So here we go: lots of articles and stuff which I felt like sharing with you guys, plus some basic news 'n' notes.
News: we got the Boren! Thanks to all of y'all's help. Most of you received the e-mail of appreciation, but if you didn't, well, now you know.
Cae is almost, but not quite, back on his schedule now that we're back from CA. Still not sleeping much, which means Mommy's not sleeping much, and so neither of those two is feeling too chipper.
Tennis went well today, as I displayed uncommon (for a Slade) mental fortitude in retaining victory within the jaws of certain victory despite the Slade Killer Instinct (TM) that ordinarily results in a massive, and pathetic, collapse. And I gave myself a nice thumb blister in the process.
Okay, on to the links:
"The Fat Bush Theory," by Gail Collins -- a wonderful visual illustration of something that lots of politicians do that I find terribly galling. Reducing the rate at which something is growing is NOT the same as reducing the size of a problem. It's just SLOWING down the pace at which the problem grows. There's a BIG difference.
* * * * * *
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
From "Dumb as We Wanna Be," by Thomas Friedman.
* * * * * *
Some years ago when a high ranking official of the Nation of Islam was being interviewed on TV, he was challenged to denounce another prominent member of the Nation who had called Jews “bagel-eating vermin who had escaped from the caves of Europe to pollute the world.” He replied, “I’m not in the denouncing business.” He did not elaborate further, but I understood him to be saying, It is not my job either to defend or repudiate every statement made by someone I know. Neither my integrity nor my life’s work depends on my clearing myself of suspicions provoked by the words of others.
At least I hope that’s what he was saying, because it is definitely what I want to say.
From Stanley Fish's NYT blog post entitled "Denouncing and Renouncing." Thrown up here as background context for a post he subsequently put up, from which the following is excerpted:
But the literature the Clinton campaign is passing around about Obama and Ayers cannot be explained away or rationalized. It features bold headlines proclaiming that Ayers doesn’t regret his Weathermen activities (what does that have to do with Obama? Are we required to repudiate things acquaintances of our have not said?), that Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s senatorial campaign (do you take money only from people of whose every action you approve?), that Obama admired Ayers’s 1997 book on the juvenile justice system, that Ayers and Obama participated on a panel examining the role of intellectuals in public life. That subversive event was sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals, an organization that also sponsored an evening conversation (moderated by me) between those notorious radicals Richard Rorty and Judge Richard Posner (also a neighbor of Ayers’s; maybe the Federalist Society should expel him).
I don’t see any crimes or even misdemeanors in any of this. I do see civic activism and a concern for the welfare of children. The suggestion that something sinister was transpiring on those occasions is backed up by nothing except the four-alarm-bell typography that accompanies this list of entirely innocent, and even praiseworthy, actions.
From "Much Ado," by Stanley Fish.
The above, along with the following, sums up much of my sentiment regarding the whole Rev. Wright "scandal."
Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.
That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”
. . .
A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.
Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.
From "The All-White Elephant in the Room," by Frank Rich.
I'd LOVE to hear Rush and/or Ann Coulter respond to the above...if, that is, I could stand to listen to anything either of them say in the first place. Still, how do you reconcile these differences?
* * * * * *
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
From "Who Will Tell the People?" by Thomas Friedman.
* * * * * *
And, finally:
First, most of the inmates were probably innocent all along, but Pakistanis or Afghans turned them over to America in exchange for large cash rewards. The moment we offered $25,000 rewards for Al Qaeda supporters, any Arab in the region risked being kidnapped and turned over as a terrorism suspect.
Second, torture was routine, especially early on. That’s why more than 100 prisoners have died in American custody in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo.
. . .
Granted, it can be hard to figure out what version to believe. When I started writing about Guantánamo several years ago, I thought the inmates might be lying and the Pentagon telling the truth. No doubt some inmates lie, and some surely are terrorists. But over time — and it’s painful to write this — I’ve found the inmates to be more credible than American officials.
Both Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates have pushed to shut down Guantánamo because it undermines America’s standing and influence. They have been overruled by Dick Cheney and other hard-liners. In reality, it would take an exceptional enemy to damage America’s image and interests as much as President Bush and Mr. Cheney already have with Guantánamo.
From "A Prison of Shame, and It's Ours," by Nicholas Kristoff.
AMEN!! That's all I've got to say.
* * * * * *
Anyway, when I'm feeling more chipper and stuff, I'll be back with some other links (less political, generally) and other chattiness. Nighty-night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
TREASON, AN ODE TO AMERICAN-STYLE COMMUNISM: http://hdeanberry.com/music.html
I haven't read any of your articles yet (and I will), but I had a thought.
In fourth grade, a new library book came out that both I and a friend wanted to read. This was back in the day when you checked out books by writing your name on the card inside the book, and then turning the card in to the librarian. So I wrote my name on the first available line, right? My friend took the card, erased the name on the line above mine, and wrote his name there. Long story short, the librarian gave the book to him because his name was above mine and she had to go by what the card said.
So that put me in a tough spot. I was playing by the rules we were all supposed to follow. He wasn't. Because of that, he got the book and I didn't. The only thing I could have done to change the situation, really, was to erase the name above his and put my name there, because you can't beat a rule-breaker unless you break the rules too. Except then you become a rule-breaker yourself. So what are you supposed to do?
That's where I think America is now. We're fighting people who don't play by our (or any civilized society's) rules, and the prize this time, rather than being a new library book, is the American way of life. To defend it, we're going to have to break our own rules. The question is, what do we become when we do that? How long can you break the rules before they cease to exist? And what does that make you?
And, of course, the other question: If you stay within the rules, are you OK with the fact that you'll probably lose the game?
My two troubled cents.
--Ryan
See, I disagree with something you said there at the end regarding the different stakes. You said "The prize this time, rather than being a new library book, is the American way of life. To defend it, we're going to have to break our own rules."
I don't think that's accurate, because no terrorist group ever has proven to represent a credible threat to a society as a whole or a way of life. The United States' way of life, whether you describe it in terms of multiculturalism, freedom of speech and religion, pursuit of individual happiness, etc. is not fundamentally threatened in any way by Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
NOBODY is seriously looking at what they're doing and saying, "Oh, riiight! That's SO much more appealing than what the Americans are doing! The Americans have it wrong--let's get on AQ's side!"
Our famed tolerance--the root of our multiculturalism--is under fire from within, because we as Americans have allowed ourselves to indulge a gut-level reaction to blame all Muslims or Arabs (which are NOT the same, but how many Americans actually know or understand that?).
Our freedom of speech and religion has come under fire from politicians playing the fearmongering card and violating our civil liberties--see USA vs. Al-Arian for a great example of THAT--NOT from anything the terrorists have done.
I don't want to be dismissive of your sentiments, Ry, because I recognize that it's only too easy to say "Well, what's really at risk here is *just* people's lives," rather than our "American way of life," especially since I'm living in Raleigh, and you're in Michigan, and neither of those is likely to be high on the list of any terrorist group's ideal targets.
My point, rather, is that we are reacting the wrong way in the face of all this stuff. I know Rev. Wright is not a very popular person right now, but just because he spouted some absolute lunacy (the gov't created AIDS to oppress the black man? really?!), doesn't mean he didn't say some things that have at least a grain of truth to them: namely, that the attacks of 9/11 were in some sense a response to American foreign policy.
I hate to break it to those folks who are drinking Bush's Kool-Aid, but people around the world don't get uppity and violent and hateful "because they hate our freedoms." That's pure and simple B.S., and I can't fathom that anyone who has engaged in even an ounce of critical thinking actually believes that. Resentment, hatred, and the like are bred by perceptions of relative deprivation, humiliation at the hands of culturally-insensitive oppressors, and hypocrisy on the part of the wealthy vis-à-vis the poor they claim to be helping. Oh, yeah, and those are all hallmarks of the way we as a nation have behaved in the last 30-50 years.
We don't need to "break our own rules" to fight back, since the terrorists actually have very little public support around the world...except when we do things like run Guantánamo, hold indefinitely people like Dr. Al-Arian, etc.
WE are the terrorists' best recruiters.
Are there simple responses to this situation? No, of course not. And selling our souls to the god of expediency is certainly NOT a way to get around making tough decisions about the nature of our involvement with the world, the way we practice foreign aid, the way we lead the global community, etc.
OK, "American way of life" wasn't the phrase I wanted. That said, I'm not quite sure how you can say that no terrorist group represents a threat to our society as a whole. I don't think they represent a threat to the ideology of our society; though there have been fringe groups that have indeed defected to the Al-Qaeda ranks, Americans as a whole are not enamored by the way of life Al-Qaeda espouses. So far, so good. But terrorist attacks in America and around the world are a real and present threat.
You make good points, Tim, but I'm wondering how best to handle people who respond to their (sometimes legitimate) disgust with American foreign policy by ramming planes into civilian buildings and blowing themselves up on the streets. I think public perception is skewed as well by the fact that nothing major is happening over here since then. I submit that the relative peace 'n' quiet we've enjoyed Stateside is a function of our government's efforts to maintain the peace, not a bonus in spite of them. To use psych terms, the reinforcement isn't positive but negative.
I don't agree that we're the terrorists' best recruiters; I think terrorists, inciting a picture of the Great American Satan, are the terrorists' best recruiters. All that notwithstanding, however, the choice of whether to hijack the plane, whether or not to strap on the C4 and dedicate yourself to Allah, isn't made by a committee in Washington; it's made by the person who's getting ready to give up the ghost. That's a personal choice that I repudiate our alleged responsibility for. I'm no fan of the Michigan DEQ, but were I stupid enough to try to run my car into their headquarters, I wouldn't expect them to wring their hands over their responsibility for the disaster.
And anyway, isn't "perceptions of relative deprivation" an academic way of saying "hatred of what we have"?
All that on the table... certainly we are not blameless. Americans have gotten imperialistic over the last few decades, and we have some work to do on our place in the world community before this situation will truly be over. But given the choice, I'd rather err on the side of caution than conciliation (if that's a word). The line when Bush got re-elected was that Republicans were just looking for a strong daddy figure to keep them safe at night. As Kathleen Parker so eloquently responded, "Damned tootin'."
--Ryan
P.S. What do you think of Slate's facetious but thought-provoking suggestion?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx
--Ryan
P.P.S. All right, Blogger, I have to go through the HTML to make the flipping link? Fine...
Drop Out, Obama
Ahhh, see, I KNEW you were gonna make me drag out that citation. Curses. Gimme a bit, and I'll find it.
When I say that no terrorist group represents a threat to our society as a whole, I mean that no terrorist group has ever managed to overthrow any society, or even come close. Terrorist groups that don't ultimately morph into political groups (such as the IRA in Ireland, ETA in the Basque countries, Hamas in Palestine, etc.) generally either fade away or wind up becoming an ongoing nuisance that nevertheless ceases to grow in power. As you acknowledge, AQ does not represent a credible alternative to our ideology as Americans.
The "fringe groups" you refer to, though, aren't American groups. The groups that HAVE made a genuine alliance with AQ, such as Islamic Jihad, were already anti-American. They haven't changed their minds, they've just found people with whom they share a mindset and decided to join forces. More groups are like AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, formerly known as the GSPC -- Salafist group for Preaching and Combat), which merely CLAIM an affiliation with AQ for the sake of the media attention and the recruiting bonus it offers, but actually have no contact with AQ Central and operate totally independently on their own set of goals.
My argument w/r/t people who express their disgust with our foreign policy by ramming planes into our buildings is to turn to prevention. Prevention not ONLY in terms of increased security in our airports, at our borders, etc. but pre-emptive security in terms of addressing some of the fundamental, legitimate beefs these people have. Believe it or not, it has yet to be proven that the initial response to an injustice by our Middle Eastern counterparts is to blame the great Satan and seek to blow us up. It takes a LOT of frustration to turn to terrorism, and it is often--though admittedly not always--a tactic of last resort.
That said, "prevention" in terms of mounting pre-emptive wars against totally unrelated targets can clearly be seen to have backfired. As one of our politicians (I forget which) pointed out, there WAS no Al Qaeda in Iraq (not AQI, not AQ central, no AQ agents) until we went in there. So...when your preemptive "protective" measures actually exacerbate the situation, I suggest it's time to re-evaluate your approach.
I agree that to some degree preventive measures have worked; as you say, nothing major has happened over here since then. On the other hand, at what cost? Even as a Republican, and one who was loyally supported many of the initiatives that the administration has undertaken, I find it hard to believe that you would argue that Guantánamo has helped our global credibility/moral authority, that suspending habeas corpus was a good thing, etc. I am fairly certain--although admittedly without any hard evidence to back me up--that most, if not all, of the terrorist plots that have been foiled could have been stopped without so thoroughly undermining the Constitutional values on which our nation was built.
You might be surprised to hear this, but public opinion polls worldwide have shown that Americans as individuals are incredibly popular, even throughout the Middle East. It is only the U.S. as a political entity that is disliked. Further, there are numerous academic articles out there that have documented the fact that those oh-so-telegenic "Death to AMERICA!!!" rallies are staged for the cameras, and in fact have to be incited by local hosts. They don't generally happen spontaneously.
I take exception with your example of driving your car into the Michigan DEQ (who are they, btw? And why don't you like them?), because it's not really analogous. We (the U.S. as a whole, and also Americans as individuals) are not the terrorists' best recruiters as we go about our days, meet with our friends, pray in churches, etc. We (the U.S. as a whole, and Americans as individuals) are the terrorists' best recruiting tools when we detain innocent civilians for no reason and then release them 7 years later--after having tortured them--when we feel like we can admit that there was no basis for the detention and *hopefully* the media has stopped paying attention. We are the best recruiting tools when we do stuff like we did at Abu Ghraib.
When the Michigan DEQ has done that kind of stuff to you, THEN they have a responsibility to wring their hands after the fact and bemoan their role in your choice. And, had they done those things to you, they WOULD have had a role in your choice.
We don't have personal responsibility for one person's choice to become a suicide bomber, no. You're absolutely right. But the moral thing to do, rather than just say "Well, they're not playing by the rules...screw the rulebook!" and resorting to torture, is to say "Alright, how can we get to that person and divert them from this path before they GET to that point?" We don't have personal responsibility for THEIR choice, but we DO have personal responsibility for our REACTION to their choice--and the best reaction would be prevention.
And no, "perceptions of relative deprivation" is not just an academic way of saying "hatred of what we have." Relative deprivation theory has to do with the difference between expectations and lived reality. So, when someone's expectation of their future quality of life based on new incoming economic policies, the knowledge that their country is about to receive billions of dollars in aid, etc. is not met, that creates resentment. When they see that the people in the upper echelons of their own society are getting wealthier on the back of their own people--be it through embezzlement of funds, preferential top-down lending practices by foreign donors, tied aid that only benefits the owners of capital, etc.--that frustration boils over into rage.
Is it misdirected when it's pointed at us? Yes, largely. That said, it's common knowledge in the Dip corps that our choices to uphold dictators and despots out of convenience and expediency (read "Dirty Diplomacy" for an idea of how this played out in Uzbekistan at the beginning of the WoT) basically gives the tyrants a free "out." When they pretend to enact democratic reforms, but don't actually, they don't fool anyone--but the fact that the U.S. praises them for so clearly trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace just pisses off the people who are already being screwed, and that's that. They turn on us. If we make better choices regarding which regimes we support, and ACTUALLY require our nominal allies to enact TRUE democratic reforms (LIBERAL democracy rather than mere ELECTORAL democracy), then the people can see clearly that we, the Great Satan, are actually standing up for them, the people, by holding their leaders accountable.
By screwing around and being hypocritical, we are only hurting ourselves.
I understand your desire to err on the side of caution rather than conciliation, certainly. But I think conciliation is the wrong term here, because that's what was being urged by Chamberlain vis-à-vis Hitler. The choice isn't between getting killed and being complicit in genocide: the choice is between developing a *false* sense of security/invulnerability at the expense of our moral standing, and between enacting substantive changes in our foreign policy (that we should really make anyway) while maintaining our moral standing and PROVING the superiority of our way of life.
The idea that we need to stoop to their level or lose is a false dichotomy.
Actually, I'd read that article before...and, surprisingly, found myself agreeing with it a little bit. :-)
P.S. 'Cause, honestly, I don't think McCain would be a terrible president. Don't know if that's a 'shifting baseline' deal because of Bush's STELLAR track record, or what. I think he'd actually be alright...I just think Obama and/or Clinton would be better.
AND I'm bugged by his recanting on his "agents of intolerance" comment. I liked McCain SO much better before he began cozying up to the wingnuts.
Now you'll notice I didn't mention Gitmo in my last post. I was kind of hoping you wouldn't call me on it, actually. But... for the record, officially... I am morally opposed to torture and the system that creates it. That's awfully hard for me to say, because I have trouble believing torture hasn't gotten us information that's saved civilian lives on our side of the sea. But McCain's right that we need to find another way to get information. His remark about espousing methods that we arrested P.O.W.s for hit home.
I don't think we need to stoop to their level or lose, Tim. I really don't. But I also don't think we need to be as concerned with the fate of convicted terrorists as we are with the fate of American civilians... or, for that matter, with the fate of Iraqi or Afghani civilians. Nixing waterboarding and similar methods would bring a resounding hooray from me. But when we as a nation have our undies in a twist because we didn't treat a prisoner's Koran with proper respect, I have to wonder if our hypercorrection against one kind of misdeed isn't leading to another. Against ourselves.
Nice point, though, about how we've fomented hatred by upholding clearly autocratic dictators when they make superficial and calculated reforms. Remember the Dave Barry column about the Department of Two Guys Named Victor? That's how I feel about the whole situation. Why we stick to the particular ruleset about killing enemy soldiers (and civilians) but not their rulers is beyond me.
And one more snarky English-major point: Don't dangle your introductory clauses! Do you know how excited I got when I read, "Even as a Republican, [...] I find it hard to believe...." Yes, Tim! That's right! Come to the light!! ;)
--Ryan
P.S. Reading the above, I realize I should clarify the first part of the second paragraph to read, "We should be more concerned about the fate of American, Afghani or Iraqi civilians than that of convicted* terrorists." Geez. And here I am sniping at your English...
*Convicted on the strength of evidence, since I know you'll make that point.
Well, glad to hear it, even if it IS a tough admission to make. I don't have a whole lot of trouble making the statement that I believe it's wrong, period, because I really believe all those "ticking time bomb scenarios" are so much crap drummed up by politicians looking for votes and/or justifications for their policies. I might feel differently when Caedmon's of age to serve, but I doubt it. I guess I've got a little bit of the pessimist/defeatist in me, and I'm willing to grant that eggs WILL be broken...so we may as well maintain our standards while we do our damnedest to minimize the carnage.
The way I see it, if we're going to claim that what makes America truly great (or _one_ of the things, rather) is the way we treat our citizens, then I feel like we need to extend those same rights to everyone. After all, "All men are created equal," right? I mean, I know we modified that from meaning "white, land-owning males" to mean "all PEOPLE" when we belatedly got around to giving women and minorities the right to vote, but I don't think we ought to read into it "all NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZENS are created equal." If people are equal, and we nominally base our legal system and Constitution on some concept of Natural Law, then people all deserve equal protection, whether they're EVIILLLLL terrorist combatants or innocent American civilians. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for committing such horrendous crimes--not at all--just that we need to actually make sure these people DID commit those crimes before we start punishing 'em.
I mean, c'mon. How fair would it be for me to hold you accountable for McVeigh's bombing of the OK City Federal building just because you happen to be Caucasian, or happen to have thought he had a legitimate beef with the Feds? Our system for rounding up suspected criminals need to be seriously overhauled.
In principle, I agree with you regarding over-correcting...except that I don't really see how NOT taking a leak on someone's Qur'an or NOT flushing it in a filthy toilet, you know, commits some kind of crime against us.
Also, it's important to remember that our culture has its own important symbols, and just because we don't happen to value their Qur'an as much as they do--and therefore think they oughta just CHILL--doesn't mean we'd react with any less rage if one of our Southern brethren were captured and had to watch a terrorist wiping himself on a Confederate flag. Or something like that. Terrible example, but you know what I mean? We can exert a level of cultural sensitivity that won't cost us anything and will avoid creating more enemies...so why shouldn't we?
I'm actually not familiar with that Dave Barry column, but if you send it my way I'll gladly read it.
I humbly acknowledge my egregious grammatical error...you know, I just get so FIRED UP!!!! when we start typing about politics, I do all kinds of dumb sh%% I'd normally catch...
"I mean, c'mon. How fair would it be for me to hold you accountable for McVeigh's bombing of the OK City Federal building just because you happen to be Caucasian, or happen to have thought he had a legitimate beef with the Feds? Our system for rounding up suspected criminals need to be seriously overhauled."
I agree, that would suck. On the other hand, our preventative security forces have to do something, so what are they supposed to do? There is a group of people that have been statistically more likely to commit terrorist crimes than other groups of people. If the guards at the airport want to search me because I espouse Timothy McVeigh's ideals (which I don't, but for the sake of argument), I will be greatly inconvenienced and annoyed, but at some level I'll be glad that people who appear to be connected with a convicted murderer are being given extra scrutiny. The trick, as I'm SURE you're dying to point out to me, is how to walk the line between using statistics to direct your effort for maximum return vs. to justify unreasonable programs based on racist motives. And it's a razor-thin line, to be sure.
Good call on not urinating on the Koran. I don't think we need to be willfully engaging in any disrespect. On the other hand, the fact that the Koran was urinated on, while unfortunate, doesn't seem like an earth-shattering call for reform to me. But then again, while I would be shocked and offended if someone urinated on my Bible, I wouldn't consider it a life-shattering offense. It means a lot to me, but in the end it's not the book that matters, it's the words in it.
--Ryan
P.S. The Victor reference has cropped up in several Dave Barry works, but I'm going to direct you to an appearance of the Dept. of Victor in an interview about Dave's libertarian leanings, because I wanted to get your take on it anyway. That's some temerity for someone who hasn't yet read any of the articles you've posted, eh? Just call it the Audacity of Hope!
I agree with the whole razor-thin line between statistics and going overboard into racial profiling, but that's not really my problem. I think racial profiling is galling, and a pain in the @$$ for those who have to deal with it, but ultimately harmless...IF the rule of law is followed with respect to their civil liberties.
My major problem is the abuse of civil liberties under the flimsy excuse that they are "enemy combatants," or, worse, that they MIGHT be "enemy combatants," and while we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that, we just CAN'T afford to leave them on the loose while we try to dig some up...and then we can't find any, rather than admit our error, we just hold 'em longer and longer until we can cook some up.
THAT's the problem. Yeah, being stopped in the airport's annoying, but it's not really infringing on anyone's civil liberties. Suspending habeas corpus? Refusing to provide a lawyer or allow access to one? Refusing to conduct fair and impartial jury trials in a timely manner? THOSE are what bug me.
Also, the fact that you can even say that it's the words inside the Bible that matter, and not the Bible itself, is just one example of a cultural disconnect. You know, for a religion that forbids the depiction in art of anything living (created by Allah) for fear of that leading to idol worship, Muslims have a pretty intense relationship with their holy book and their prophet...and it's not really one that an outsider can easily get his head around. It's certainly nothing like the way most Protestants, even the Fundies, see the Bible.
The other part of the problem is the role that humiliation plays in many cultures (not just Middle Eastern ones). You've heard of the Southeast Asian emphasis on 'saving face,' right? Well, it's like that, to the Nth degree. Hence honor killings and the like (which I totally do not condone at all, of course). The point is, we don't really have an analogue in U.S.-American culture for the role that honor and humiliation play in the Arab and Muslim cultures...so, again, while we needn't be walking on eggshells, it seems like it'd be common sense to make sure that any folks we have interacting with prisoners, negotiators, etc. be well-versed and skilled in the nuances of that culture. Just another case of our not inadvertently undermining our own efforts, as far as I'm concerned.
And as for the audacity of your hope, well...now that I'm out of school, I've got very little to do but be a father and walk my dog. So I can read it, no prob.
AMEN on the abuse of civil liberties. I am not OK with the suspension of habeas corpus. Maybe I should be; these are people who are suspected of attacking our country, after all. Yet I just can't bring myself there.
Actually, we had a really good Bible study several months ago about different world religions, and one of the points that came out was that the Koran is supposed to be the inspired Word of God as transcribed verbatim by Mohammed (which you knew, but it was news to me). So I can see how desecration of a Bible vs. a Koran would be two different cases. But Tim, I gotta have my Rush/Ann moment here... I will be happy to observe the nuances of others' cultures when I get the sense that they are interested in observing the nuances of mine.
Hey, read my LJ today if you get the chance. (See, there again I'm asking you to do reading when I haven't done any of yours. Well, that's not entirely true. I did read the Thomas Friedman column in the paper yesterday, and I agreed with a surprising amount of it - though not the implication that Obama's shooting straight in the debates.) I posted some more Slate articles I think you'll enjoy.
Onward and upward!
--Ryan
P.S. I like how all you have to do is be a father. Because that's not at all time-consuming, I'm sure. ;)
Post a Comment