (i.e., that collectively we should view false denials as more problematic than false coverage) vs the traditional conservative view (where false coverage is viewed as more problematic). This is one case where the traditional liberal stance is more "vet friendly" than the traditional conservative stance.

But what concerns me about Simpson's remarks is that they lack this rational framing. The issue for him isn't whether or not the injuries and/or diseases are a consequence of military service, it is whether or not we as a nation can afford them (given the imperative of tax relief for the wealthy). He does not fault vets for claiming benefits that they haven't earned, he faults them for claiming them at all. Your position that the benefits you receive have the imprimatur of the Institute of Medicine is relevant to a rational discussion about where to draw the line, but is irrelevant to the argument Simpson is making, which judges you adversely as someone who is "not helping us save the country in this fiscal mess." Simpson is Cathcart. He may be on your side, but make no mistake about it, he will get you killed.

J A DeLater said...

stu, your response to my scepticism about "presumptive cause" in the VA compensation issue hit the mark by identifying "statistical analyses of populations rather than arguments based on direct physical causality in individual cases" as the means to justify adding a number of diseases, now various cancers, now diabetes, now heart disease, etc. to the ever-growing list of VA compensatory awards. And incidentally, you tied your closing remark very nicely to your earlier quotation from Heller.

However, there are a number of problems with the use of "risk assessment" and "presumptive cause" in replacing individual medical aetiology for assigning blanket diagnoses to exposure to a substance like Agent Orange, aside from a most dubious one like that of assuming everyone who served in Vietnam while AO was used anywhere was equally at risk. I read an interesting article by Dr Michael Gough, a biologist who has worked at The National Institutes of Health and the congressional Office of Technology Assessment--where he directed the Biological and Behavioral Sciences Program--entitled "The Political Science of Agent Orange and Dioxin" (http://veteransinfo.tripod.com/aodioxin.pdf) that describes how weak evidence combined with "enormous political pressure" can trump sound methodical science in assigning presumptive cause to Agent Orange. Gough is also quite sceptical in general about health risk assessment, which he calls

"a straw house erected on a sand foundation. Estimated health risks are (almost always, or, perhaps, always) too small to be detected (let alone measured), even if the risks are realized. Perversely, the impossibility of measurement is taken as sufficient reason to invoke the precautionary principle and to regulate, restrict, label, or boycott. Risk assessment is science turned on its head. The essence of science is measurement; the essence of risk assessment is estimation and policybased assumption." (qtd from his Wikipedia profile) His article (one of many on toxicology) is worth reading also for a history of the whole AO debate linked to the studies that purported to confirm the present VA list of compensated illnesses. Articles by the science journalist (and ex-Army paratrooper) Michael Fumento (such as "Ending the Agent Orange Myth") offer much shorter-form assessments and link the AO movement to politically-motivated environmentalists, anti-war activists, and veterans victim groups. Suffice it to say that there is informed dissent about the current VA policy.

(part one)

J A DeLater said...

stu, let me make a few additional observations on your interesting and generally insightful posting on the VA compensation issue and on former senator Alan Simpson's remarks.

It should be noted that what you call "false coverage" does not simply award money and services equally to the deserving and undeserving, it also diverts scarce resources and medical services away from those veterans who deserve compensation and treatment and thus deprives them of both. Senator Akaka echoed Simpson's concern about limited resources when he said that while acknowledging our responsibility to afflicted veterans, that responsibility "also requires us to make sure limited resources are available for those who truly need and are entitled to them."

Note too that the offices performed by Akaka and Simpson differ. The former sits on the Senate VA committee, the latter on the President's deficit committee, and this may influence their assessments pertinent to their respective responsibilities.

Further, the AP story strongly suggests Simpson's remarks pertain to "[t]he system that automatically awards disability benefits to some veterans because of concerns about Agent Orange," and "that diabetes has become the most frequently compensated ailment among Vietnam veterans, even though decades of research has failed to find more than a possible link between the defoliant Agent Orange and diabetes." This casts doubt on your claim that "[h]e does not fault vets for claiming benefits that they haven't earned, he faults them for claiming them at all." On the contrary, when first reading the story, I thought the AP article's first two sentence-paragraphs the "rational framing" for the Simpson quotation immediately following, so I can't agree that he is including my own case (as described above) in what you call his adverse judgement.

And while I praised your ending reference to your earlier Heller quotation, the claim that Simpson is an enemy who'd have got me killed is, well, preposterous. Much more likely that'd happened if we hadn't used defoliants in Vietnam to deprive the real enemy of cover and food. (part 2)

stu said...

JADL,

you tied your closing remark very nicely to your earlier quotation from Heller

I'm glad you liked it. I thought you would.

However, there are a number of problems with the use of "risk assessment" and "presumptive cause" in replacing individual medical aetiology for assigning blanket diagnoses to exposure to a substance like Agent Orange, aside from a most dubious one like that of assuming everyone who served in Vietnam while AO was used anywhere was equally at risk.

I've taught risk assessment and epidemiology in the context of a mathematical sciences course for undergraduates from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Epidemiological analyses are all around us. To cite a well known example, the relationship between smoking and lung cancer was first established epidemiologically. The claim (which you quoted) that statistical analyses of populations are not measurements is simply incorrect. It certainly does not reflect contemporary science.

That said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made here, and I'd like to draw it out and elaborate on it. But let me emphasize again that the existence of a reasonable argument is very distinct from the particular argument that Simpson made, which is deeply anti-veteran, and you're still in denial. Which will get you killed.

The reasonable argument is that veterans benefits should be evidence-based. I think it is unreasonable to rule out statistical evidence, but I also think it is very reasonable to rule out political pressure to override evidence-based policies. That said, the political pressure in this case came from the Agent Orange Act of 1991. To quote GWHB's signing statement: "I am pleased today to sign into law H.R. 556, the 'Agent Orange Act of 1991.' This legislation relies on science to settle the troubling questions concerning the effect on veterans of exposure to herbicides -- such as Agent Orange -- used during the Vietnam era." This act passed the House 412-0, and the Senate 99-0. Alan Simpson was a member of that Senate. This was bipartisan and unanimous political pressure, directed precisely down the axis of basing benefits on science. So what is your argument again?

But one place where I believe this could be improved is in revisiting the notion that benefit eligibility is inevitably a binary decision. E.g., let's say for the sake of argument (I don't know the actual statistics, and would appreciate real numbers with a real source), let's say that Agent Orange exposure constitutes 70% of the risk for Hodgkin's disease, and 10% of the risk for diabetes for Vietnam vets. Why not provide 70% and 10% coverage respectively? This is essentially optimal if you weigh positive and negative errors equally. You, better than me, can assess whether such a "graded benefit" approach is compatible with VA practice and culture.

As for the assumption that everyone who served in Vietnam was equally at risk, this is one of those places where the cost of a more complete analysis is likely to exceed the benefit. A coarse adjustment was made in 2002, basically eliminating automatic qualification for vets who didn't serve in Vietnam proper. I'm doubtful that the records of Agent Orange use and veteran's locations are complete enough to build good exposure/risk models, or even to position a particular veteran along the exposure axis of such a curve. There's a lot to be said in favor of simplicity and predictability.

J A DeLater said...

stu, I think you've arbitrarly discounted not only one specific expert view in the Gough article, but some others analysed and discussed there relevant to the Agent Orange Act of 1991. Likewise the political pressure to pass the act. In the article Gough testifies that as a result of that passage,

"decisions about Agent Orange exist
as if the CDC and Air Force studies had never been done. In late 2001, the VA was compensating 9,000 Vietnam veterans for some
ten “Agent Orange–related diseases”——the number of veterans
receiving compensation and the number of compensable diseases
will surely increase——and it is compensating veterans’ children
born with a serious birth defect.
The politicians who welcome support of their preconceived opinions that Agent Orange has been a scourge among veterans,
as well as citizens who receive compensation or otherwise benefit
from those results, and the far larger number of citizens who see
the compensation decisions as the “right thing” to do, laud the
IOM committee for its “good science.” In their eyes, it has extracted truth from the morass of bad experiments, bad observations,
bad studies, and bad interpretations that do not support the politicians’ conclusions, veterans’ claims, and citizens’ desires. In reality, the process has substituted an officially sanctioned, politically
constrained objectivity for science at the NAS." (pp 199-200) I invite you to consult the full article rather than merely to react to the Wiki statement I quoted. However, in supplying the unanimous congressional votes on the act, you have also incidentally supplied at least one significant exception to your own claim about the "traditional conservative view" relative to vets' compensatory claims.

You also reiterated your claim that Simpson's statement meant to fault all vets for making any compensatory claims whatever as though the AP story provided no context for his remark. That seems a much better example of denial than you claim I'm indulging myself in.

I'm not aware of a specifically "graded benefit" approach generally operable in VA judgements on compensation. An interesting idea worth perhaps considering, but in any case it would seem in most cases to reduce the weight of "risk assessment" and "presumptive cause" evidence that Gough and Fumento impugn, especially for Vietnam vets (most it seems) whose exposure rate to dioxin was no higher than levels found in general populations.

There are several other points I intended to take up relative to our exchange, one being your claim that visible wounds were necessary to prove compensation claims, though various military service-related illnesses have been compensated in the US for at least since the Civil War. Perhaps there'll be time later for these.

J.Abdelghani said...

Don't mislead Islam with tradition.
The problem with none Muslim is always misleading what people acts and whai Islam is.If you study Islam carefuly and study what people do in any Muslim country you'll find a broad differencess, because Muslims do not realy apply ,shraria, Islamic law as it is instead they apply Tradition law and norms witch normally differ with Islamic law

 
Site Meter