Islam: tear down this wall

The New Neo Posted on by

San Francisco is one of the most “progressive” (read: liberal) cities in the US. And, as this NY Times article describes, there’s a movement there to modernize Islam, at least in a small way.

As part of renovations to the Darussalam mosque in San Francisco last fall, a wall separating the women worshippers from the men was demolished and not reconstructed. This was the result of a campaign by what the Times calls “a small if determined band of North American Muslims, mostly younger women,” to change practices they feel are discriminatory, and not a necessary part of Islam.

The women point to the fact that the tradition of separation is a relatively recent one, the result of Wahabism’s ascendance in 18th-century Saudi Arabia. Wahabism is, of course, the extremely strict sect of Islam, still based in Saudi Arabia, responsible for much of the growth of what might be called fundamentalist Islam, and to which many jihadis, including Osama Bin Laden, ascribe.

It’s a commonplace to say that Islam needs a reformation; but in fact, technically, Wahabism was a reformation. But let’s not get so technical; I think what is meant is that Islam needs a reforming and modernizing movement–as in, for example, Reform Judaism. And of course, anyone who is aware of Reform Judaism knows that one of its changes was exactly the one that has occurred in the Darussalam mosque: the mixing of men and women in worship.

Reform Judaism was a product of the Enlightenment and the relative assimilation and freedom afforded Jews in 18th century Germany (hmmm, same century as Wahabism, different direction). We tend to associate Germany and Jews with the later horrific events of the Holocaust, so its easy to forget that–as far as human and civil rights for Jews went–Germany was probably the most “enlightened” country in the world in the 18th century. And it was that freedom that allowed and fostered the changes and modernizations resulting in the birth of reform Judaism.

I’m not equating Judaism with Islam; there are tremendous differences. But if Islam requires reform–and I believe it does–it stands to reason that reform would begin in the climate of the freedoms afforded by a Western country such as the US or Canada.

Of course, as the Times article states, reform and change can cause backlash and retrenchment. And there isn’t much cross-fertilization between what happens in a mosque in the US and what happens in mosques in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

But it’s still an encouraging sign that this was allowed to go forward. And the spread of such changes in the Moslem third world, not just in the West, is one of the possible benefits of events such as the Iraq war, and increasing freedom in that country. A backlash is possible, but so is a ripple effect.

The tearing down of the wall in the Darussalam mosque is a small change, it’s true. It may not even rise to the level of a pebble being dropped in a lake; perhaps, instead, a tiny grain of sand. But even a grain of sand can cause ripples.

Patience

The New Neo Posted on by

Those of you who read this blog regularly have no doubt noticed that trolls have virtually taken over many of the comment threads. You’ve also probably seen me state that a reordering of the blog is going to be occurring soon in order to eliminate the problem.

It can’t happen soon enough; I agree. Trolls are edifying up to a point, because they’re instructive about a certain mindset and a particular type of puerile emotional behavior. However, enough is enough–and it’s definitely been more than enough, here. We get it; no further demonstration is necessary.

But there are various options to be studied and considered, and this takes quite a bit of time. Then, implementing the change takes time as well. And I have an enormous number of other backlogged things to do after getting back from my vacation. So, although I’m working on this and I definitely plan to get to it some time this coming week (or almost definitely the next), I ask for your patience and forbearance. I am aware of the problem, I am on the task, and it will be done.

In the meantime, I can only repeat that you not feed the trolls, although the temptation seems to be great–and, for some, apparently irresistible. Feeding the trolls brings the worst out in everyone.

WMDs and true believers

The New Neo Posted on by

There are those who remain convinced that prewar intelligence was not incorrect–that Saddam was still cranking out WMDs prior to the war, and that these weapons are hidden somewhere and could be found if a proper search were ever to be mounted.

And, according to this NY Times article, this group is not limited to fringe-y lunatics. Those espousing the view, and who are still trying actively engage an effective search, include such figures as:

…retired Air Force lieutenant general, Thomas G. McInerney, a commentator on the Fox News Channel who has broadcast that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

“I firmly believe that, and everything I learn makes my belief firmer,” said Mr. McInerney, who retired in 1994. “I’m amazed that the mainstream media hasn’t picked this up.”

Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

“And we think we know which ship,” Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.

Are these guys the equivalent, on the right, of those who believe that 9/11 was planned and orchestrated by Bush (the latter of whom, by the way, are not shy about spamming me to tell me so, day after livelong day)?

No; McInerney and Clarridge seem more rooted in realistic possibilities, although I have come to believe that the probability of their being correct at this point is 10% or less (and probably much less, at that).

But the task of ascertaining whether any post-1991 WMDs are still kicking around somewhere is a difficult one. How can one prove whether something purported to be hidden does or does not exist?

The only way the issue could be absolutely resolved is by either of these two things occurring:

(1) A post-1991 WMD cache is found; or

(2) Every inch of the earth, including underground to a reasonable depth, is searched and found to be empty of post-1991 WMDs.

Since #2 is not possible, the possibility of #1 remains, although the likelihood of its occurrence shrinks over time.

When a person is heavily invested in a particular thing being true, it is ordinarily very difficult to give up the idea that it is so. This is the case whether the believer is on the left or on the right. In my opinion, those in the middle are less likely to be so firmly anchored to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence, for the simple reason that their identities are not so deeply and rigidly tied to them in the first place.

Why we should consider a National Secrets Act

The New Neo Posted on by

Dr. Sanity has this to say on the most recent spilling-of-the-national-security-beans by the MSM (see this for Jeff Goldstein’s take on the story, as well).

For those of you who may have missed it, back in early May I posted an in-depth discussion of the basic issues involved, offering a possible remedy based on a law in Britain known as the National Secrets Act. It provides penalties not only for national security employees who leak, but also for the press publishing such secrets, as well.

When I wrote that post, I stated I wasn’t sure exactly where I stood on the issue of whether such a law should be passed in this country. However, since then, I have become more convinced that penalties–at the very least, for the leaker–would be a good idea.

After all, it’s not as though there aren’t other avenues to follow short of disclosure to the press and to the world. A relevant excerpt from my post:

It seems logical to me that in order to have any sort of workable national security at all, it should only be breached for extremely serious governmental offenses, and then only after other ordinary channels have been exhausted and found wanting. My suggestion would be penalties for national security leakers who go to the press first, without trying other remedies, as well as penalties for the press if the information damages national security as defined by the courts (and I would hope they would define it at least somewhat less narrowly than in the Pentagon Papers decision).

Amnesty International tiptoes around third-world torturers

The New Neo Posted on by

Amnesty International is oh so very careful not to offend the tender sensibilities of those responsible for the brutal torture, killing, and mutilation of two captured US soldiers.

Note the two qualifiers in the Amnesty statement: “if” and “may.” It’s the “may” part that Belmont Club–and myself–find so especially offensive.

{And see this for my own small previous efforts to try to communicate with the folks at Amnesty.)

Home again

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m back!

The redeye flight was fine and uneventful, just as a flight should be–but of course I’m exhausted, although I also slept a few hours in an actual bed on my return.

The garden’s overgrown. The mail has to be picked up. The bags need to be unpacked. Groceries must be bought. My mother should be visited. And on and on and on….

I’m taking the rest of the day (evening?) off from blogging.

See you tomorrow!

Mondegreens

The New Neo Posted on by

When I was about three years old I liked to listen to the music from “Guys and Dolls” on our scratchy old record player.

For some reason–perhaps because I was fond of animals–I particularly loved the lyrics of “Fugue for Tinhorns,” which I’d often warble semi-tunefully for a small audience of my parents’ friends (yes, I know, shameless self-aggrandizer).

Do you know the song? It offers advice for betting on horse races. Here’s a little sampler:

I got the horse right here
The name is Paul Revere
And here’s a guy that says that the weather’s clear
Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do
If he says the horse can do, can do, can do.

What did I understand about the words? Not very much, although I did know that they had something to do with horses and racing, and that “Paul Revere” and the other names in the song (I especially liked “Valentine”) referred to the animals.

But much of the meaning of the song was unintelligible to me. The many parts I didn’t comprehend (“I’ve got the feed box noise”??) I memorized in a sort of phonetic, syllable-by-syllable rote way, trying to give them meaning as I went along, or ignoring meaning when I couldn’t divine any.

“Feed box noise,” for instance, was just that–a lot of noise, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. I couldn’t make it into any words at all, so it remained something like “fee pox voize” in my mind.

But other parts seemed to include recognizable words, although those words didn’t always make a whole lot of sense. There was this: “It’s from a handicapper that’s real sincere,” which I turned into “It’s from a handy capper that’s real sincere.” A handy capper: someone good with his hands who made caps, or who wore caps–whatever.

And in my mind there it stayed–as “handy capper.”

I hardly ever thought of those song lyrics again, until one day well into middle adulthood, when for some reason the song came up. I was discussing the lyrics with a friend, and I started to say, “One thing I don’t understand; what’s a ‘handy capper’?” But as those words were about to come out of my mouth, they suddenly coalesced into a single word, one I actually knew and connected to horse racing–“handicapper”–and I burst out laughing at my own stupidity.

What I’d done was to create something known as a “mondegreen,” and by no means one of the most amusing ones around. But the internet comes to the rescue; here’s a site with some wonderful mondegreens. Especially fine, I think, are the following:

All my luggage, I will send to you.
(Actual lyric: All my loving, I will send to you–Beatles)

Baby come back, you can play Monopoly.
Actual lyric: Baby come back, you can blame it all on me.
(Player “Baby Come Back”)

Come shave my heart.
Actual lyric:Unchain my heart.
(Ray Charles)

Donuts make my brown eyes blue.
Actual lyric:Don’t it make my brown eyes blue.
(Crystal Gale)

Give me the Beach Boys and free my soul.
Actual lyric:Give me the beat, boys, and free my soul.
(Dobie Gray “Drift Away”) (I think I may have succumbed to this one myself.)

Hold me closer, Tony Danza
Count the head lice on the highway.
Actual lyric: Hold me closer, tiny dancer.
(Elton John “Tiny Dancer”)

Just brush my teeth before you leave me, baby.
Actual lyric:Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
(Juice Newton “Angel of the Morning”)

Last night I dreamt of some bagels.
Actual lyric:Last night I dreamt of San Pedro.

he’s got a chicken to ride.
Actual lyric:She’s got a ticket to ride.
(Beatles)

She’s got electric boobs, a mohair too.
Actual lyric:She’s got electric boots, a mohair suit.
(Elton John “Benny and the Jets”)

Sugar fried honey butt.
Actual lyric:Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch.
(Four Tops “Can’t Help Myself”)

Got any of your own?

By their works shall ye know them: barbarians and sadists

The New Neo Posted on by

The news was all but inevitable: the bodies of the two missing soldiers have been found in Iraq, and spokespeople say they have been “tortured in a barbaric fashion.” No details have as yet been provided.

Pajamas Media has a roundup of reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

All thoughtful people–myself included–mourn their loss, and the suffering they endured before their deaths.

When I read the sad news, however, the use of the word “barbaric” caught my eye. Like many familiar words, ordinarily we hardly think about what it really means.

Here are some synonyms:

barbarian, barbarous, boorish, brutal, coarse, cruel, fierce, graceless, inhuman, lowbrow, primitive, rough, rude, tasteless, uncivilized, uncouth, vulgar, wild

The word is the essence of cultural non-relativism. Its origins are in antiquity:

…from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (barbaros) which meant a non-Greek, someone whose (first) language was not Greek. The word is imitative, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing spoken a language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah or rhubarb in modern English.

Many cultures traditionally have had terms for “the other.” Even if those appellations don’t start out as pejorative, they usually wind up that way. And so it is with “barbarian” and “barbaric,” which have come into general use to mean especially vicious, cruel, and sadistic.

It’s really that last definition–sadistic–that seems to be the most important element here. When a soldier kills, there is always violence, no matter how the killing is accomplished. But barbarism implies a gratuitous level of mayhem, a sort of overkill, which indicates an emotional element that drives the perpetrator towards inflicting the maximum amount of pain for personal enjoyment and sensations of power.

One of the hallmarks of jihadi violence has been this element of barbarism–or, perhaps more correctly, sadism. There is a practical and strategic goal as well, which is to instill fear. Sadism and strategy are not mutually exclusive, however; they can coexist, and both may be driving this particular behavior. No one who has watched the beheading videos–or even read descriptions of them–can avoid the sense that those doing the deed are reveling in their own barbaric power, unleashed.

Sadism traditionally has been linked to sexual kinkiness. If you Google the word “sadism,” most of the definitions you find will have some connection to sex. Many have also remarked on the disturbances in Arab culture’s treatment of women and their sexuality (see this, for example), so it’s easy to surmise that there’s a connection between the two.

But it’s certainly not as simple as that–sadism is probably overdetermined among the jihadis. And another one of the elements that go into it are the backgrounds and personality disorders of some of those who rise to positions of power, such as the late and unlamented Zarqawi, who was clearly both a sadist and a psychopath in the classic sense.

But sadism and psychopathology are not limited to Arab culture, of course. In fact, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly involved elements of sadomasochism of the sexual sort, although the sadism did not even begin to rise to the level of that seen with the jihadis.

Then there were the Nazis, who came from a culture with enormous cultural achievements, one that was thought to be almost ultra-civilized prior to WWII. That’s one of the reasons the deeply barbaric turn many Germans took at that time was so very shocking: the degree of sadism that was unleashed in the concentration camps, for example, rivaled anything in history, classical or otherwise (and yes, I’m aware that not all the guards were German, but the guiding vision sprung from that society, and was largely a product of German or Austrian nationals).

The bottom line is that barbarism and sadism are possibilities for all human beings. But some societies and some historic times seem to encourage their fuller expression. And the task of a “civilized” military is to reduce the elements of sadism, while preserving the ability to kill.

I’ve written previously about how US soldiers are trained to kill without sadism, here. It’s not an easy task, but it’s the goal of the US military to reduce combat stress and make atrocities far less likely to occur (read the post for the details of how this is done). In contrast, the goal of the Nazis was to maximize the expression of sadism in their concentration camp guards. Likewise, this seems to be the goal of the jihadis, or at least many jihadi elements.

And they’re not the only ones who are drawn to the admiration of the barbaric. As the Wikipedia article on barbarians indicates, in a discussion of the fictional Conan the barbarian (and with an interesting connection to German history):

The modern sympathetic admiration for such fantasy barbarians as Conan the Barbarian is a direct descendant of the Enlightenment idealization of the “Noble Savage”. The German Romantics recharacterized the barbarian stereotype. Now it was the civilized Roman–or that modern Romanized Gaul, the Frenchman–who was effeminate and soft, and the stout-hearted German barbarian who exemplified manly virtue. The reforming of Arminius as “Hermann” the noble barbarian countering evil Rome provided a prototype from the 16th century onwards.

In fantasy novels and role-playing games, barbarians (or berserkers) are still depicted as brave uncivilized warriors, often able to attack with a crazed fury. Conan is simply best known of the type.

Many of those who defend jihadis, make excuses for them, and/or sympathize with them, may indeed be feeling these sorts of Rousseauvian/Romantic stirrings.

One petite step for womankind

The New Neo Posted on by

Not that I ever shop there–but still, I’m happy to know that Saks has bowed to popular demand from its vertically challenged female shoppers and announced it will revive its petite section.

The ripple effect has already been felt. As a result of Saks’s return to the petite biz, designer Ellen Tracy, who had opted out of the petite game, is coming back.

For those who are wondering what I’m talking about and why, see this previous post of mine.

And, in the interests of rigorous honesty, I confess that the title of this post was suggested to me by a thoughtful reader.

The difference between trolling and disagreeing

The New Neo Posted on by

I know I wrote that I wasn’t going to post any more threads about trolls, and that I would simply implement a solution instead. And that is my plan.

But I found this to be so excellently put that I simply could not resist highlighting it here. It’s from a commmenter, Brad, on the subject of how to differentiate between trolls and mere dissenters:

So confud,
why have I never been branded a troll? I have clearly stated several times that I don’t like Bush; that I didn’t vote for him; that I was completely opposed to the war in Iraq; and that I never went through any 9/11-related epiphany. Clearly, I don’t agree with a lot of what is stated here. Despite this, none of the people who comment here, aside from you, have insulted me or labelled me a troll. And the same is true at other blogs where I comment, across the political spectrum.

Perhaps it is because I don’t repetitively post hate-filled mockery, laced with insult and misused epithets (such as your constant misuse of the term “racist”), and inform people that I am once again laughing at them. Having spent a life time in higher ed, around people who either have strong opinions (faculty) or are developing them (students), I have learned to disagree with someone, listen to any response, and move on. You, on the other hand, have barged into a virtual room, screaming invective, shouting down dialogue, attempting to shut down the forum, and then you smugly state that they call you a troll because you disagree with them. Horse poop, they call you a troll because you are a virtual violent bully.

[ADDENDUM: I am planning to be home by the end of the week, and hope to implement some of the promised changes in the blog not too long after that. It may take a while, so please be patient, but it will be done.

But because I’m such a polite hostess, I thought I’d provide this thread to give my beloved and esteemed trolls a place to vent. As I’ve said many times before, I believe that every time a troll goes about his/her business (I think I’ll just drop the cumbersome PC inclusive pronoun designation here and go with the masculine, if you don’t mind) he provides further and ever more detailed evidence of his trollish nature. So it’s all in the nature of an exhibit of trolldom.

But enough is enough, and as I’ve said, in a little while, changes will be instituted. Please bear with me till then.]

Hawks, chickenhawks, and other birds of prey

The New Neo Posted on by

Democratic Representative John Murtha has been in the news lately, most recently in his appearance on “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert. Many have commented on his strangely disjointed and virtually unintelligible utterances during that interview (for example, see this from Jeff “I don’t speak Murtha” Goldstein, and this from Ann Althouse).

I don’t know what accounts for Murtha’s near incoherence lately. I’ll leave speculation on that to others. I want to comment instead on a phenomenon that comes up often in connection with Murtha as well as so many others: whether service in the military (or lack thereof) is a legitimate way to credit or discredit a person’s judgment on military matters.

In other words, the old hawk vs. chickenhawk argument.

“Hawk” probably isn’t the best term, however, because the hawks in question tend to be–like Murtha–former military men who are against the Iraq war, or at least many aspects of it. Perhaps they should be called “dovehawks,” instead? This is, of course, in contrast with the “chickenhawk” phenomenon–the term is always applied to those who have not served in the military but who are advocating military action of some sort of other.

Murtha himself has served in the Marines; no chickenhawk he. But military service does not a master military strategist make. Murtha has given his critics plenty of ammunition by offering up some rather spectacularly strange military suggestions in the Russert interview–for example, the idea that Zarqawi could have been (and should have been) effectively dispatched with bombers launched from, of all places, Okinawa. At Blackfive, Murtha’s military judgment in offering his “Okinawa option” seems pretty effectively demolished (please read the linked text for details).

On the subject of Murtha’s dovehawk credentials, Blackfive’s Froggy writes:

As an ex-Marine Colonel, Murtha is probably the senior military veteran in the Democratic Caucus which somehow earns him a pass on his ridiculous military proclamations.

This is the opposite of the “chickenhawk” accusation. To summarize, the chickenhawk assertion is that anyone who did not serve in our armed forces and yet advocates military action is suspect, and the hawk (or dovehawk) assertion is that anyone such as Murtha with a history of military service by definition knows what he’s talking about in military matters by virtue of that history. Both arguments are used by the antiwar left: the hawk argument to give extra credit to military men who are now antiwar, the chickenhawk argument in an attempt to invalidate the pro-war views of those who didn’t serve.

Why have these arguments become so popular lately? Part of it may be due to the relentless twenty-four hour news cycle. The need to fill airtime dictates countless interviews with retired military experts who don’t necessarily have access to up-to-date information, and were not necessarily military strategists even when they did serve. But they are considered very qualified to pass judgment on the details of military decisions in the Iraqi theater and elsewhere. So when any of these military people are antiwar (and there are so many of them that some are bound to be antiwar, just by the law of averages), it’s understandably considered a huge advantage by the left.

Another factor is a change in the demographics of the military. Ultimate control of the US military has always rested in the civilian hands of the executive branch. It was never a requirement that, in order to hold the post of Commander in Chief–the Presidency–a candidate must have served in the military, and of course some Presidents have not (most recently and notably, Bill Clinton comes to mind). Nor does the Secretary of Defense need to have actually served.

But back when the draft was still in effect, it used to be far more common for US citizens (that is, males) to have served, so opportunities for mounting the chickenhawk argument were few and far between. But with the end of the draft in the early seventies, and the start of the all-volunteer military, the number of people in public life–both pro and antiwar–who have a history of military service has gone way down, and there’s no reason to believe that it will go back up any time in the near future.

(One interesting sidelight is that now, with far greater numbers of women in Congress, they constitute a large group in government who are especially unlikely to have served in the military. And yet, strangely enough, the hawk vs. chickenhawk argument is almost never mounted towards women–although, paradoxically, woman bloggers are considered vulnerable to it. But I digress.)

The chickenhawk accusation is actually a form of ad hominem argument:

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority.

The dovehawk argument is an ad hominem argument as well, although of a different sort:

In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is sometimes known as “positive ad hominem,” or appeal to authority.

Murtha’s military experience doesn’t help his argument much if he’s not making a logical and thoughtful point; the argument must stand or fall on its own merits. Likewise, those who have not served should not be automatically discredited. But, as the above linked Wikipedia article states, ad hominem arguments are extremely tempting to mount because they feel so powerful and convincing, and are therefore very common.

All else being equal, it does make a certain amount of sense to believe that someone who has served in the military might have more knowledge of military matters, and be more inclined to make good military decisions, than one who has not. But all else is very rarely equal; arguments can and must be judged on their own merits.

That should go without saying, but it seems there’s a need to spell it out once again.

[See this video for an example of Murtha himself using the chickenhawk argument to deflect criticism from Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert.]