I haven’t decided yet what the long-term policy is going to be, but I probably won’t keep comments off forever for everything, but for now I’ll hold an open thread. Say whatever you like. We’ll probably have a weekend music thread again too.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 96 comments }
What a relief. No more schizophrenic extreme right vs. left battles. Enough. One main voice, and discussion only when needed.
I’ll miss Aziz, Celia, Eric, and Ron, but it’s still better this way.
It got a little heated, but let’s chill out, sleep on it for a few days/weeks, and then reassses.
I’m reading a book about the history of the Magazine, “Commentary.” They fought each other, they fought others, they zig-zagged from FDR civil right supporters to reluctant Neo-Con Vietnam supporters, back to Jimmy Carter with his naive hopes of internationalism, back to Ronald Reagan.
That’s normal. These important, classically liberal issues are important to hash out and, the process can be quite disquieting.
Hope you have a good reprieve, Dean
–HB
p.s. In the meantime, Does anyone want to debate AIDS denialism? (heh — just joking:)
Eh, the commentary here had a way of getting out of control, but that’s true of any site that touches controversy and allows comments. There were posters here I never bothered to read because after a while I pretty much knew what they were going to say. Instead I made sure to read the ones that surprised me from time to time.
In the end it’s Dean’s blog and Dean’s rules- blogs are cheap to start so anyone who feels they’ve been robbed of a voice can just get one of their own.
My inflated 72.3 cents, anyhow.
I’m a looong time reader and I do mean long time. And I hope you meant it when you said say what you want.
I’ve been reading since Dean was the sole voice of his world. I remember when Rosemary wrote her first blog post. I remember how hard she made me laugh and I watched her grow into an incredible writer. I remember Steven Malcolm Anderson publicly adoring her as his Queen and wishing upon stars that he could be Dean. :-) How sad he would be to know what has happened since his passing.
Those were the glory days of this blog. When the comment section was filled with battling voices and nobody really got offended at the “F” bombs dropping. Everyone had fun. I miss those days. I know that rules had to come down to keep the trolls out but eventually even longtime beloved commenters became trolls as the skin started thinning. No offense intended, I’m only saying what is obvious. The longer you blog, the longer you put up with criticism, the harder it gets to take.
If Dean is happy to go back to the way he started than that is great, I only wish he had a DH for his blog like in baseball. He can’t take the verbal hits anymore but someone like the Queen can. Obviously not her but I’m just saying that someone like her could be the mix it up person. Otherwise, I’m afraid like the Drive-In…this blog will eventually fade to black. And that will make many of us sad.
Humans are not rational creatures with emotions.
Humans are emotional creatures whom perform enough rationalization to accomplish survival.
Religion and politics can be very emotional
Those of us who fail to acknowledge when our emotions are speaking with a louder voice than justified should be aware of them own shortcoming, myself included. This comment is not directed at Dean.
I find logical atheists to be whom I respect the most, in general, because religion sickens me. However, I acknowledge the wisdom of being a realist, so I quote Ben Franklin “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?”
In my opinion, Islam as it exists today is a negative force in the world, and we would be best without it. The historian and realist within me leads me to prefer we begin WW3 while we have a tactical advantage, if necessary, as we make an example out of countries such as Iran whom break their treaties. Treaties exist to ensure peace, so responding to their breakage with war is logically justified.
If Iran wants nuclear weapons and wishes to support terrorism while breaking UN Security Council resolutions, I have no problem with the complete destruction of Iran via nuclear weapons. I believe Syria should then be instructed to surrender, and if they do not they should also be eliminated. Then the northernmost portion of South Korea should be evacuated, and North Korea destroyed to the best of our ability. I also support the destruction of wahabi Islam and all of those who support it.
From peace comes strength. From actions and inactions comes reputation. I prefer a reputation of strength which may project fear into the minds of our current and future enemies.
I support the US being the party to begin WW3. In the past, when I have become convinced a fight is inevitable I have been the one to throw the first punch. Once I felt guilt, so I reminded myself that evolution had chosen me victorious, and ultimately that is my #1 goal.
Death is a part of life.
The Allies should have begun WW2 on their terms.
I support the past use of nuclear weapons against Japan.
I believe the fermi paradox is partly answered by the theory that it is the nature of intelligent life to self destruct, and that’s ok, I’d rather go big for a short period than exist forever as a cockroach or shark.
Separately, I consider people like Aziz to be dangerous, and in many ways more so than an average jihadi living in a cave in Afghanistan. Aziz, you and your prophets behavior disgusts me, however I acknowledge you probably are a cool guy to hang out with and would make for a decent friend.
Finally, I declare God is speaking thru me. For I am a prophet. All other prophets before me are false, I am the one and only voice of God. If you do not believe this, then I declare you to be against God and deserving of punishment. Follow my commands, all of you, because I say so, however ignore my own behavior for it is God’s will. Oh yeah, “send me your money.”
thank you, Thom!
It is a relief to me too to have an OT here. I miss this place. I don’t miss the schizophrenia but I do think that we have a community, and so the occassional OT helps keep us together.
Dean – you can even make teh OT posts “sticky” so they stay at the top of the page even when you post new ones.
Aziz,
Why can’t I comment on Talk Islam ?
How?
I miss the schizophrenia. I’m one of the main people responsible for it, so that should not surprise.
Yours,
Wince
Thank you, Thom!
On our good days, this was a fantastic community, both of writers and of commenters. Whatever happens, I am grateful to Dean for building it and for letting me be part of it. I’ll miss being a part of it as a front-page contributor. I haven’t decided yet whether to start my own blog, or to try to join or organize a new community blog, or to concentrate my writing energies into getting down to business on my book.
Huh. For some reason a bunch of comments got held in moderation. Not sure why. Just found ‘em now.
All are released except one. (You know who you are, and so do I, even through anonymizer. Please go away.)
This blog needs to evolve. I can’t see it ever going dark until I do. But we’re starting over. Almost from scratch.
edit the post from dashboard, there’s a “sticky” option on the right somewhere
are you being prevented from doing so?
awesome, I am cool but dangerous. It’s like I’m James Bond! you wanna hang with me, but fear me. woot!
Eric, if I get a vote, i vote for blog. And book. trying to start a new community is a lot of tedious and unrewarding work – unless you are going to aim for a specific niche (though a collection of blog economists, across the spectrum, might be a truly interesting project. If you can get libs as well as cons involved you would have a fascinating group discussion).
heck if you decide you want to go that route, i can even help you out. Email me…
I can truly say I’ve been part of the “good old days” of Dean’s World since some time in autumn 2002, which is going on eight years. I’ve seen a lot of front-page contributors and commenters come and go. I’ve contribted more than my share of the F-words which now seem to be part of the common day to day conversational repertoire of the average American. (And because Stefi can translate from a number of other languages, I conclude the rest of the world is way ahead of us on that score.)
Religion? Politics? By now, I think you all know where I stand (or sit, squat or just roll around) on both. I haven’t been very kind to Islam. But as an Apatheist, I don’t generally boost one religion over another. Also, I can sit down and enjoy lunch with Aziz Poonawalla (after Ramadan) without snarling in his face over his religion. I can do the same with my roman catholic, jewish, protestant, and moslem relatives. (Yes, indeed. I had some moslem relatives. Through one of Stefi’s late aunts on her father’s side, who married a Moslem from Croatia’s neighboring country of Bosnia, after they both came to this country from former Jugoslavia back in the 1950s.) Mainly, I view the phenomenon of religion as culturally derived belief sets. That phenomenon wouldn’t explain the conversion to Islam of Willow Wilson; but there are numerous shadings and exceptions to the way culture acts upon religion or other outcomes of belief.
Politics? I want Obama dumped ASAP. And much of the democrat US Congress along with him. But I’m supporting US Senator Russ Feingold in his re-election campaign against businessman Ron Johnson here in Wisconsin. Normally, I would support the conservative. But Johnson is an exponent of NAFTA and GATT, which, in my judgement, have all but gutted the US economy and which especially have turned this whole part of the USA into a big extension of the rust belt. Johnson wants free trade with China. I do not. And Feingold voted against both NAFTA and GATT.
Foreign policy? I’m a Zionist through and through. I want Israel expanded into Greater Israel, with the Arabs expelled. I want Israel to have a huge and deliverable nuclear and thermonuclear arsenal, and I want Iran’s nuclear capabilities flattened and turned into rubble. I want greater international cooperation between the USA and Russia, which means us minding our own business and staying out of their backyard fights with the Chechens, Georgians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians. Our turf is ours; theirs is theirs.
Around here I want all the illegal aliens in this country rounded up and deported. And I don’t give a damn how many millions of them now infest this country. Each of them has committed a felony just by being in this country without a valid authorization issued by a US consulate in their home country.
———
There’s a lot more I’d like to do on Dean’s World. Movie reviews. Discussions about urban and regional planning. The joys of organizing and participating in submachine gun action matches over many years. My daughter’s big wedding in southeastern Wisconsin. My super bright son hopefully headed for medical school, and his super bright wife headed for a PhD in one of the medically-related biosciences. My other two guys, both of whom are trained animation artists. Stefi’s gardening. Restoration of Consider H Willet Co golden beryl maple furniture from the 1940s and early 1950s. My little business in the world of direct mail. Analyses of who won what and how they did it in the global war of my childhood years. And above all, an opportunity to tell my life story with some sort of online diary, as Dean suggested a couple of months ago.
But, this truly is Dean’s World. He’s the man who brought this all to life. And he’s the only man who has the right either to continue it, change it, or kill it altogether.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Aziz, yes, apparently, frontpagers have veto power.
ConservativeScientist sez:
“Separately, I consider people like Aziz to be dangerous, and in many ways more so than an average jihadi living in a cave in Afghanistan. ”
This is silly. You’ve imbibed too much Nietzche. I disagree with Aziz often — but he is absolutely not dangerous, rather he is one of the good guys.
We need his insights into Islam, if we’re ever gonna fully integrate peaceful Muslims into the American dream.
–HB
Eric: I think a group blog of economics students/economists with a variety of viewpoints would be a fabulous project, and I would be happy to help you do it and promote it.
” This is silly. You’ve imbibed too much Nietzche. I disagree with Aziz often — but he is absolutely not dangerous, rather he is one of the good guys. We need his insights into Islam, if we’re ever gonna fully integrate peaceful Muslims into the American dream. ”
I agree about the need to understand Aziz’ viewpoint for the goal of integration, because I believe the best Muslim is the one who essentially ignores much of what the Koran tells him to do, by manipulative-ly finding ways to justify the horror of what is spelled out in plain sight (same with the old testament, etc).
His danger comes in the ability to get others to buy into his view, which involves a lot of idealism and selective vision and memory. It’s so simple and appealing, and dangerous.
Think of how Europe has lived well for generations, and can not understand what America knows which is that a strong military deterrent is what helped their socialist paradise flourish. So the younger generations forget the lessons learned (from WW2 for example).
In that way, Aziz is dangerous. The jihadi on the other hand can be taken out for cheap, as an investment not expense, which will serve good dividends when the less barbaric neighbors find pieces of his rotting corpse spread out and brilliantly ponder thoughts of “The Americans killed him for a total continuous renewable cost of $14.38, and they have a large population with a high per capita income.”
ConservativeScientist: One of the reasons some discussions get tiresome and pointless is they go round and round in circles, and nobody seems to be learning anything. My view that Islamophobia is very real and quite poisonous has not changed in, what, five years now? As I recently said to someone on Facebook, who was, from the left, trying to praise me for my views having “evolved” or “grown” because I’ve been writing about the importance of religious tolerance and how unhappy I am with the Park51 protestors lately:
—
Iraq was a just and noble war; we were not lied to, there was no basis for impeachment. Abu Ghraib, which paled by comparison to things that were routine under Saddam Hussein (and are still routine in most of the Arab world), and ultimately Abu Ghraib was proof positive of America’s fundamental GOODNESS. It was the U.S. military ITSELF which came forward with the story of those abuses, SHOWED them to the world, and PUNISHED those guilty. It is anti-American bigotry in much of “therestoftheworld” to fail to note these things.
I’m tired of being stuck between left and right, between binary choices in a world that compasses a multitude of points of view. I have never, ever changed my views that Islamophobia is fundamentally evil and corrosive and, for Americans, borderline (at least) treasonous given how hard our troops are working alongside Muslim allies everywhere. America isn’t the bad guys….–or rather, it appears that no matter WHAT we do, we are always painted as the bad guys. I am tired of this too, it IS bigotry and I DON’T appreciate it.
My views on all these things hasn’t changed fundamentally in the last 8 years. Like everybody, my views do evolve over time, but on this? Very little change at all. I took the same exact stance as President Bush–who I am PROUD to say I not only voted for twice, but I actively CAMPAIGNED FOR. He said, repeatedly, we weren’t at war with Islam. Because we aren’t, and those on America’s own shores who are trying to turn it into one make me ashamed and angry. But I am NOT ashamed of America–we are a potent force for good in the world, one of the best the world has ever seen, and I won’t stop saying that EITHER.
There is no fundamental conflict between any of the things I have said here. None. Anti-Americanism is as poisonous as Islamophobia in my view, sorry.
—-
As for the rest: Your views on religion are interesting, but they tell me nothing except that you’ve got your own issues with the religious. As I have never tired of pointing out, even when I was an atheist, the biggest mass-murdering and oppressive philosophical system the world has ever known, communism, was explicitly atheist.
The notion that a member of any religion is “manipulative-ly finding ways to justify the horror of what is spelled out in plain sight” bespeaks an ignorance of Christian, Jewish, AND Muslim thinking. It’s like grabbing a U.S. Constitution, pointing out the parts which accept slavery, and throwing that in an Americans’ face as proof of something insidious about our system of government.
All you have to do is ask actual practitioners of these religions what those things mean TO THEM, for that is what matters, not what YOU think is their “plain meaning.”
This is very much like someone looking at a quote like “science does not have a moral dimension” (Werner Von Braun said that) and asserting that the “plain meaning” of that is that scientists are fundamentally amoral people. Or someone pointing out the horrors done in the name of science by various people, and using THAT to “prove” that science is fundamentally evil. (Which, I’m sure you are aware, some have.)
Nor is it fair to go to a random member of any religion and ask them to answer for these questions, which they may not ever have even heard and not be familiar with, and may give you an incoherent or stupid off-the-cuff answer; better to go to their leaders and scholars, people who are studied, and can ANSWER you. The Jews, for example, have one way of viewing the Old Testament parts that justify violence and oppression, and they can generally give you detailed answers as to how those things should be, and should not be, interpreted in a modern context. Christians, looking at the same exact text, will give you sometimes similar, sometimes very different answers (most of the time), but they usually come to the same conclusions: these things aren’t supposed to be done anymore.
What’s incumbent upon you, if you want real answers, rather than to simply ASSUME that you already know the truth, is to simply ASK THEM, “well the Koran says this, what do you say about that?” and then, respectfully, LISTEN to their answers rather than pretend you can read their minds and divine their motives based on your own preconceptions.
What’s going on with Islam is big and complex because it’s a big and complex religion, encompassing a billion people spread out over a hundred nations and a multitude of languages and cultures. You can’t expect anyone to give you one answer for all those people, but you can respect the ones who say, “No, listen, this isn’t how we read what you’re asking about, THIS is how we read it.” And try to respect that rather than pretending you know their true secret hidden motives or whatever it is you think–it’s about dialog, not “debate.”
The history of humanity includes a very long history of people committing atrocities; the 20th century, the most “scientific” century in history, happened to also be the bloodiest and most horrific in human history. Shall we blame “science” for that and retreat into some ridiculous luddite vision, like the worst of the “environmentalists” do? Or like these jokers (who probably aren’t joking)?
Religion is something that the overwhelming majority of human beings DO. From a purely Darwinist perspective, it appears that we have an evolved need for it, and in any case once it’s there you can’t purge it. Better to deal with it. Violently? I’d rather not. Avoiding it violently means talking to them; as the Pope said (haha, how ironic I’d quote him to you), such dialog isn’t about coming to agreement on theological matters, it’s about figuring out how to share the world while bumping elbows with each other, not killing each other even when we disagree with each other. Assuming sinister motives on the part of others doesn’t help to that end.
All of this seems obvious to me. My frustration in repeating myself is nothing new either; I wonder why I’m bothering again. Except to note that I find it enormously unlikely that America’s ever going to embark on these campaigns of mass extermination you seem to think we should; indeed, your vision of what we “should” do matches what the most paranoid of the Muslims occasionally quoted over at Talk Islam THINK is what most Americans actually want. I find that ironic all by itself.
Aziz: I still can’t figure out how to make a post “sticky.” Any chance you could send my poor addled brain a screen shot or something? I’m just not FINDING it.
(Yes, I have been using computers for over 30 years and I still run into things like this. Maddening.)
HB,
History has shown that Moslems become less likely to integrate peacefully into various western societies as their numbers expand rapidly. Then it becomes a case of the guest of the house becoming its master. All this may be regrettable, but many observers fear it to be true. Hence the response you get from us, regarding major efforts to outlaw shari’a in from having equal footing with laws of the mostly christian West. In the end, free people not only fight for the liberties of their forefathers, but in addition, the methods of protecting those liberties can and will get downright forceful.
Like it or not, American society is embroiled in a kulturkampf that will not easily end.
At least that’s the way I see it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Dean, I respect what you said, it’s quite solid. Perhaps a new and updated religion is needed, which omits much of the horror. I will not accept the old testament as a source of morality to be taught to our children, because there are such better choices to teach the same lessons. So I will not speak to the men you refer me to, even though they are probably doing a positive service to the world, I distrust them. You are asking me to ride a mule because that’s what my ancestors did, when I prefer to take a helicopter from one side of the grand canyon to the other. The gas powered trail bike may be an updated modern interpretation of the mule, but it’s still inferior. I wish to review and understand the mule, even ride it a little, but ultimately it’s an ancient and outdated approach whose services can be rendered via a superior method.
In regards to your statement about religion being provided by evolution, I agree. So are many other urges. I question the larger issue of providing what a part of our mind craves. Just because we crave religion does not mean that providing it is a good thing. There are other urges we all have which we are trained to refrain. To use an extreme summary, just because I feel the earth is flat does not mean people should tolerate those that teach as such. Logic, reason, psychology, history, and other answers should fulfill much of what religion provides. World history can fill in the gaps.
Here’s my idealistic statement: Just as Islam spread thru much of the world by force is how an army of reason should spread thru most of the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia should be conquered and converted by the sword. I wish to live out my jihad in command of a robotic army. All Saudis will report to reeducation camps, most copies of the Koran will be burned, Islams religious symbols destroyed, etc. And then on thru most of the Islamic world (Iran and Syria next, Turkey mostly get’s a pass, Indonesia is last, etc). Karma is a bitch.
I believe seeking balance and evenness is not automatically a good thing, thus being tolerant of religion and asking for proper interpretation might sound good, but that interpretation is built on a foundation that I do not trust. In short, if God told me to kill my son I’d tell him to go to hell. Being tolerant might be politically correct, but when it comes to national security political correctness can kiss my ass.
Would you be tolerant of someone whom claimed the lives of Jesus and Mohammad were quite similar? Or would you immediately and automatically distrust them as being uninformed, idealistic, young, stupid, plus dangerous because others may subscribe to their BS? In that way, I distrust your position somewhat, even though your a cool and mostly rational guy. I also distrust Aziz quite a bit, but yeah, i respect him for stepping up to the plate. Maybe this place is better with him, since we can publicly de-construct and disprove his positions.
I believe only a modern interpretation of Islam from a western democratic personal freedom etc point of view is the only form remotely tolerable. One which omits large sections of the Koran.
All other forms which publicly state they want us destroyed should be prepared to be a target. I’m not saying attack them immediately though. But in the case of Iran and Syria, I stand by what I said. If it takes mass extermination in order to remind the world that such Hitler-like folks won’t be tolerated, so be it. Germany should have been (threatened to become) the victim of mass extermination for breaking the treaty of Versailles (and then exterminated if really necessary).
Iran and Syria are doing this simply because they feel they can get away with it, in short because we’re now pussies. I say we kick their asses so hard that we earn another 50 years of peace from it.
“I find it enormously unlikely that America’s ever going to embark on these campaigns of mass extermination you seem to think we should; indeed, your vision of what we “should” do matches what the most paranoid of the Muslims occasionally quoted over at Talk Islam THINK is what most Americans actually want. I find that ironic all by itself.”
I find it somewhat likely that we will embark upon them if the world is allowed to tilt towards the next eventual world war. But this time, there’s lots of nukes. So I guess WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones. The situation has changed, modern interpretations of the issue must evolve as well else humanity could go downhill. Humans are not evolved to be compatible with WMD’s, but I say better them than me.
The 20th century had boatloads of mass-murderers who claimed the mantle of modern enlightened scientific thinking to justify incredible atrocities. I don’t even have to point to the obvious ones; just look at Pol Pot as a starting point.
No thanks.
Your plans for Saudi Arabia mostly look tongue-in-cheek to me, so I can’t take them seriously, but I’m sure others do. The irony again being, it’s both the fringe left and fringe right who talk this way about America. Weird.
Anyway I reject your vision. Sorry man. You seem like maybe you’re a good guy, even if you are talking just exactly like so many of the 20th century’s worst mass-murderers and oppressors. Mayhap I should look to you as an example of why we all should run away from “science” and “reason?” Nah, no thanks to that either. ;-)
Dean,
You know me by now well enough to understand that I truly do not give a damn about atrocities big or little, including escapades such as Abu Ghraib, or nasty prison camps such as the one at Guantanomo Bay.
But that is not the reason I thought the Iraq was was a waste of American assets and lives. I do not think islamic societies can be reformed to western democratic standards in the same pattern as our tremendous victories in Europe and over Japan enabled us to take over Germany and Japan and spoon-feed them western social and political systems and practices. Germany, even in its nightmare days of National Socialism had long been a western society, and even Japan under its hardboiled militarist leadership, their code of Bushido and their emperor worship, was an oriental version of the United States and the United Kingdom. Which was why our wars against them were strictly military-industrial.
When our occupation troops pulled out of Germany and Japan, we left behind societies largely modeled on the social democracies of Europe and with the go-getter economies that characterized the age of Dwight Eisenhower.
But when our occupation troops, or whatever we should choose to tag them, pull out of Iraq, you ought not to be surprised to see Kurdistan break off de jure as well as de facto from Baghdad. A united country Iraq can never be. The Kurds do not even speak their language and do not tolerate Arabs living in their presence in large numbers. What will be left are two totally hostile Arab groups, the increasingly embittered sun’a moslem minority that that controlled the country for centuries, and an increasingly powerful shi’a moslem majority that has no problems whatsoever in shucking off the shi’a Kurds.
Iraq had a truly unified country under Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party. Of course Saddam ruled the place with a steel fist, but who in the West truly gave a damn about that? Reagan’s policy had been to side with Saddam against the ayatollist Iranians, and that policy made very good sense. It was only when foolish one-term George H W Bush inherited Reagan’s White House that he and James Baker began picking fights with Saddam over who would control the oil supply of the Persian Gulf.
If I am right about all this, then everything we did in Iraq since early 1989 has turned to ashes in our national mouth.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Just because Pol Pot claimed to be a man of reason does not mean he was.
Just because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, does not mean he was.
If being a mass-murderer is how to win a fight, and how to keep the peace, then so be it. The whole purpose for treaties is to keep the peace, Iran has broken the treaties, I say they aren’t entitled to the peace and need motivation to change their attitude.
As for Saudi Arabia, well, it’s actually ironic how their people are the problem but the government our friend (relatively). With Iran the government is the problem and some of the people our friends. That’s the irony I find in this. As for the war, death, destruction, well… I guess my response to you on that note is “welcome to humanity, we are violent bastards aren’t we? Don’t blame me, blame God.”
Arnold – When our occupation troops pulled out of Germany and Japan, we left behind societies largely modeled on the social democracies of Europe and with the go-getter economies that characterized the age of Dwight Eisenhower.
The Marshall plan was successful in Germany and Japan because we had disempowered or eliminated the fascist and authoritarian infrastructure. In Iraq, we managed to take Saddam out of power, but the Sunnis (who were allied with Saudi/al Qaeda) and the Shi’ites, (who were ‘protected’ by Mookie Al Sadr) still had weapons, militias and the will to use them against the government and the people. Trying to impose a democracy in a place that’s still ruled by totalitarian wannabes, mobsters and theofascists is an exercise that’s bound to fail.
If we’d taken out the Iranian, Saudi, Syrian and Yemeni leadership out at the same time we invaded Iraq, democracy might have stood a chance, but we wouldn’t do that because we have no intention of destroying the terrorist infrastructure. We ally with some but not all terrorists, and we manage them, but we manage them very poorly. If we had responded to 9/11 by bringing the thousands of Saudis who were involved to trial, and if we’d imposed the death penalty on the lot of them and let their heads rot on pikes, we would be speaking the language they understand. We would be managing our terrorist allies well. But we didn’t, and we still don’t.
This is why any attempt at overthrowing the leadership in Iran will fail. We won’t be able to manage our sunni terror leaders, they’ll send in the ‘insurgents’ and the whole thing will be more of a mess than Iraq was. Fuel prices will go up, our economy will be lodged deeper into the toilet and the Saudis will be richer than ever. If we’re going to be this incompetent, we find another way of fighting our wars.
It seems to me that there is a serious problem with the House of Saud having a large amount of money at its disposal, without particularly having developed the culture required to earn it.
By dumb luck, they happened to be in the right place.
I believe that I’m going to have to address that, much to my annoyance.
Mary,
I ag ree with what you have written here. I think I have agreed with most of your comments over the years, because of their astuteness relative to the given situation.
But as you have written here, we did none of what was needed, other than to apply the usual american national band-aid over the situation so as not to lose face, then start walking away proclaiming our “victory”.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold, I believe the answer to your position is to allow Iraq to democratically decide if it wishes to stay joined together, perhaps the issue is that westerners drew lines on the map and that became Iraq. They are an artificial nation. I assume they would be stronger together than apart, perhaps they need a picture of a snake cut into three in order to get it?
I don’t care about what anyone else here says about Islam being compatible with (classical) liberal democracy because there still exists one fundamental and inescapable truth:
Mass Effect is the modern Star Wars.
Eat it.
Can anyone recommend a good speech to text application ?
yes, actually – the absolute best is Dragon Naturally Speaking, I’ve used it a few times and it’s almost magical.
this probably clears it up: http://talkislam.info/2010/08/28/ground-rules-at-talk-islam/#more-16022
unlike here, anyone can comment at TI without registering, so theres a need for more formal rules.
Okay, Aziz. You directed this comment about TalkIslam to McK’s attention. But it caught my eye this early Sunday morning, and I clicked on the link. The slogan there is “the Crescent waxing eloquent”. But to my jacksonian, zionist, mustard-on-hot-dogs- but-ketchup-on-hamburgers, rooseveltian (Theodore) and apatheist eye, it sounds more like the “the Crescent waxing arrogant”.
In fairness to TI, anybody who can screw up the energy needed to start a blogsite and actually keep it running over many, many years is entitled to dictatorial powers over what gets written on thta blogsite. That’s exactly what Dean proclaims as his right, even though his collection of frontpagers and commenters have hijacked DW over the years.
But these days, it seems to be getting harder to have any dialogue between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harb. Maybe from time to time you folks get introspective enough to ask why this is so.
—-
I understand that Ramadan is a daily exercize in starvation that thankfully ends at sundown, for about 30 days or so (?). What do you folks eat each day upon nightfall? Anything in particular, with koranic backing, or whatever you can scratch up from Woodman’s and/or Texas Tubbs? (This is intended to satisfy my curiosity, not start an argument.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Actually, Hitler publicly professed to be a Christian, but privately he considered it a perversion of the Jews and a sick, warped religion. That’s quite well-documented in a book called Hitler’s Table Talk, I suggest reading it if you don’t believe it.
Otherwise, just because Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao and a ton of others considered themselves men of reason doesn’t mean they were; you are correct. It doesn’t mean you are either; it is strong empirical evidence that we cannot rely on people who claim the mantle of enlightened, modern, scientific thinking and reason to lead us to a better world. We’ll have to muddle through the way we always have instead.
Anyway, you’re actually talking about purges of exactly the sort they engaged in, which is why, ironically, I would have to say that I have the same view of you that you do of Aziz: a very deeply dangerous person, well-meaning but very dangerous indeed if you had your way.
Anyway, mostly I agree with you that a strong response toward Iran’s ruling Mullahs is a good idea, but no one’s got the stomach for it I fear.
Arnold: As I’ve said many times, I believe Iraq’s problems stem more from basic tribal conflicts than anything else. The notion that they are an “artificial” nation doesn’t mean much since it’s hard to find any nation anywhere in Europe or Asia that hasn’t had its borders artificially altered by an outside power somewhere or other, and there are numerous examples of successful countries with multiple languages, ethnicities and cultures. India’s the biggest, Switzerland’s one of the smaller ones, but in the final analysis these can and do exist.
Surveys of Iraqis show that the overwhelming majority of them support a united Iraq, not a divided one.
So internally they’ll have to deal with their tribal conflicts mostly on their own. The elected government will continue (and has actually proved remarkably stable, so far). It will probably take 20 or 30 years for the country to fully stabilize, and it might break up as you suggest, and it might not. In any case, it’ll take time.
I’m actually with you on one of those things Mary: after we were done with taking out Saddam, we should have turned on Syria and Iran very aggressively. Saudi Arabia I always favored a different tactic with, just because they hold Mecca, but I would have squeezed them a lot harder than we did.
We are talking about a generational struggle here. This conflict is going to continue for decades. I’m ready for it, myself.
Thank you for helping me find that option. ;-)
Arnold, since among the front page contributors at Talk Islam we have Jews, atheists, Catholics, and Protestants, I am really at a loss as to how to respond to the assertion that we make it difficult to engage in dialouge between Dar al Harb (whatever that is) and Dar ul Islam (ditto)
i will say that the proliferation of Islamic terminology into modern political debate is borderline hilarious. Its like Japanese folk wearing t-shirts in “Engrish”
at any rate, anyone is welcome to comment at Talk Islam, without requiring registration. So its far easier to dialouge there than it is here at DW! But a few ground rules, whihch basically ask people to be nice, are an impediment to dialouge? I think you’re being a tad unfair here.
at any rate – i am looking forward to eating with you. DO you think Stefi will okay a big burger at culver’s, milk shake, and cheese curds? how about a hot dog on the Terrace? I aim to get you to misbehave a little :)
oh, to answer your question,
we typically break fast immediately after the sunset prayer, but there arent any specific foods we must eat to do so. it really varies from ethnic group to ethnic group, though universally most muslims do consume dates (its a tradition, but not a requirement). After breaking fast we return to prayer and then after done with those prayers, we eat a proper meal, which can be pretty much anything.
Ive broken my fast with cheese curds, samosas, Starbucks frappacinos, deep dish pizza, biryani, tacos, spaghetti, you name it. pretty much whatever I had lying around at teh moment :) When I attend services at my local masjid (mosque), they serve us dates and sweetened, flavored milk, along with some manner of biscuits and tea. Then after we pray some more, we go downstairs and eat a major Indian feast.
there are years where Ive actually gained weight in Ramadan!
The folks at at Talk Islam have always featured a variety of perspectives, including perspectives of atheists, Christians, and Jews. A number of them do tend to run fairly far to the left of the political perspective; I believe most of them see me as extremely right-wing, for example.
What I continue to believe is that the only way to make constructive progress is to try to see the argument from the other fellow’s perspective–which I’m not always very good at and sometimes, in losing my patience, lose all ability to do. But I find it worth doing. But the most important part is to see other people first and foremost as people, and that requires effort. Aziz had a great quote about that, but I’m too lazy to go find it again at the moment.
Islamophobiaphobia.
I’m tired of the anti-anti-Islam backlash, too. Consider Rauf, the Founder of the Future Mosque With So Many Meanings. He seems like a good diplomat to me. But not at all moderate. Good diplomats are like that. They can say radical things with nice language in a quiet moderate tone and people think they are moderate. No, but they do have excellent interpersonal skills. He has advanced the Sharia Law Index. He supports the government of the mullahs in Iran. He supports Hamas. He supports a one-state solution in Israel. That isn’t moderate. It’s just a good diplomat at work.
Yours,
Wince
That leaves the question wide open, what is the internet and what are blogs ? And who gets to answer ?
In my view, a blog without comments is no longer the internet, simply someone making announcements/essays/opinion pieces.
The host here certainly realizes this.
If the internet is a place where real dialogue can or ought occur, then open comments are essential. If frontpagers have veto power over comments, then its no different than writing to the local newspaper editor who will gratuitously publish perhaps three letters to the editor for every 100 to 200 received.
Even, announcing that anyone can comment on a blog falls short of the mark. (No, I’m not picking out any specific blog, nor certain ground rules).
These thoughts may merit a valuable internet blog discussion.
IMO, striking someone in their comfort zone, may well be the ONLY place where genuine dialogue/change can or might occur.
That means, the unpredicatable process of the internet needs be open as well.
Yes, too often, it can lead to excess on this blog and elsewhere. But, it doesn’t nullify the principles involved.
The danger from one angle of view is that internet blogs will turn into journals (gaa) /with editors (gaa) / wherein johnqpublic is once again relegated, sometimes under the egis of its just thuggery the way these ppl treat us journalists (gaa).
If one wants challenges to opinion pieces to be predictable, then the ground rules can be set up. But is it self-defeatist ?
This is my thought experiment of the day.
So how can it be considered authentic if the criteria is that you can’t eat anything between sunrise and sunset but ‘tween sunset and sunrise you can pork out on anything ?
It doesn’t make sense.
Fasting for 12 hours, ain’t no fast.
so the only “real” internet is one where anyone can be as rude or as abusive as they like, at someone else’s expense?
the rules at TI are not to protect an echo chamber from provocation and challenges to a comfort zone. they are to preserve a civil environment which is why we have so much participaton from lurkers.
If you spend any time at TI at all you will see that tere are plenty of voices, many on teh front page, who go against the mainstream view. Myself included!
Im proud of TI as a true example of dialog and debate. that is because of the rules, not in spite of them.
then try it. I am awaking at 4am today, for sehri (predawn meal). TYpically milk, juice, cereal, scrambled eggs, and some bread.
then its nothing – no food, no water. not until sunset, at about 745pm.
id love it if you gave me company in fasting tomorrow. aint no big deal, right?
In my view, a blog without comments is no longer the internet
A Web log (or blog) is, as its name implies, a log of your Web surfing, intended for sharing the interesting links you run across. People couldn’t resist adding their commentary, sometimes dispensing with the links entirely, and then they couldn’t resist letting other people add their commentary as well, and so here we are, but these are mere elaborations on the bloggish theme.
Im proud of TI as a true example of dialog and debate. that is because of the rules, not in spite of them.
Riiiiiight,
And that is why “Shams”, a frontpage contributor at TI, believes “conservatives are a divergent low IQ sub-species of homo sapiens americanus.”. Wow, he’s a perfect example of civil dialog and debate.
I guess some debate is more equal than others…
so ML you clearly prefer stes that dont have a wide range of opinions. shams can believe what (she) wants. But its pretty astoundingly dishonest of you to paint the whole site with her opinion. I suppose we should ban her ecause you disapprove – that’s certainly easier than dealing with her ideas, riiiiight?
sheesh. whining about how TI is too much of an eho chamber… and then whining about how TI isn’t an echo chamber enough!
You’re words:
the rules at TI are not to protect an echo chamber from provocation and challenges to a comfort zone. they are to preserve a civil environment which is why we have so much participaton from lurkers.
So Shams can call anyone a “sub species” he likes and that “preserves a civil environment” but if I put up links showing that the cabbie-stabber was psychotic because he was drunk and didn’t have “anti-Muslim” rants in the journals he carried and that disappears down the memory-hole. Showing the inherent double-standard you operate by, Aziz.
Your words:
the rules at TI are not to protect an echo chamber from provocation and challenges to a comfort zone. they are to preserve a civil environment which is why we have so much participaton from lurkers.
So Shams can call anyone a “sub species” he likes and that “preserves a civil environment” but if I put up links showing that the cabbie-stabber was psychotic because he was drunk and didn’t have “anti-Muslim” rants in the journals he carried and that disappears down the memory-hole. Showing the inherent double-standard you operate by, Aziz.
But I’ve noticed this double-standard at many activist Muslim sites*. They say “we’re all for open, uncensored debate” which is why they’ll tolerate anti-Israel nonsense, anti-Neocon stuff, and even straight-up anti-Jewish and anti-American bigotry; all in the name of “open debate”. But let someone point out painful facts (such as the cabbie-stabber was drunk and psychotic and not “anti-muslim”) and they’re shown the door, aggressively (or called a “dumbass”).
*Which is why non-activist muslims I know who merely want to live their lives won’t even comment on a “muslim” blog, because of the shameful double-standard y’all set.
how convenient for you ML that your comments were deleted, so you can rewrite history. I am sure in your mind your comments were the epitome of civility and restraint.
sorry but as a newbie, you need to behave yourself as a guest in someone’s house. That means, indeed, you might be held to a higher standard of behavior than the crazy old uncle in the attic.
And since no one is forcing you to interact with a given poster, comment on that poster’s threads, or even reply to a comment by that poster, what the hell is your problem? are you really such an internet noob that you still feed trolls?
(and then whine about it)
shams’ behavior is problematic at times. To date we have never banned anyone from TI permanently. Not even incredibly abusive people who show up from jihadwtach or other ilk to call us all terrorists, anti american, etc. I prefer to delete than to ban. And i’ve deleted plenty of comments by shams, too. No one – not even me – is immune to being edited.
if and when you engage at TI over a period of time and demonstrate yourself capable of engaging in a debate without resorting to sterotypes about muslims and islam, then your concerns about other people’s comments will be taken seriously. Right now, though, you are just a gadfly. i value shams far more than you because for all her flaws, she still brings value to the discussion. You brought nothing but tropes – you’re lazy. You’ve become lazy here at DW because there aren’t any voices that – as McK put it – hit you in your comfort zone. So authoritarian that you are, you run away crying about unfair treatment.
those are the grouund rules. commence your whining about censorship and free speech entitlement complex in 3… 2…. 1…
“Shams” has a familiar voice, and a recognizable routine. “Dhatu alwanin, she-of-many-guises. =)”, banned from nearly every site on the net.
At least he/she has learned to use caps
“Shams” is a she, and she is indeed exactly who you think she is, Mary. It’s up to the folks at Talk Islam who they want to have around; I mostly ignore her.
McKiernan: Dude, fasting for 12 hours isn’t a fast? You’re CATHOLIC! Which means that, during Lent, you are supposed to “fast” by eating one full meal a day plus two smaller meals, the two smaller meals added together not equaling the size of the full meal. But it’s EATING ALL DAY, and you can drink as much as you want.
[sigh] We all know you do things like this on purpose. I just wish you’d be a little more creative in your trollings once in a while, that one was way too transparent. ;-)
Aziz, I have found that the angry, “Muslims must prove to me that they share American values, to my satisfaction” crowd, ROUTINELY, go to Talk Islam when I mention it, spend one or two minutes tops, and leave the second the find one comment or idea they don’t like, just so they can come back and throw it in my face as proof that the site is nothing but a cesspool of anti-Americanism and apologists for terrorism.
I quit arguing with them about it, I figure they aren’t worth it. You want a site where you can talk to Muslims and about Islam from a variety of perspectives? Including Christian, Jewish, atheist, and other perspectives? It’s there, and wide open, with Muslims and even MUSLIM APOSTATES (aaah, scary, why haven’t you beheaded them yet Aziz?!?!). You’ll find it all there.
All you need do is mind your manners and you’ll be fine. But if you’re just looking for another circle-jerk of people who all agree with you, then yeah, you’re wasting your time there.
The site’s there, and open to comment and discussion, with a wide variety of perspectives. That’s what it is. Deal with it.
By the way, one Facebooker recently asserted that I had “declared myself an Ambassador to Islam” because I noted that I’m a contributor there. So, would you guys please start calling me “Your Excellency?” Thanks, I’d appreciate it.
That means, indeed, you might be held to a higher standard of behavior than the crazy old uncle in the attic.
Yep. Or as I’ve always put it, “regulars to this establishment will be cut more slack than people we don’t know yet.”
Every good site should have a House Troll if you ask me. You know s/he’s there, sitting in the corner, ready to snarl at anyone or anything at any given moment. Throw it a cookie now and then and say soothing things, or whap it on the snout with a newspaper. It adds spice and character to an otherwise dull day. ;-)
McK, shams, etc :) we love our house snarlers :)
McK – you are joining me on the fast today, right?
Now I haven’t eaten since last evening at 7 PM, so if I start now and don’t eat until sunset tonight, I will not have eaten 24 hours.
So do I get to munch up before sunrise before starting the all daylight fasting ?
:)
Update. I haven’t eaten since yesterday at 7 PM.
With four hours left until sunset, I should survive, okay.
But I did have to feed our 7 pound 14 year old kitty. She was starving. Poor baby. Will keep you posted.
Dean, fasting doesn’t apply to catholics over age of 65. I get a free pass. ;-)
Your help would be very much appreciated, if I decide to go that route. If I do, it would probably be early next year that I’d have the time to start seriously pushing the project forwards.
oh, you’re trying to sneak in a debate on positive vs negative rights, arent you? I’d have figured you to have a more libertarian perspective, am surprised.
Eric, just let me know – drop me an email. Theres a lot of stuff i can help you with that would basically lower the barrier to setup to near zero. I could even have a demo site for you in no tim e- after Ramadan it will take me maybe 30min. Let me know :)
Dean,
My comment here is strictly confined to the linked questions of nationality and nationalism, and why — with few exceptions — they act as levers to pry countries apart.
First, some basic definitions. Here in the USA, we pledge allegiance at just about every public function to “one nation, under God, indivisble, with liberty and justice for all”. Some times, but certainly not always, we act as if this all were true. But for most of the rest of the world, “nation” means something entirely different. There, it represents a folkish community who share the same general blood lines, participate in a common culture, serve together in the armed forces, drink together at the same watering holes, consider one another extended kinsmen, defend one another against any and all strangers, fuck one another’s sisters, marry them, breed children who continue their common cycles of life. In this reality, “nation” is a totally separate concept from “state”, even though major or minor efforts have been made to make them synonymous.
“Nation” and nationalism are nothing more or less than the territorial imperatives of the human species, applied throughout the world since the beginning of our prehistories.
All this explains why there is a jewish nation, an arab nation, a croatian nation, a serbian nation, a czech nation, a slovak nation, an albanian nation, a french canadian nation, an anglo canadian nation, a japanese nation, a han chinese nation, a mongol nation, a great russian nation, a ukrainian nation, a byelorus nation, a finnish nation, a swedish nation, a norwegian nation; a hutu nation; a tutsi nation; and on and on throughout the world.
From this framework, one should be able to discern in Iraq three separate and quite distinct nations: a shi’a islamic semitic arab nation, (the iraqi majority); a sun’a islamic semitic arab nation, (an uncomfortable minority); and a quite distinct mostly sun’a indo-aryan kurdish nation, with its distinctness reinformed by mountain fastnesses, their own armed forces, and one of the world’s largest remaining sources of easily pumped petroleum.
One day, as certain as the rise and fall of the sun and the orbiting of our own moon, that Kurdish nation will declare and enforce its own independence. In doing this, they almost certainly will be aided by the State of Israel, especially now that Israel has busted its close ties with Turks and has therefore been able to build their relationships with the Greeks and the Kurds. (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is the sole form of statesmanship practiced in the Middle East.
That will be the end of Iraq as the British Empire designed it, back in 1919-1920, complete with one of their own arab kinglets, whose successor was duly overthrown and butchered by a street mob in July 1957.
And, it will be seen in hindsight that the sole chain of actions that made all this possible was George H W Bush’s decision to smash down Saddam Hussein’s grab for the Kuwaiti oil fields in 1990, and the decision by his son George W Bush to complete his papa’s handiwork, smash what was left of the Iraqi army and state, and use military force to occupy the capital city, Baghdad, and impose american rule, american standards, american weapons, american style uniforms, etc, etc.
This really, truly is the way the world works, Dean. I for one am much more comfortable working from a standpoint of proven reality than being endlessly disappointed by american overseas adventures that, like Viet Nam, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, and other such places, never seems to out in proportion to the lives, capital and expectations we spent or indulged ourselves in as sort of a half-ass effort in american imperialism.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thank you very much, Aziz. The big remaining hangup for me is the time and energy to update regularly and to promote the blog — I want to wait until I’m confident I can put enough energy into it to make it worthwhile for readers to stop by regularly.
There is now plenty of good moderately written commentary against the Amazing Inflammatory Islamic Cultural Center. Here’s a piece which has very little to say about Islam the religion at all. It’s about our reaction:
America — Behind the Mosque
Yours,
Wince
Okay, its nearly 5:30 PM.
Only 2 hours to go to break my fast. That would be 24 hours without solid food.
see below.
I did it —24 hours without any food.
I went away for a week, and now I’m trying to get caught up.
THIS FORMAT IS MADDENING!
That’s all I have to say right now.
How the hell did my comment end up where it did?
Like I said, it’s maddening!!!!
I think I’m going to get rid of the threading, it IS confusing.
I’ve been toying with an idea for a new blog format. I’ve thought about explaining it to Ron or some such, to get an opinion, since it might be protectable.
I foolishly thought I could handle the coding myself, but now I realize that ain’t gonna happen…..
Maybe Dean’s World could be a trail blazer?
I can see it coming that this weekly Open Thread will constitute more or less what visitors to DW will pay attention to, because it all but invites comments on this, that, anything, everything. Opinions that cannot be commented on are the sort of thing that people respect as little more than junkmail that they have to link up to read.
I suppose there’s no reason you couldn’t keep this open thread alive until it collects 200 or more comments.
Dean, I like the way you have organized the comments, so that commentrs can jump in at any point in the thread, so you can have 5-6 unrelated arguments going at once.
I also note that most of the commenters have pulled in the fangs to one degree or another. I suppose that includes me.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I’ve gotten rid of threading. It may have caused us to lose some comments. But I really don’t like it.
Arnold: as I have pointed out many times, the number of successful, stable nations which consist of multiple languages and distinct ethnic groups is huge. The biggest and most successful one is probably India, which encompasses an enormous array of languages (14 officially recognized) and racial subtypes and cultures as well as religions. Absent the splinter-off of Pakistan more than half a century ago, India has remained a stable state despite all this.
The Swiss encompass multiple ethnic groups which often don’t like each other or speak the same language. Switzerland remains remarkably stable anyway, and has for centuries.
There are many other examples of this.
Indeed it is entirely arguable that the whole idea of both a nation and an ethnic identity being the same thing is only a notion that came about in the last few centuries in Europe. What was a “Frenchman” prior to about 1500? Not many could say. The same would be true of an Englishman, let alone part of Great Britain.
You and I both think very well of Walter Russel Mead’s essay on what he calls Jacksonian America, wherein he describes the common American folk culture very well. What you don’t seem to have noticed is that Mead believes this common American folk culture is both the largest group in America, and also a minority–specifically, a plurality, the largest group in this very non-homogeneous society.
We are a nation that has always encompassed multiple ethnic, religious, and language groups. Spanish speakers in California have been there since well before George Washington was born, and are still there. About a third of America spoke Dutch at the time of the Revolution. Native French speakers continued in Louisiana well into the 20th century. Dutch was still, until the middle of the 20th Century, an official language of the State of Pennsylvania, the very birthplace of the American revolution.
While the 13 original colonies were originally primarily Protestants, they were varieties of Protestantism that often hated each other and were known to kill each other back in their own European homelands.
And as the United States moved westwards it had to absorb large Catholic populations that were already established there at the time of the Louisiana Purchase and of course in places like California. (The hordes of Catholic immigrants that upset the Jacksonians so often throughout the 19th Century were largely joining Catholics already here.)
Thus I simply do not believe in the notion that a stable nation must encompass a singular ethnic or even language identity. I just don’t. There has to be some idea of a unified identity, but it does not have to center at all under shared religion or even language really.
I agree with Arnold. If I wanted to be talked to I’d watch TV. Blogs are interesting because of the conversation.
I’ve pretty much skipped over every post you’ve done here, Dean, because, well, I want to see what people say to you as much as I want to see what you have to say. Remove one and the other just isn’t as appealing.
I also agree with Arnold. The discussion is the appeal. If I want commentary…I’ll watch Fox News, if I want to scream at the T.V – I’ll watch Olberman.
I come to blogs to engage others in discussion and debate.
Dean,
The United States is not a nation in the european sense that I use the term. We are a commonwealth, created by an american-based English-speaking and almost entire white anglo-saxon protestant christian nation. Few Roman Catholics, even fewer Jews, Hispanics, mediterranean Europeans or Asians and no blacks whatsoever were included in the leadership cadre of the nation until well into the 20th century. As regards all rules, there were notable exceptions. But exceptions themself define all rules. These other ethnically or racial defined population groups, in greater or lesser degree, obtained increasing levels of acceptance from the american WASP nation. Nonetheless, we did not have a roman catholic president until 1960, or a half-white/half-black president until 2008. Chances are we may never have a jewish president, and part of the real reason that Barack Hussein Obama is a good bet for a James Earl Carter or George H W Bush one-term presidency is not merely that he is black, but that a large, significant, and growing number of white christian Americans think Obama is a moslem hiding his true religious affiliation.
As for the current countrywide struggle against illegal immigration, just what do you seriously imagine that is all about, other than protection of our white anglo turf against an alien brown hispanic civilization?
Now, about all the other multi-national countries. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Cyprus, Lebanon, Iraq, South Africa, are all multinational examples of failing, failed or totally extinct countries that did or or doing their swan-songs in the most recent 90 years. Belgium is a carefully-balanced entity that stays alive under control of its french-speaking Walloon majority, with the minority flemish-speaking national group always looking for a way out. Spain barely has control over its basque-speaking population. Most of the arab Moslems admitted to citizenship in the State of Israel are regarded as probable or certain traitors by the jewish population that increasingly is interested in democracy, yes indeed, but mainly for jewish israelis. Everyone with a memory extending back a few years knows the other story of the Hutus vs the Tutsis in east central Africa. (Or was it the Tutsis vs the Hutus? ) The point is that they were all but identical black nations living within the same african state whose boundaries were established by european imperialists and not by native tribal chieftains and their councils. India as a united country? Ask any Sikh or indian Moslem what the really think of that. More significantly, ask the increasingly influential leadership of the nationalist Hindatvut movement. Then try the same conversation with French Canada — Quebec to be specific — with their vehicle license plate motto: Je me souviens — “I remember”. What do they remember? The British conquest of their north american homeland more than 250 years ago.
Therefore, Dean, my bet is that the Republic of Iraq will maintain its figleaf of unity among its three constituent and hostile nations. But only so long as US or other foreign troops are on hand to back up the main figleaf, which is the Iraqi government in Baghdad. Pull out those troops, and all this will collapse exactly like the state governments of the Reconstruction era after president Rutherford Hayes pulled out the occupying federal troops shortly after his inauguration in 1877.
It is all as natural as dead leaves falling off trees in October, and being replaced with new buds and leaves the following spring.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Aziz,
You go from “we want a civil environment where all voices can be heard” to “my house, my rules”. And you know what: that’s great; if you want to set up your blog with contradictory rules depending on the poster that’s your right. You can have crazy-ass Islamobigots like Shams (and Thabet, I’m noticing) on your blog without fear of reprisal. Because, you know what, neighbor? You live in the United States where freedom of speech is highly protected and is recognized as an inherent right. You don’t live in a Muslim country where your speech would be highly censored depending on the status of the people you offend. Of course, the crazy-ass Islamobigotry spewed on your site would actually make it past censorship laws in Muslim countries and my very, extremely mild anti-Islamic criticism would be punished.
So go ahead and have your “House rules” and I will celebrate your ability to have them; while I laugh my ass off watching piss away your credibility by having crazy-ass Islamobigots like Shams (she is Muslim, I’m guessing) and Thabet post unrestricted on your site.
I apologize for the lateness of my response, beginning of the week and all.
MikeLyons is right and Aziz and Dean are wrong. If you allow crazy uncles like Shams and you don’t allow mild criticism like Mike’s then TalkIslam is not behaving as advertised. It’s just Real Climate with a crescent. Either you let the crazy uncles say what they want and you let everyone else say what they want or you keep the crazy uncles in line too.
Even crazy uncles respond to negative stimuli.
Yours,
Wince
MikeLyons is wrong in one important aspect: he’s mischaracterizing and distorting the rule. And using it as an excuse to editorialize here rather than go have actual discussions with the people he’s talking about.
Aziz already made it clear:
1) this person you’re discussing has had her own comments removed many times, and
2) this person you’re discussing has also been told to knock it off many times.
But by ignoring both these salient facts, Mike gets a pretext for a self-righteous editorial about the evils of Muslims. Without, you know, having to bother going over there to prove himself a non-troll and actually engage with some of those folks.
Tell you what, Tom. You want consistency? You got it. I’ll ban McKiernan from DW, right now. Will that make you feel better? Because it’s the same principle exactly.
Arnold: I think it’s really rather silly to speak of India or Canada or Switzerland as failing or rapidly failing nations. Sorry, but I do. And I don’t think I have to ask your average Sikh or Muslim or even Christian in India what they think; India has plenty of all of them, and has remained quite stable for decades and is increasing in wealth and prosperity, and elected Presidents and members of their parliament from all these groups (well I don’t think they’ve had a Christian or Sikh President yet, but certainly Muslim and Hindu).
As for your comments about Israel: you know, I would only point out to you that it’s been some 40 years since you were last in that country, and yet still Arab and Christian Israelis practice their faith, vote in elections, get elected themselves, and in general fully participate, with nobody but fringe ultranationalists wanting to throw them out–unsuccessfully, since the majority of JEWISH Israelis have made it clear repeatedly that they have no intention of doing any such thing. And yet, Israel remains, prosperous and free. (And, I might add, pretty much a Democratic Socialist paradise and the most homosexual-friendly country in the entire Middle East; I continue to find it amusing how many right-wing fundamentalist Christians practically worship that state, given that it’s a hotbed of the types of things they normally revile).
But whatever will be will be. I see countless examples of stable multi-ethnic, multi-language countries all over the globe; you do not. And, whatever the debate over illegal immigration, the fact is that the WASP you speak of is a minority in this country, and will likely remain one. Our politics are of course fractious and fractured, but I’m not sure it was ever any other way, except during the brief years of World War II due to Franklin Roosevelt’s effective use of propaganda, with copious Hollywood help.
> MikeLyons is wrong in one important aspect: he’s mischaracterizing and distorting the rule.
No, he’s not. His contention is that Shams and others are “spewing” “crazy-ass Islamobigotry” which is not being deleted, while his “my very, extremely mild anti-Islamic criticism” is deleted.
> I’ll ban McKiernan from DW, right now. Will that make you feel better? Because it’s the same principle exactly.
No it’s not. We are avocating for equal deletion, not sometimes crazy uncles get a pass and new guys get stricter rules deletion. And besides, the real crazy uncles here are Arnold and Conservative Scientist, who regularly want to kill large numbers of people to protect our way of life. McKiernan is small potatoes. You are worse than he is.
And Arnold is right about the relative stability of multi-ethnic nations. They are generally less stable, examples to the contrary not withstanding.
Yours,
Wince
“Arnold and Conservative Scientist, who regularly want to kill large numbers of people to protect our way of life.”
Not to protect our way of life, but to protect our life.
Of all the regimes in the world, I consider North Korea to be the most deserving of a devastating attack. And I don’t see how it would be illegal also, considering they have broken the cease fire agreement multiple times. The Korean war has not ended. They’ve broken the non-proliferation treaty, among other things, so what’s wrong with attacking them and making an example out of them?
As for Iran, if indeed diplomacy fails then I see no reason using force, lots of it if necessary. One concern will be if we’re too nice, then others might make a covert play for nukes, which means they’ll also need to be put back in line. My biggest fear is them simply withdrawing from the NPT, which they’re not following anyhow, and avoiding the legality aspect, and detonating a nuke before the world has decided how to handle it (after how many years?).
The UN is a failure.
Why is Iran entitled to the benefits of being a member of the UN when they are violation of its charter, and the Security Council?
Why did we firebomb Tokyo? Why did we carpet bomb Dresden? Do you think that’s the last of that type of violence we will ever see? If so, is it because of your faith in the UN?
Now that we teach intelligent design alongside evolution we are going to give you your first intelligent design lecture. Booga booga booga! Booga booga booga booga! Baruuuuga booga booga!
I hope you enjoyed it.
> Not to protect our way of life, but to protect our life.
Yes, some, and possibly all, of the “crazy uncle” talk you and Arnold engage in is actually just reminding us of the unwelcome probability that a large country like the U.S. is going to be involved in a really big and deadly war in the future.
As to whether that large war is going to be protecting our way of life (like both sides in the Civil War) or our actual lives (like WWII) is a different issue. We can argue about whether WWI and the relatively large hot wars during the Cold War were to protect our way of life or our actual lives. I would say neither for WWI and actual lives for Korean and Vietnam, but hey, I’m a conservative. Either way the probability is larger than we all want to think about, so thanks for the reminder.
I am willing to fight large wars to defend both our way of life and our actual lives, so I guess I’m a crazy uncle who hides it by not talking about it much.
Yours,
Wince
” Yes, some, and possibly all, of the “crazy uncle” talk you and Arnold engage in is actually just reminding us of the unwelcome probability that a large country like the U.S. is going to be involved in a really big and deadly war in the future. ”
That’s exactly my point, and we should plan on winning it. I consider it almost unavoidable, given human nature. A strong stand every once in a while is probably the best way to keep it from really harming us. Think of it as “fires are a natural part of the forrest. Human activity has controlled fire, now lots of fuel is built up, and a larger fire can now happen. So controlled burns are the best way to relieve the built up stress.”
I wish I had a better analogy off the top of my head.
We are up against some very bad players, North Korea is such an easy example to focus on.
Tom: We’re used to Arnold expressing opinions such as he does. ConservativeScientist puts forth arguments and engages them. Certain other people we’re discussing just like egging people on and jerking their chains.
Whatever. It’s clear enough to me. If you find my comments so offensive, on the other hand… oh, never mind, this is why I shut off comments. I guess I’ll have to mostly keep them shut for most things on a permanent basis; you either like what I write or you don’t.
> We’re used to Arnold expressing opinions such as he does. ConservativeScientist puts forth arguments and engages them.
Sure. But you don’t really want to do what TalkIslam does. You want a relatively small body of well known and relatively well behaved commenters – a little community. Why do I think that’s what you want? Because that’s what you have achieved over several years of effort, and because the policies that seem attractive to you all seem to align with that goal.
> Certain other people we’re discussing just like egging people on and jerking their chains.
I suppose MikeLyons does seem to do that. So do I. I don’t think he’s trying to do that, though. I’m not trying to do that, either. Sometimes I’m trying to discuss so I learn about the subject. Sometimes I’m trying to argue so I learn how to argue about the subject. Sometimes I am bulldogging a point on purpose and refuse to give in. Sometimes I’m trying to learn how to take a position and stick with it, and not act moderate for moderations sake.
> If you find my comments so offensive, on the other hand…
I don’t find your comments offensive at all, just incorrect. And the error in question is fairly subtle. If TalkIslam wants to promote discussion the way they say they do they need to tolerate the comments of the MikeLyons of the world more OR they need to tolerate the comments of Shams less. However, I suspect that Aziz was correctly referring to the other, unwritten rules which privilege the crazy uncles there. That’s OK, but when the unwritten rules contradict the written ones, you are going to get complaints, and the complaints will be fully justified.
> oh, never mind, this is why I shut off comments. I guess I’ll have to mostly keep them shut for most things on a permanent basis; you either like what I write or you don’t.
When I completely agree with a piece I have nothing to say. How many people do you want to show up to say “good post”? Sometimes I do have additional supporting information to add, but mostly not. I suppose if that’s what you want, I can do that.
It is, however, absolutely true that I want to argue with you about various subjects. In most cases that is because I want to learn how to argue about those subjects. In others it is because I don’t wish to tolerate those positions anymore and I want want to oppose your free speech with my free speech. You may not consider this to be polite on your blog. If so, let me know. It’s your World. I could do it on my blog, but since I have not developed a readership that would be a waste of time, and if I’m going to bother developing a readership I’m not going to waste that time in reaction to you. Therefore I would expect me to not commit the thoughts to bits at all.
I suggest you write rules for comments which reflect what you want. If you don’t want opposition, but rather supporting information, say so.
Yours,
Wince
I’ll think on it. As I noted a thread or two down, I actually LIKE Talk Islam’s rules, and may just modify them and use them here. Philosophically, it’s pretty close to how I see things.
Amnesty Declared for Banned Commenters
I’m dissatisfied with the way discussions go here and I want to do some things to shake things up. One of the problems I see is a lack of dissent — in part because I think people jump down dissenters’ throats.
http://patterico.com/2010/09/02/amnesty-declared-for-banned-commenters/
Will Political Gamesmanship Be Our Downfall?
>>> http://tinyurl.com/29dlxzf
Jason: Oh come on, that’s about as transparently partisan as you can get.
Mind you, I’m sympathetic with much of the message–the upper few percent really do have too much control, and the Tea Partiers, in their blindness, will actually make that worse–but even I can smell that as written by someone working for the DNC.
Dean-
Thank you for Dean’s World. Many of us learn and benefit everyday from your hard work. That said, before you labeled me as working for the DNC, I think you should have relied on more than just a gut feeling…only fair.
I am what I say I am…non-partisan, and everything in my article is strictly my own interpretation of what is happening with the Republican Party today. If you want to know how I feel about the Democrats all you need to do is ask. You might be surprised to know that I have many, many negative observations regarding them as well.
As far as my writing goes, I work for no one (yet) but myself. The article you refer to as “written by someone working for the DNC,” was my first (and maybe last) venture into the political writing arena, and it was done only out of a genuine concern for the state of affairs in Washington and across our troubled nation today. Geez… I wish I were getting paid for it though…I can always use the bucks.
I am guilty of publishing a number of articles on the net (no income so far though)… and most relate to my gold prospecting adventures and can be found at Google Knol under my name, Jason Kincade. In addition, I do plan to launch a website of my own in the next couple of months…still working on the design and format. Please wish me luck and thanks again.
Jason
Comments on this entry are closed.