Acknowledging Muslim Intolerance

Cathy Young, cogent and reasonable yet again. This time on the subject of  islamic intolerance.

While the attempted murder of an American Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, has prompted an outpouring of grief and soul-searching, the fatal shooting of a prominent elected official in another country around the same time has provoked a very different reaction. After Salman Taseer, governor of the Pakistani province of Punjab, was murdered by his own bodyguard, there was a wave of support for the murderer -- from religious figures and ordinary citizens, from several political parties, and even from a group of lawyers. The reason? Taseer had spoken out against Pakistan's blasphemy laws and in support of Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Such harrowing stories cannot be ignored in the discussion of Islam and religious tolerance. Last year, the controversy over Cordoba House, the planned Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero, turned into a debate about Islam and "Islamophobia." There is no question that some of the rhetoric in that debate crossed the line into anti-Muslim bigotry -- the portrayal of all or most Muslims as "the enemy" -- and that the self-proclaimed "anti-jihadists" who spearheaded anti-mosque campaign, such as bloggers Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, routinely traffic in gross caricatures of Islam as inherently and uniquely evil, oppressive, and violent. But all too many in the pro-mosque camp argued as if violent extremism in Islam today was as much of a fringe phenomenon as in Christianity or Judaism. This month's events in Pakistan remind us that is simply not the case.

There is not a single majority Christian nation today that executes or imprisons people for blasphemy or apostasy. Several leading majority-Muslim countries punish these offenses with death, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. The Aasia Bibi case is a frightening example of the precarious position of religious minorities under these laws. Bibi, a rural laborer, was asked to bring water to a group of other women with whom she was working in the fields. Some of the women refused to drink the water after it had been touched by an "unclean" Christian. Bibi got into an argument with them and defended her faith -- and was reported for blaspheming against Mohammed. The mother of five was sentenced to death after a trial during which she apparently had no access to a lawyer. Leading Pakistani clerics have urged President Zardari to reject her clemency petition.

Don't neglect to  read the whole thing. Only by reading it all do you get to her final takeaway, which is that opposing bigotry against muslims here will be a fruitless task until Islam faces its own intolerance.

Who Is the Correct Not Obama?

As the 2012 field of GOP prez nominees begins emerging, there is still plenty of reason to think that  any such nominee stands a great chance of winning simply by virtue of being the Not Obama. But obviously, that could change with a better economy and 2 years worth of Obama playing the pragmatist against cranky ideologues.

 The greater the number of potential nominees at the Iowa starting gate, the more it makes sense to consider the "game theory" dimensions of the primary process as it intersects with media coverage and financing. Unless any given candidate can develop truly long-term staying power (translation: a giant pile of dough or a steadily flowing money hose), that candidate is at the mercy of appearing viable as one of the top 3 within the first, what, 5 or 6 primaries.That can be sensitively dependent upon the number of other candidates who hold similar positions.

For example, if socons split between 2 or 3 socon darlings, then someone else from a different GOP faction with less internal competition can emerge. In 2008,  McCain, seemed to emerge because his support was broader than anyone else even though it wasn't especially broad.  Just as a big a problem was that it lacked any real depth of passion.

Ultimately, whoever becomes the nominee really stands a great chance of winning by being the Not Obama. But being the Not Obama means different things for socons and for independents. And being the Socon Not Obama means risking alienation of independents. Is that risk bigger than the risk that the Independent Not Obama alienates socons? I would guess yes, but then I'm an independent. Who really knows?

One thing to look out for is candidates who will try to thread the needle by using different customized speeches for different audiences. Though many politicians seem to persist in this approach, the advent of various social media suggests it's problematic. In 2012, can a reasonable-appearing candidate successfully obscure substantial socially conservative views simply by endlessly chanting "jobs, jobs, jobs?" Sooner or later, you're expected to speak at Bob Jones U. They want their pound of red meat, everyone's watching.

Healthcare Reform: The Beta

I visited an old publishing buddy the other day, and he related a story about how a boss had said "You DO NOT want to miss the dates on this project. We can find places to hide low quality." I immediately remarked that publishing seemed to be getting further down the road towards the software industry production model. You rush a buggy product to market to be first to meet a need, and you let customers find and maybe even fix the bugs. You can release patches or a beta version later. Customers? They're used to it, especially if they are early adopters.

When it comes to healthcare reform, I think the software production model is a useful analogue. A buggy product was rushed to market within a short time frame. Perhaps for defensible reasons and perhaps not. Doesn't matter.

What we now have is something that meets some needs, solves some problems. Like access. And does nothing about others. Especially cost. Because our politics is characterized by the bipolarism of the Democrats and Republicans, the debate is being framed in terms of whether or not to reject it as is.

I don't ultimately care which we do, only that we find ways to manage access and cost. In other words, as long as the next result is better for regular folks. But we all know that any "from scratch" effort

• Will face all the same problems the last one did, and 

• can't begin in earnest until the current reform is repealed, which cannot happen until 2013 at the earliest

So, if congress really wants to work now on making our healthcare system better, what they should really do is work on an Obamacare Beta that finds patches to the bugs found by customers and accountants and so on. If Republicans were willing to fake this tack, they should ask in return that Democrats concede that existing law does nothing substantive to control costs.

Krugman: Long Live the Fray

Paul Krugman thinks there's the way one side sees it, and the way the other side sees it. And that's it:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

There’s no middle ground between these views.

Paul Krugman, polarizer in chief. Is it really that hard to find a middle ground between "the poor deserve the rich's money" and "taxation is theft?" No, it's not. The more this goes on, the greater the chances that 2012 finds voters looking long and hard for opportunities to reject BOTH parties. Even if it means voting for ex-party-members who are just as likely to be opportunists as committed independents. Give me a candidate I can vote for to represent "neither," and I'll vote for him. Time to send the message both parties need to hear.

In Case You Were Warming to 1st Amendment Exceptions

First the santized huckleberry. Now this. Does the world feel better. safer, and more tolerant yet?

Well there goes another new year's resolution. I had pledged to go a whole year without making fun of Canadian "rock." But now that it's official that no good canadian would have the balls to sing this:

That little faggot with the earring and the make-up? Yeah buddy, that's his own hair. That little faggot's got his own jet air plane. That little faggot is a millionaire.

Dire Straits, a band banned:

The Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" was ruled by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to be "extremely offensive" and thus inappropriate for airing on radio or television because it uses an anti-gay slur.

The decision against St. John's radio station CHOZ-FM in Newfoundland was released Wednesday. In it, the panel ruled that the word "faggot" "contravened the Human Rights Clauses" and its ethics code and is "no longer" permitted "even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days."

Ron Cohen, the CBSC's national chairman, told The Washington Times on Thursday that the decision effectively sets a "nationwide" precedent binding on all private license holders for TV, cable-TV and radio broadcasting. It does not cover the state-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp. or "community and university" stations.

People get paid money to do this stuff. To protect the rest of the people. But can they protect us from Rush? Or Bryan Adams? Or April Wine? Oh, no.

The worst part of all is that no weight was given to the iussue of banning possibly the best riff ever. Thus destining Canadians to remain forever locked in their status as "rock-challenged." They've been overtaken by Eastern Europeans who dress like pansies, emulate Poison,  and play flying V's. Seriously. Flying V's.

Althouse's Gratuitous Turdism

In the wake of the Arizona shootings, the First Lady tossed off some bland pieties about nice things we should teach our children. No biggie, right? First ladies and bland pieties go together like cookies and milk, which is itself a good subject for first ladies. Here's a taste of her sweet and very first-ladyish homily:

We can teach our children that here in America, we embrace each other, and support each other, in times of crisis.  And we can help them do that in their own small way – whether it’s by sending a letter, or saying a prayer, or just keeping the victims and their families in their thoughts.

We can teach them the value of tolerance – the practice of assuming the best, rather than the worst, about those around us.  We can teach them to give others the benefit of the doubt, particularly those with whom they disagree.

We can also teach our children about the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women who serve our country and by their families.  We can explain to them that although we might not always agree with those who represent us, anyone who enters public life does so because they love their country and want to serve it. 

Nothing to see, right? Bland homilies. Pretty common Christian values about love and idealism. Blah, blah, blah. Next!  Right? Nope. If you're Ann Althouse, it's grist for the mill. It's an opportunity to take a nit-picking mean-spirited swipe, so that your idolators in the comments can use the word libtard. What fun:

... some of the individuals among us are, in fact, mentally sick and need something other than tolerance and wishful thinking about how good they might be? So why is the First Lady telling us to teach kids the opposite?...Some people seek power for the wrong reasons or go astray after they've reached power....It would make more sense to teach creationism instead of evolution than to teach these wishful lies about government... .

Silly me, for thinking that"wishful lies" by another name might be "simplifications for young children's minds." Teach the ideals first, in a way that makes sense. Exceptions can come later.

Here's the thing: I'm the first to agree that we need to analytical and critical, and perceptive, as Althouse asks. But any developmental psychologist can tell you that the capacity for such analytical thinking is quite limited in kids. Is Althouse really such a imperceptive and gratuitious turd in the punchbowl as to think we shouldn't ever raise our children with a little bit of hopeful idealism? Won't they have the rest of their lives to learn about the exceptions? Do we really want 8 year old kids in grocery stores asking "Mommy, is that man buying probiotic yogurt a libtard?

Chomsky Throws Postmodernists Under the Bus

Hat tip to Marginal Revolution for unearthing this fascinating bit where Noam Chomsky utterly eviscerates postmodernists while sounding like a nice guy. A  taste:

It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years, when similar charges have been made -- but without any answer to my questions. Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these things, but apparently little else).

Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

Again, I've lived for 50 years in these worlds, have done a fair amount of work of my own in fields called "philosophy" and "science," as well as intellectual history, and have a fair amount of personal acquaintance with the intellectual culture in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and the arts. That has left me with my own conclusions about intellectual life, which I won't spell out. But for others, I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of "theory" and "philosophy" to justify their claims --- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.

In the latter stages of my college education, a strong internal voice began to shout that the inscrutability of these brands of thought was due to just these things that Chomsky derides. But to hear one of the godfathers say it? It's like finding out that Keith Richards only listens to classical now.