February 06, 2006

Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? (Updated: Warning--geeky references to methodology)

UPDATE: Rusty responds. Scroll down for my responses.
UPDATE 2: Demosophist responds to a few things, in that Italian font.
UPDATE 3: Rusty back at ya!

I started out tapping out a comment to Rusty's post on this topic, but it grew to the point that I decided to publish it as a separate essayette. Rusty graciously establishes the empirical parameters of this thesis, but I don't think they necessarily address the issue:

If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.

Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.....

If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go?

The problem with this method is that, while it's a reasonable way of testing the relationship between Islam and political freedom, that's not the research question that's being considered.

Dean's question is whether Islam is compatible with democracy, so unless Rusty is willing to propose and support the notion that all of these democratic nations are free only because of their non-Muslim population he isn't actually posing an alternative hypothesis. It's a useful analysis, but not one that's necessarily in opposition to Dean's.
----
Rusty Says: True, but Dean's post is actually one in a long series of posts. But the question of whether of not Islam is compatible with democracy is really not fair either. Why? Because stated that way then a single example is evidence since if just one Muslim country can be shown to be domocratic then Islam must be compatible with democracy. So, stated that way, it tells us nothing about Islam's impact on democracy.
-------
-------
Demosophist Says: That seems like a more useful thing to suss out, yes. Not that I know how to do it. Islam still seems like a six-fingered hand to me.
-------

That is, even if the correlation or slope turns out to be negative with respect to the % muslim that only suggests that there's muslim resistance to democracy, not that such resistance will ultimately dominate.
-------
Rusty says: Good point, but it's not fair to say that it 'only' suggests, since these same data could be interpreted otherwise.
------
In fact, such a finding of resistance would be trivial... since we can almost predict it will exist without doing the analysis. To illustrate what I'm saying, a similar empirical analysis would have supported the notion that Democracy in America was impossible in the late 1700s, since there were no other extant examples on earth where even a Schumpeterian democracy (competition between elites for public opinion supporting their "right to rule") had a foothold. The universe at the time was completely selected against democracy. The incidence was 0. However, one might have looked at some of the precursors, such as the rule of law, parliamentary forms of government, written constitutions with specifically described "negative individual rights," etc., and having seen a positive trend have decided that a breakthrough was more or less inevitable. But there were no correlates of democracy at the time, because there were no democracies. Conceptually it was Everest. Seen in this light the Founders' vision is nothing less than miraculous. That's right, miraculous.
------
Rusty says: no argument here.
-----
Plus, as a rule data suffering from selection bias tends to underestimate the effect of treatment variables, rather than overestimate those coefficients. That's because the baseline is higher so it's more difficult to get a large positive relationship for the treatment. This isn't always the case, but it's more often true than not. (For those interested in issues of arcane method see Designing Social Inquiry King, Keohane and Verba, 1994.) In this case, though, the treatment variable would not be the percentage of Muslims, but various kinds of interventions or adjustments that neutralize muslim resistance, or even turn it to an advantage. What I'm saying is that precisely because the selected sample is biased with respect to the dependent variable the effect of those independent and instrumental variables will probably be underestimated, if we limit analysis to "less than or equal to 4" on the FH scale.
----
Rusty says: No, it wouldn't. Because what you are proposing is an alternative to what I am proposing to test. You wish to operationaize "resistance" by coming up with proxies for it. I don't. In fact, the theoretical underpinnings of what I wish to test are simply about Islam, not about OTHER factors that lead to "resistance". If we can come up with an N=135 (whatever the # of nation states are nowadays) and we have two relatively cardinal number sets, than I don't see a problem (at least, no problems greater than the average study)
----
----
Demosophist Says: The only way to determine the independent impact of Islam (whether it's labelled resistance or something else) is to use some kind of counterfactual method, such as multivariate regression or case studies that "hold all else equal." In other words a regression that includes only the %muslim parameter wouldn't isolate the impact of Islam, but the opposite. It would conflate that influence with just about everthing else in the set of instrumental variables. If you omit other important variables, in other words, their influence will show up as an influence of Islam, whether it is or not. Think of it this way, if the only variable you use to analyze student test scorse is race then the influence of race will look huge because the black student population scores way below everyone else. If, however, you use a socio-economic variable then the actual contribution of race to student achievement turns out to be nil.
----
Rusty 2: Okay, now I see what you are getting at! Okay, so we enter a third variable, say, poverty. Feel free to enter more the usual variables (since I'm not a comparative guy I'm not 100% sure what all the 'usual suspects' are).
-----
Having said that, I don't have a clear idea how you'd operationalize such a question. One way to start would be to use a case study method, comparing countries that were similar in every respect except the proportion of Muslims. Then also look at countries with identical proportions of Muslims, but very divergent outcomes. You might not be able to prove the impact of Islam, but you'd at least get an idea of how to specify a regression that stood some chance of proving it.
-----
Rusty 2: Come on, this seems straightforward enough! If the data were available, like it is in the U.S., we could use some kind of devotional index. Like, mosque attendance or something like that. But, alas, you work with what you have.
-----
And finally, Ernest Gellner's analysis in Conditions of Liberty (which, after all, is what we're talking about) basically argues that there's a threshold effect that depends on the process of reformation within the Ummah, or actually on the proximate end of that process and the exponential growth of rationalization (in the Weberian sense). I'd say that what Rusty has identified as "Marxist tendancies" in Islam are actually what Weber would have called (with good reason) "traditionalist." They resist rationalization, but there's no reason to presume that such resistance will ultimately succeed any more than we could have concluded that predominantly Catholic countries in Europe would remain immune to democratic reform indefinitely. In fact, if there's a positive trend toward economic rationalization one can almost predict an eventual democratic outcome, unless everything blows up...
---
Rusty says: no, in fact I don't believe I have identified Marxist tendencies at all nor Weberian traditionalism. The Marx references were only analogies. That is, we were able to take on Marx head first without worrying about offending the Left, yet we won't take on Muhammed or Islam because somehow religious ideologies are 'off limits'.

In fact, I believe that my theory is fairly straightforward and has NOTHING to do with economic theories. I think what you are trying to argue is covered in Timur Kuran's Islam and Mammon : The Economic Predicaments of Islamism, if I am reading between the lines. Kuran, like you, seem to be making the argument that what Islam really needs is to first reconcile itself to the basic realities of the marketplace in order to modernize. It's classic Fukuyama End of History nonsense in my mind. Islam adopts modern property rights and allows for interest and voila--Muslim countries modernize and liberalize.

I just don't buy it. There is more going on in Muslim countries than a simple lack of the basic social tools needed for economic modernization. Perhaps my proposed test is simplistic, but so what? Let's start with the simple test of whether or not there is a positive correlation between Islam and authoritarianism and then move on from there.

I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I fear I'm not. Let me make myself clear: even though I do not think the probability for turning Iraq or Afghanistan into a liberal democracy with true freedom of religion, this does not mean that we should not be there. Why? Because freedom is a relative term. It is in our national interest that we help the Islamic world become more free, even if it may never be completely free.
------
------
Demosophist Says: If you aren't saying that Islam is similar to Marxism in a substantive way then I probably misunderstood you. Having said that, I think your proposed test is entirely inadequate to the task you set for it. Moreover, I just don't understand Islam well enough to suggest anything yet. You claim it's an ideology, while Pace claims that terrorists aren't religious in any conventional sense. The way I see it Qutbism is largely ideological, but it's mostly borrowed from the western counter-enlightenment traditions. (Which, ironically, makes it more "end of history" kind of crap.) How much of it is pure Islam I just can't tell, because I don't know very much about it.

I take your point about religious ideologies being "off limits" and suggest that the only way we get to the bottom of that is to learn a thing or two about Islam. But if Sufism is Islam, then I don't see much of a problem. It'd be no more problematic than Zen Buddhism would it? And probably no more help, either.
-------
Rusty 2: Me either, if Sufism was Islam, but it's not. It is a branch of Islam. It would be much easier if Muslims stopped calling themselves "Muslim" and adopted sectarianism.
------
And finally, I still think Gellner is correct that Islam is in dynamic flux... therefore most Muslims may not even know what it is with any degree of certainty. There's this whole business about "low" vs. "high" Islam, for instance... with "low Islam" being mainly a set of village rituals and superstitions that have little to do with the Koran. Apparently the whole business about iconoclasm (making images of Muhammed) doesn't come from the Koran at all, but from later writings.
-----
Rusty 2: what the average Muslim, though, thinks about Islam is no more important to understanding Islam as an ideology as what the average Marxist thought about Communism. Most Communists I know continue to think of Communism as simply a big welfare state--a way to help the poor. They fail to grasp the essential and radical nature of it. It seems to me the same is true with Islam. Most Muslims just want to follow the good parts in Islam and ignore the bad. Unfortunately, though, the bad comes with the good and the tendency in all ideologies is that once power is siezed that the more radical elements sieze power since they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.
-----
As a practical matter though, it'd be a lot more difficult to eliminate Islam than it was to marginalize Marxism. At least Marxism had some degree of an empirical claim, so once that was proved to be bunk most of the believers abandoned it. I can't see that happening with Islam, frankly. But we might force a retreat into something that looks more like Sufism, or at least a lot less like Salafism.
----
Rusty 2 (electric bugaloo): Agreed. It is much more easy to falsify an empirical claim than it is to falsify a religious one. However, look at Judaism for a moment. Excuse the blasphemy, but a whole lot of the Old Testament stuff seems just as barbaric as anything I read in the Koran. So, such reform is possible, but it could take a long, long time. It also took the destruction of Jerusalem on at least two occasions, a two meilennia long diaspora, and being a minority population virtually everywhere unable to exercise power for centuries. Personally, I dread the thought that Muslims would have to go through any of that to reach the conclusion that all that stuff in the Koran about Muslims dominating the world was just figurative, and the stuff where it says to kill the blasphemer, well, that doesn't apply any longer.
---------------
(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

No, Islam is Not Just Like Buddhism

The following is a letter I wrote to Dean Esmay last night. He gave me a challenge in this post, as his first response to my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, and I wanted to respond. I wanted to post a more coherent answer, but it will have to do in a pinch. I do have other work. Let me preface it with a funny quote Dean sent me in reply: "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I lacked the time to make it shorter." Also, the disclaimer that it's not exactly spellchecked. Sorry.

I'll respond more fully later when I'm in less of a Superbowl moment, but I think your reply is a big stretch. Seriously.

The argument for separation of Church and state is a 'core text' argument. I would also refer you to the earliest discourse on the subject, Augustine's City of God which is even more explicit. Augustine adopts the Pauline notion of secular authorities being placed in their positions by God, but he is also equally clear, as I believe the New Testament is, that these authorities are, in fact, evil. The Bible is rife with example's s of evil men doing God's work for him. And to suggest that Paul thought of the Emperor as anything less than a secular authority distinct from the congregation of believers is just silly.

Not until the adoption of a specific form of Christianity as 'universal' by the Roman Empire do we ever get the slightest hint that secular authorities are anything other than necessary evils ordained to keep a very necessary peace.

Thus, one might point out a great deal of history in which there was no seperation of Church and state, yet an apologetic was formed in order to justify what is clearly countertextual. At least, that is the general narrative as given by Reformation and post-Vatican II Christians. In other words, the vast majority of believing Protestants and Catholics say: we reject that history as a deviation
from the core-text. We were wrong.

The enslavement versus you cite are kind of out of context. I do not object to a Muslim being a shahid to Allah, or a Christian being a slave to God, it is slavery to a state in which I object to.

I just think it's lazy to equivocate religions based on nothing more than wishful thinking about what religions ought to teach, or what a minority in that religion believe. If the hadiths [ed note: sayings about the Prophet] are to be believed, which they generally are by Muslims, then Muhammed's own example of how to interpret the Koran is a very violent sunna [the way or example set by Muhammed], indeed.

One may construct an apologetic for this, which many Muslims do, in which examples of Muhammed's violence is an exception to a general rule toward's peace (or the hadith rejected as less than authentic).

But let us contrast that to Christian or Buddhist teachings which give a very clear example of non-violence, supported by the core text (and the Christian core texts of rejecting Old Testament behaviors). The problematic here is much different: how does one justify violence in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It is only through theology in the face of obvious exampled of pacifism being
evil that Christians and Buddhists were able to justify it [violence: eg, just war theory]. I would submit that Islam has had the opposite theologic problem: justifying non-violence in the case of clear examples of violence in both the
Koran and hadiths.

Also, please cite a single country in which non-Muslims are able to openly, and without fear of legal reprisals, able to try and convert Muslims? None exist. Even 'secular' countries like Turkey and 'moderate' countries like Malaysia have actual legal prohibitions against this.

And while terrorism itself is not necessarily part of the core-text (how could it be, since it has a specific modern meaning) the recipe for a kind of religious totalitarianism certainly is.

It is Muslims themselves that interpret the Koran in such a way that it leads to violence and oppression, not me. The example of the Prophet himself is what is actually cited, much less than the Koran. And the narrative about Islam that I have adopted is not my own, it is the narrative adopted by the vast majority of Muslim theologians themselves.

It is wishful thinking to suggest that our friends in the Free Muslim Movement are anything more than a tiny minority, just as it was wishful thinking to think that our Marxist friends who rejected the core of mainstream Communist doctrine were anything but on the fringe. Might they become the majority at some future date? sure, why not, but I doubt it even thought I wish for it.

Anyway, just a few thoughts in no particular order from the Koran, which, by the way, I've read several times and in several different translations:

4.91: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

What is so great about this verse is the contrast in the next differentiating between killing a fellow Muslim (or a person of the book, according to what I understand is the general understanding) and the kufir.

[4.92] And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Then there is the oft quoted (and misquoted)

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The context of the above, it is argued by more moderate Muslims is that the verse comes in the context of several others where Allah is trying to convince Muslims NOT to kill the idolators, where at other times he had given them the commandment to kill them. But then, there's this a few versus down:

[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief--surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.

I personally revile their religion, much the same way that I revile a lot of religions [in the Monty Python, South Park, Mel Brooks tradition], so am I to be slain?

Again, Allah justifies this (in the next several versus) on the grounds that 'they attacked first''. True enough, but the context is different here. The nonbelievers didn't want to 'submit' (which Islam means) and fought off Muhammed and drove him out. The believers came back and win the fight. The unbelievers (here referring to Jews) are granted protection as long as they 'pay the tax'. BUT, another implicit conditions is that the non-believer keeps his trap shut and
not criticize Islam. If they do, then they have broken the terms of the peace treaty and a state of war comes back into existence.

[9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
[9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.
[9.15] And remove the rage of their hearts; and Allah turns (mercifully) to whom He pleases, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Anyway, it all sound so barbarically Old Testament too. And yes, I would be equally critically of Judaism if they still believed in imposing the Mosaic Law and such nonsense.

Again, from a pretty straightfoward translation of the Koran (found at
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran)

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Thus, while Muslims like to claim the jizza is just tax in lieu of alms, the core text of the Koran itself is clear that the tax is 'special' and that it signifies the Muslims 'superiority' and the state of Jews and Christians in Muslim dominated areas are in a 'state of subjection'.

This is not to say that many Muslims create a theology of equality. It is only to suggest that the core text itself creates a rather big problematic for them. Especially given that the verse only applies to Christians and Jews and not polytheists. And, as someone who has flirted with the idea of being a polytheist from time to time, I find that kind of a bad thing.

Next verse:

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians
say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their
mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Okaley-dokaley. That sound SOO MUCH like the teachings of Buddha. One
might argue that the book of Revelation is pretty violent. Then again, the book of Revelation seems to have God doing all the slayings and not the followers of God.

8.38] Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[note: contrast to the equivalent of the hadiths in Christianity, which are non-cannonical tales of the early Church. Peter is persecuted: crucified upside down. Paul: crucified. etc. No hint at anything other than non-violent resistance. No talk of unifying the believers into an army and slaying those that do the persecuting]

The specific context of the next verses is physical fighting: ie, the fighting that occured during the Prophet's own life against the disbelievers.

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
[4.75] And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper.
[4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

So, I guess jihad is just an 'inner struggle'? Again, theology is amazing adaptive, but when the core text is so violent (especially given the example of Muhammed as a way to interpret the core text) it becomes easy to see why those who read it might be inspired to violence and why the theology has much working against it. The same thing, I believe, works against Christians doing violence when violence is necessary and why you have such a strong pacifistic root among fundamentalist groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses & Mennonites
(fundamentalistm being a rejection of all historical theological constructs in favor of a literal reading of the core text [and not, I would add, a perjoritive to only be used against a group, such as Conservative Christians who are rarely, I have found, fundamentalists]).

Anyway, ask and ye shall receive.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Islam

Dean Esmay has a pretty good post about whether or not Islam compatible with democracy or not. Go read it.

Also, after you have read it you should probably read my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, in which I argue that Islam is a socio-political ideology every bit as much as it is a religion. It is much like Marxism in that the core ideology itself leads is incompatible with Western liberalism.

Now, let's return to Dean's post. Unfortunately, the data he provides is a classic example of what statisticians call selection bias. That is, you use data which supports your hypothesis and then exclude data which nullifies it.

Another problem is that the data do show that Muslim nations are becoming more free. A good sign, no doubt. But becoming more free does not make one free. One might argue that China is becoming more free, or that the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was becoming less authoritarian, yet there is no doubt in my mind that Communism is somehow intertwined with the fact that freedom was so scarce. Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, Indonesia has been a terrible ally in the war on terror. See this, this, this, this, and this. They have not cracked down on radical Muslims any more than has suited their own national interests. It is in no way a liberal democracy. Freedom House is simply wrong in this respect. I would point out that it is a crime for a Christian to give a Bible to a Muslin in Indonesia. And much of the Indonesian culture itself is not tolerant in any liberal sense of the word. And is a country truly a liberal democracy if a pictureless version of Playboy is banned?

Last, he gives the example of Senegal and Mali as the only nations on earth that have a Muslim majority and which are listed by Freedom House as liberal democracies (excluding Indonesia). Given that Freedom House gets it dead wrong on Indonesia, I suspect that there may be problems with their coding of Senegal and Mali as well. But I could be wrong. I don't know enough about these countries to speak on whether or not Freedom House correctly codes them.

However, statistically speaking two examples do not a falsification make. There are always exceptions to rules. My original point was that the Left loved to use Yugoslavia as an exemple of a 'free' Communist country. Even if we were to grant them that Yugoslavia was 'free' during the Cold War, to claim that there was not a causal relationship between Communism and totalitarianism based on a single outlier is an example of poor analysis (or poor operationalizing skills).

If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.

Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.

If Dean is right, and there is no relationship between Islam and freedom, then obviously the plots should be completely randomly distributed.

If I am right, and there is a relationship between Islam and freedom, then a positively sloping line should emerge. That is to say, as the percentage of Muslims in a country goes up, the Freedom House numbers should also go up.

The third alternative, of course, is that there is a positive correlation between Islam and liberal democracy, in which case one would find a negatively sloping line.

If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go?

PS-Dean offers a spreadsheet, but since I don't know what exactly it represents, I'm not sure how to interpret those data.

Also, Dean and I are on very good personal terms. Please do not misunderstand my criticisms of his analysis as anything more than friendly. I consider Dean and Rosemary Esmay personal friends (in the blogging sense of the word) and will not tolerate any talk of Dean being a 'dhimmi' or other such nonsense.

February 01, 2006

That Fatwa Is MINE

Inspired by Rusty, who was, uh, inspired by other people.

Then again, I may have been inspired by this.

I Hope I Live to Regret This

January 13, 2006

An Appeal to Center-Right Bloggers

I received an e-mail from N.Z. Bear earlier today inviting me to be one of the original signers of a letter from center-right bloggers to the House Republican leadership. A lot of bloggers have signed on to the letter. I did not. Most of them are people I respect, so it is baffling that they signed it even though one would think they agree with my central argument. The letter is silly and meaningless. Here is my response.

You bloggers have a butttload of opinions, and you've gone and expressed another one. I don't agree with you on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

While you are not naive about lobbying, and you know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members, you are naive to think that the average American gives a rat's ass about the Abramoff scandall--or even understands it. I don't. I don't believe you do either.

You are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege, and you are right. But, what excesses? What priveleges? When a lobbyist gives money to a Congressman, the money actually goes to help him get reelected. He doesn't actually keep the money. Yeah, maybe the occasional junket. But, so what? Surely you can't be serious to think that any sizeable chunk could be taken out of the deficit if, say, more Indian tribes got legalized gaming--which is what the alleged Abramoff payolla was about. Right?

I also hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to certain reforms, including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations, but who in their right mind would call such reforms "sweeping". No, let me take that back. If a Congressman wants to take a junket from Tyson foods to Hedonism II, what business is it of mine? Let him. Have fun Congressman. Blow off some steam. It's really none of my business.

I will agree that changes need to be made to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process, but I wouldn't call such changes "major". Isn't the real culprit here the American electorate and the media? The media for not covering appropriations hearings, and the American public for not caring. In fact, the American people have become so lazy that they find it easy to believe that Congress is full of corruption, easier to blame every one in Congress, and easiest just to tune out. Personally, I won't take the lazy way out. I keep hearing about influence peddling in Congress, but the concrete examples seem much fewer and farther between than the media would like us to believe. The fact that a Congressman takes money or services from a lobbyist is not evidence of corruption or influence peddling.

As for the Republican leadership elections, I really don't give a damn if the candidate is reform oriented or not. My major concern is that the next Majority Leader has a bloodlust for terrorists, will not be shirk from calling fascism fascism when the fascists in question are a group favored by the Left, and who will make sure enough money is spent to win the war on terror. However much money it takes.

After that, I want a Majority Leader who will cut the Federal government's spending by so much that it would make Ronald Reagan blush in shame. Let's start with Social Security, work our way through Medicare, and then start hacking away at the Department of Education. When the Federal government shrinks to its Constitutionally limited functions, there will be no more need for armies of lobbyists in Washington because the teets of largess will be dry. They will have been weened.

Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Keep your transparency. I will gladly let my Congressman get away with just about anything in exchange for protecting me from the bad guys of the world and keeping his grubby paws out of my pockets. Let their paws remain in the pockets of whoever is trying to bribe them. Better their's than mine.

I hope every Congressman who is committed to winning the war on terror and getting the hell out of my life will support a candidate who doesn't give a damn what the New York Times or Chris Matthews thinks about them. And I hope all would-be members of the leadership ignore the self-righteouss members of the new media who have taken to sounding like a CBS News echo chamber.

Sincerely,
Rusty Shackleford

January 10, 2006

Professor Chaos is a Traitor (on dual citizenship)

Professor Leopold Stotch has jumped the shark and claimed Irish citizenship as is his right. After calling him a traitor, he responded to me by saying that if the U.S. and Ireland ever got into a war that he'd be the first to volunteer to push the button turning Belfast into 'The Forbidden Zone' of any number of Mad Max films.

Although I don't doubt his loyalty, I say it again: traitor. Or, if not a traitor, something really really icky.

One of the main problems with mass-immigration is that it leads to mixed loyalty. Soccer games between the U.S. and Mexico bring crowds of Mexican immigrants who root for Mexico. That's just a little example of the mixed loyalty of immigrants who fail to assimilate fully. In the conflict between the I.R.A. (allied with the Soviets) and the Brits (allied with us), pro-republican sentiments were often expressed by Irish-Americans who backed their sentiments up with aid to the terror organization.

So, how can having dual citizenship ever be a good thing?

December 02, 2005

On Propaganda in War II: Electric Bugaloo

Matt Welch has responded to those arguing for propaganda in Reason magazine here. Matt and I have exchanged several e-mails over the subject, the crux of which were "Boy, I just really wish we had the time to delve into this more deeply"--or, at least, I wish I had more time. I mean, it is Friday and I am a university professor and blogging is work.....

Nevetheless, the divide here seems to be between the neo-libertarian right--which believes liberty means something different in war time than in peace--and the paleo-libertarian right--which believes (at least under my reading) that liberty is a constant.

Here is one of the core arguments made by Matt:

Shackleford's folly, aside from the feeble unpatriotic slap, is that that formulation assumes all weapons are equally neutral in moral value and practical effectiveness, which they are not. There's a reason, aside from international treaty, we no longer use nerve gas on enemy lines, or napalm on villages, or atomic bombs on cities -- world reaction would cause more negative consequences than whatever "positive" gains could be had on the ground. And if we used horses to do a tank's job, or muskets instead of M-16s, these weapons wouldn't be an "asset," they'd be a hindrance.

Now batting for Rusty Shackleford, Steve Green the Vodkapundit:

Now then. If a nuke were to go off in New York or Los Angeles or even Des Moines tomorrow, do you doubt that even President Kerry (cough, cough) would hesitate before retaliating in kind? Oh, but that would be retaliation, wouldn't it? And would it not therefore be a fair response? And what about propaganda? It's not as if the enemy doesn't use it – so why should our government be so restrained? Especially when our stuff is pretty damn innocent? [Read the rest]

The second, and more important argument made by Matt is on the effectiveness of propaganda. Even if it is moral to use, it should not be if it does more harm than good:

Is unlabeled propaganda a useful weapon? In the long run I don't think it is. First, people will eventually find out, either from military officials alarmed at the practice, or Iraqi journalists with whatever motive. As most dictators have eventually learned, truth [ed note: emphasis mine] has a way breaking through even the tightest of seals.

And as long as we're playing with effete American League rules, why not send in two pinch-hitters for Shackleford (after all, I'm a pitcher not a catcher)? Now batting for Rusty Shackleford, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdon:

....the actual “outing” of the propaganda effort by the LAT is, ironically, the only thing that might cause the effort to backfire—but then, we murder to dissect, as they say....

Taking this parallel one step further, let me add that our use of propaganda seems to me to fit this paradigm perfectly, insofar as we have used it to beat back the anti-American rhetoric coming not only from the Arab world, but from the western press as well.

Or to put it more bluntly, this campaign was designed to retaliate not only against enemy propaganda in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, but ironically (and sadly) against our very own media, whose coverage has been almost uniformly sensationalistic and dire. [Read the rest]

UPDATE: Wunderkraut sends me a link to this nifty graphic from File It Under. Click it for a larger view and then go check out the original post here.

September 29, 2005

Tom Delay, Please Resign (UPDATED)

Tom Delay should resign from Congress. Did he do anything illegal? I've no idea. Campaign finance laws are like the tax code: so complicated as to lose all meaning to the average citizen. But whether or not Delay broke any laws is beside the point in my mind. He is the poster child for the peddling of Washington's largess to special interests.

He is the Republican version of Dan Rostenkowski. Did Rostenskowski break some minor federal laws? Perhaps, but the larger problem with the former Democratic Ways and Means Committee Chair was not that he committed 'mail fraud' but that he used his position in Congress to take my money away from me and give to his constituents, his campaign donors, and his ideological allies.

Congress is full of politicians who engage in quid pro quos with special interests. But some are worse than others. Tom Delay is one of the worst.

Is Ronnie Earle a partisan hack? That's a given. But even partisan hacks sometimes get it right, even when they are motivated by, well, partisanship. I've no idea if he's gotten it right here, but again, that is the least of my concerns.

There is a second and unrelated reason Delay should resign. Tom Delay hurts the Republican Party and helps the Democratic Party. I don't really care if Delay hurts the Republican Party. I am a big believer in the two-party system--as long as those two parties are Republicans and Libertarians. What I am not a big believer in are the statist principles at the core of Democratic philosophy and which are increasingly becoming part of Republican practice.

As long as the Democrats remain the party of bigger government as opposed to the Republicans just being the party of big government, then anything that helps them win cannot be good for the country.

The perception of corruption and ineptness in Washington by the public is uncannily familiar. I smell 1994 in the air again. The Democrats only need to come up with their own Contract With America--some coherent alternative vision based on a 'reform' agenda--and they will win back the House of Representatives.

So, Tom Delay, do us all a favor: resign. Spare us all the headache of putting a party in power who wants even more government so that it can dole out even more favors to even more special interests, campaign donors, and ideological allies. The country is in bad enough shape with you helping to run it, let's not make it any worse.

This will serve as my one and only post on the Delay scandal. The Jawa has spoken.

More Delay reaction from RINOs here at The Politburo Diktat. UPDATE: Due to heavy schedule here, I've been kind of out of it. Michelle Malkin has big roundup here. Ahhh, and check out the two last paragraphs from Captain Ed. UPDATE II: Professor Chaos, truth detector. Hawkins is right, but he needs to go go, not just go. UPDATE III: Chris Abraham, right on. Rusty Shackleford, 'bedwetting right'?? Are you kidding me?--Update: I have been assured that I was not part of the 'bedwetting right' alluded to here. Good to know.

UPDATE IV: Ok, John from Wuzzadem pretty much has the 'don't get on the indict Delay bandwagon yet because this just gives the moonbats fuel for the fire' argument summed up--sorta.

UPDATE V: Let me make myself clear:

Happy?

UPDATE VI: Willisms de-links me because I don't drink the party kool-aid at every turn, even after I try to reassert my street cred by calling on Leftists in Congress to do the same. Very unclassy. PS-had I realized you weren't on the blogroll I certainly would have added you, especially if you had asked. And, BTW, The Jawa Report is 'skinnable'. If you want a light background with dark text, simply click on the link in the upper right corner.

What I've never understood is people who put party loyalty above principle. It's the same reason I think the modern Democratic party has largely become a farce and an anti-American institution. They oppose the war because, er, they have to because, er, they're the party of opposition.

I'm not going to support Delay simply because he is the enemy of my enemy. This isn't war, no one is going to die if Delay goes down, he's not that important to my agenda--which is winning the war on terror.

There is something deeply disturbing about people who think it is their duty to be the propoganda arm of the Republican party and who think it an act of betrayal to oppose any one or anything that they are for.

I, for one, encourage reasoned disagreement. And, as always, I am open to having my mind changed if there is some angle that I haven't given enough thought to.

UPDATE VII: Let me get the two sides of the argument straight. One side, my side (now joined by Pieter Dorsman), thinks defending Delay helps the Democratic party by associating the party with perceived misdeeds. The other side, most of my readers are in this category (I'm looking in your general direction Filthy), think that if Delay goes down then the Dems come out on top and will go after the next politician they hate--thus, we must support Delay so that this doesn't happen.

Is this a fair presentation of the two sides of the argument?

UPDATE VIII: Loyal reader Marcus Aurelius disagrees.

UPDATE IX: We are officially in a blogfluffle.

UPDATE X: For John at Wuzzadem. I'm not supporting Delay's indictment. How should I know whether the charges are true or not? I just want him gone, gone, gone. It's a logical fallacy, in my mind, to equate someone resigning from office because they're pathetic scoundrals (which Delay is) and hurt the overall cause, with supporting those that wish to see him in jail. Anyway, those following the debate should probably go read John's post. But I wonder, isn't the greater pack mentality the reflexive defense of Delay because he's 'our guy' than we few who dare call for his resignation?

And for Beth, long-time blog-friend, I'd say that the Left hates Delay for a number of reasons, and that, yes, one of them is that he's effective. Mostly the effectiveness they hate him for has to do with the Texas redistricting push that he was largely responsible for. But just because they hate him for those reasons does not mean that I must also hate him for the same reasons. I hate him for the same reason Newt Gingrich hated the Democratic leadership of the 1980's--they were spendthrifts and Washington insider influence peddlers of the highest caliber. I did not support the Democrats when they drummed Newt out of Congress. Tom Delay, though, is no Newt Gingrich.

August 27, 2005

Rusty Responds to 'Fan Mail' from Dubai

Here is a letter I received from Dubai. I thought you might like to read it. Notice how the self-proclaimed not an antisemite accuses me of being a J-O-O.

Dear sir,

Ive visited your website, n i read almost everything u have there. Dont u think ur too biased?

Karim,
Yes, I am biased. This is my personal website reflecting my personal opinions. By definition, then, this site is biased.

Im an arab muslim who lives in the United Arab Emirates, in Dubai.. You
probably odnt know where that is, cause Americans are too busy to think of
the outside world normally, unless it concerns energy probllems. Dubai is one of the only 5-Star cities in the world (There are only 5 5-star cities).

I know where the UAE and Dubai is. Nice place. I believe Michael Jackson is there now. Of course, by 'nice place' I mean nice as long as you stay within specially designated zones where we infidels are allowed to act like infidels. I'm not so sure I would like the rest of your country where I could not openly practice my chosen religion of South Park Universalistic Hedonism (Missouri Synod). I am required to shout 'Allah is a Buddhist' three times a day at the top of my lungs or I will be excommunicated.

Many foreigners live here, Including European and American people, who happen to love it here.

Personally I'm more into liberty than making a buck, but I understand the allure. The beaches, from what I've seen, look pretty kick ass. Any topless ones?

Dont you think you make us all sound like people who are ready to put guns to the heads of every american and kill them ?

No, I do not. I certainly hope not, at least.

I Have numerous American and English friends who would disagree. I love my american friends, ive lived with them almost all my life, we share respect and trust, and so do our families. We do not seperate Muslims from Christians (that is one of the biggest sins in Islam by the way), we do not see things that way.

I guess you are not a good Muslim then, or at least not a traditionalist, since the Quran and Hadiths explicitly place Christians not living in second-class dhimmi status as part of dar al-harb--a seperate nation. Perhaps you are a reform minded liberal Muslim who has rejected Sharia, most of the Hadiths, most traditional interpretations of the Quran, and has decided to join the 21st Century? I hope so.

We are all peacefull people, who happen to be ill-treated by your government.

Since when has the U.S. government done anything harmful to the people of the United Arab Emirites? Oh, by 'we' you mean 'Muslims'. I thought you didn't seperate people and that was like a big sin or something?

Look at Palestine. Israelis Have been destroying the homes of familes whos sons have suicide bombed places in Israel. U might think "hey, they deserveit, let the bastards take it all, "

Yes, I do. I only wish they made bigger tractors. Hey, how do you people in the UAE treat Jews? Oh, wait, all of them were forced to leave.

But What do u think it takes a man to decide to suicide and kill himself?! Lots of guts, and desperation.

Very true. And hatred. And faith that Allah will accept him into paradise for killing Jews.

Desperation caused by Israeli Forces who kill children and familes, and let kids watch their parents rot infront of them while they surround their house.

Then perhaps the fathers should not be terrorists? That would go a long way in solving that problem.

You dont know a thing about what we fell, you just look at the Israeli perspective.. your probably a jew too, and i dont mean it as an insult.

Again with the we thing. I don't take it as one. I'm not a Jew, although I'm cut, but I would count myself in good company if I was one. Did you know that Natalee Portman is a Jew? Not that it's important, but I'd definitely convert for a pice of that. And if you don't mean it as an insult, then why make the accusation? Unless you think there is something wrong with that?

You have to open your eyes. Your people are rated the most close-minded people on earth, and yes you are.

I'm sure the people of the UAE are much more open minded. I have a Bible, a Book of Mormon, a Theravada, and a Rig-Veda sitting around the office. How about I come to your country and pass them out on the street? Since your people are so 'open-minded' let's see what kind of reaction I would get.

People dont just decide to kill themselves or bomb a building, they are "forced" to do that.

Gee, I wasn't aware of that. It must be those Jews forcing terrorists to blow up other Jews. It's always the Jews, you know.

Bin laden owns more money than any american ever will, then why did he sacrifice all that and decide to live in caves?

I think Bill Gates might take umbrage.

There must be a CAUSE.

There is. It's called taking your religion too seriously.

Something, maybe hate, causes people to give up their lives and fight for something, even if that cause maybe "wrong".

Or, maybe it is love for Allah, hope for recreating the Caliphate, and a dream of inhereting paradise? Honestly, I could care less why they do what they do. I just want them dead so others like them can't do it again.

(I am against the sep11 bombings by the way).

How very big of you. I hope that didn't cause a major moral conflict.

Any american who had that much money would probably spend it on alcohol and whores,

I know I would. The whores, that is. Once you get that much money no need to drink because those high-end whores all look good. Or so I hear.

Because you americans do not know what it feels like to suffer, and > you never will (sep11 must have given you a clue though),

And you people in Dubai suffer sooo much. I'm glad you were against 9/11, though, because one might think from that last statement that some part of you was happy 3,000 civilians were intentionally murdered.

and you do not understand the honor of fighting back, to protect your people and family.

We do, only we understand the that it is a much higher honor to fight back effectively. This means when we fight back, such as in Afghanistan, our goal is to kill the other guy. In case you hadn't noticed, that was fighting back.

Islams stresses peace more than any other religion

How do you reconcile that with the statement you just made about fighting back? Many Christian fundamentalists believe violence, even fighting back, is always wrong. They take that saying by Jesus to 'turn the other cheek' pretty seriously. Many Buddhists too, some going so far as to become vegetarians so they don't have to take any life--even animal life.

You actually believe that Islam stresses peace more than, say, Buddhism? I guess that's why the Dalai Lama and his followers are so violent in opposing Chinese occupation?

Islam stresses submission more than any other religion, I will grant. But to say it stresses peace more than any other religion is to overlook the fact that 9/10 of every violent conflict in the world today has Muslims involved in some way or another. Either Muslim on Muslim violence, as in Afghanistan or in Iraq, or Muslim on infidel violence, as in the Phillipines.

I'm afraid the empirical evidence does not support your claim.

yet what do you know, youve close your mind already.

Again with the closed minded thing. Give me evidence that Islam is peaceful. I want to see it. You make a claim, now back it.

Unfortunately, your education system has taught you a lie about the history of Islam. Islam has bloody roots that go right back to Muhammed's conquest of Mecca. Both Jesus and the Buddha were strong advocates of non-violence, can the same be said of Muhammed? No.

While it is true that the Caliphate was at one time much more civilized and peaceful than the Western European countries, that time has gone and past long-long ago. Further, the 'peace' offered by Muslims to their conquered people was always the peace of submission. Contrary to Islamic propaganda, Christians were never allowed to worship as they wished under Islamic rule. One of the key components of Christianity, just like in Islam, is the Christians are under the obligation to try to convert the non-believer--something forbidden under your religious law.

If Islam is so 'peaceful' and if it is so self-evidently correct, then why would Muslims be afraid to let religious ideas compete? Why has your religion historically forbidden, under penalty of death, a Muslim from leaving the faith? Christianity abandoned this practice centuries ago. Buddhism never had such a practice.

The peace offered by Muhammed is the peace enjoyed by the slave. As long as he is obedient to his master, he has nothing to fear.

Goodluck in continuing your work of making americans even stupidier.

Karim.

That would be 'more stupid'. Thank you for your letter Karim. I needed a good laugh.

--
Dr. Rusty Shackleford
www.mypetjawa.mu.nu

August 13, 2005

The REAL Iraq - al Qada link

Did the 9/11 Commission Report leave out mention of Iraqi agents arrested in Germany that could link Mohammed Atta's Hamburg cell of al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein's regime?

Captain Ed had made this speculation earlier here, not claiming that such a link existed but only that this needs further investigation.

I replied in this earlier post that maybe this should be looked into, but that the speculation that such ties could exist were unwarrented by the facts.

He in turn put up another post on the subject, this time wondering whether or not the evidence for Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague ought to be looked at again.

Captain Ed and I have been going back and forth on this both in the comments section here and through e-mail. The gist of what Ed was saying was that in light of the Able Danger revelations, it is possible that the 9/11 Commission was predisposed to leave out certain bits of evidence that would run contrary to their findings. It is a good observation, one that I would agree with, but on the grounds that that is just par for the course in any type of research that has to sift through tons of data points.

Another valid point he makes is that his earlier post simply calls for an investigation into what the Iraqi agents were doing in Germany--with a bit of speculation thrown in their to boot. Fine by me. The 9/11 Commission Report is a flawed document just like all other government reports. It is not the final word on 9/11 and those that treat it as such fail to grasp the enormity of the task the Commission had under time constraints. I suspect the next twenty years will produce countless dissertations on the subject by Ph.D. candidates, each one contributing a new piece of information to the overall story of the attrocities that took place on that day.

One of the points that I made to Ed in an e-mail was regarding the validity of his source and his interpretation of the story. My objection was simply that an English synopsis of an Arabic newspaper in Germany may not be the most reliable source. Especially when that source claims the CIA was brought to Germany--something that I am sure they could not have known. My experience with Arabic papers is that any person wearing a business suit and working for the U.S. in any peripheral capacity can be accused of being a 'CIA Agent'.

Ed took up the challenge, and lo and behold, one of his army of readers was able to produce a corraborating account. So, according to MSM reports at the time, we have two Iraqi spies caught in Germany. The non-Arabic sources also mention nothing about the CIA or FBI getting involved and also nothing about a plot for Iraq to involve itself with fundamentalist Islamic terror groups to strike at US interests.

Ed is right that it would be nice to know what those Iraqi spies were doing in Germany. I second the motion. I'm not sure that such knowlege would have improved the 9/11 Report in any fundamental way, but it might have.

To imagine, though, that the fact that there were Iraqi agents in Germany somehow may be the missing link connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 is grasping at straws, in my opinion. Many of us on the right would like to believe that such a connection existed because we believe that that would somehow bolster support for the war. But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the war we are fighting in Iraq now is a different war than the one we fought to overthrow the Hussein regime. It is not simply another phase of the same conflict, it is a different war. We are fighting different people and we now have different goals. In the invasion of Iraq we had the goal of toppling a hostile government that we had been at war with for a decade. Now, we are fighting Islamist jihadis engaged in a struggle to build a Taliban-like state in the vacuum created by the fall of the Baathists.

The second conflict is directly connected to 9/11. We do not need to look to a German Iraq-al Qaeda connection to see this, we simply need to look at the facts as they exist on the ground right now.

What is the name the jihadis have taken on themselves in Iraq? Al Qaeda. Who have they pledged their allegiance to? Osama bin Laden. The three main insurgent groups in Iraq (al Qaeda, The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, and The Islamic Army in Iraq) all share the same general political philosophy as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. All are part of the network of global jihad. They are our enemies and it they who we are fighting in Iraq today.

We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, today. Unfortunately, many in the MSM do not understand the nature of the enemy in Iraq. To concede Iraq to these terrorist forces would be to create a nation state parrhia just like Afghanistan. Iraq would become the next place where large-scale jihadi training camps would operate openly.

We do not need to rewrite history to create a link between Iraq and 9/11. But if we wish to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again, we must begin by making sure Iraq does not fall to the hands of al Qaeda terrorists who would love nothing more than to create another safe haven from which they could operate.

August 12, 2005

No, Iraq Had Nothing to do with 9/11 (Updated)

Scroll to end of post for update.

Is the 9/11 Report flawed? Yes. But that does not mean there was a conspiracy to keep information out of the report. It is the inherent nature of government reports, all government reports, to be flawed. If you don't want a flawed government report then you should not ask the government to report on anything.

Do the Able Danger revelations impeach the entire 9/11 Report so that nothing in the report should be believed? No. Of course not. It would be silly to have ever imagined that the report represented reality unbiased and unfiltered.

The 9/11 Report represents a consensus view on intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attrocities. Consensus views, by their very nature, are never complete and are never 100% accurate. They can't be. But the alternative to producing a consensus view is producing competing reports, each with their own set of biases, each with a different set of assumptions, and each with a different focus and emphasis.

So, when Captain Ed began speculating that there may actually have been operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, I was a bit taken aback. If I read him correctly, his reasoning is:

a) the CIA once believed there was an operational tie between Iraq and al Qaeda

b) the 9/11 Report disavows the notion that Iraq helped plan 9/11

c) because the 9/11 Report did not include the Able Danger information, allegedly because the information did not fit in with the Commission's pre-conceived notions, the 9/11 Report cannot be trusted

d) the Iraq-9/11 connection also did not fit in with that pre-conceived notion

e) therefore Iraq may have actually helped plan, in some way, 9/11, and the Commission may have intentionally left out evidence to the contrary in their final report

Here is what Ed basis his speculation--and to his credit, it is only speculation at this point--from a newspaper report that pre-dates 9/11 by six months:

Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.

But the fact that the CIA once thought that Iraq was helping al Qaeda does not mean that Iraq, in fact, was actually helping al Qaeda. And the fact that Iraqi agents were somewhere in Germany at the same time as the Hamburg cell was there does little to help that claim--speculation, even though it is.

The 9/11 Report also explicitly states that there were links between al Qaeda and Iraq. It doesn't try to cover them up. It just doesn't claim that Iraq actually helped al Qaeda plan 9/11. Those early ties can be found on pg. 61 of the Report (see also footnotes 53-55). The ties between the two began as early as 1994. Those contacts continued off and on throughout the 1990s. The report then goes on to state, on pg. 66, that although there were meetings between al Qaeda leaders and Iraqi officials, there is no evidence to suggest that Iraq cooperated in planning the 9/11 attacks. (see also footnote 75).

Indeed, the Report does note on pg. 128 that both Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke--both the center of speculation as to who it may have been who refused to pass the Able Danger information on to the FBI--both once believed that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together in developing WMD and facilitating Sudanese production of chemical weapons. Of course, we now know that the CIA, Berger, and Clarke were wrong about the Shifa plant. We ended up bombing a factory wrongly identified as being a chemical weapons plant based on faulty intelligence.

Intelligence, as it turns out, is a messy business and is often way off the mark.

What's really interesting about the conversation Berger had with Clarke on pg. 128, is the fact that Berger believed there was an Iraq - al Qaeda WMD connection. I guess the Haliburton-Zionist-Neocon conspiracy goes all the way back to the Clinton administration, eh?

In fact, on pg. 134 we have an account of Berger urging President Clinton to bomb al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan but Clarke opposed this because he believed bin Laden might escape, take refuge, and be at the bidding of Saddam Hussein. Leftists moonbats are invited to read the account and then ponder the depths of the conspiracy ;-)

These facts really ought to be brought up next time your Chomsky reading friend tries to bring up Bush's order to Ramsey Clarke to find out if Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 on Sept. 12th (pg. 334) as evidence that Bush has always been out to invade Iraq, and just used 9/11 as justification.

The fact that it was believed at the highest levels of theh Clinton administration that Iraq was operationally involved with al Qaeda goes a long way in explaining why the CIA was so concerned about Iraqi intelligence officers found in Germany. They were right to suspect that Iraq was up to no good. Iraq was up to no good wherever they went.

More plausible speculative explanation as to why the Iraqis were in Germany might begin to be built on the Oil for Food Scandal, Iraqi efforts to undermine the sanctions regime (especially in a country such as Germany where Left-wing anti-sanctions activism was high), or in any other number of scenarios that we could imagine. Iraqis spies in Germany!?!? That's not exactly what I would call a shocking revelation.

In any event, why would the Commission discuss the alleged Atta meeting with Iraqi agents in Prague (pg. 228)--even going so far as to state the obvious that we cannot disprove that Atta was in Prague (pg. 229--and yet leave out intelligence information linking the Hamburg cell with Iraqi agents? Atta had returned to Germany in January of 2001 so it is possible that the Iraqi agents had been in country for that long and met with Atta, but anything is possible. It is possible that hundreds of Iraqi agents were in Germany that we just don't know about. The real question really should be is it probable that Iraq would somehow involve itself in planning an act as huge as 9/11 against the US? Not so much in my estimation.

The fact that the CIA, other foreign intelligence agencies, and high-ranking members of the Clinton and Bush Administration once believed that there were serious operational ties between Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda network does not mean that those beliefs were true. It is understandable, given the tidbits of information and the state of war that existed between the U.S. and Iraq (and al Qaeda, even though we were not generally aware we were at war with the Islamofascist group), that many would believed at one time that Iraq must have had something to with 9/11. To not investigate if such an operational link existed would have been dereliction of duty with the understanding that we had then.

But the limited understanding of the links between al Qaeda and Iraq that we had a few years ago have been somewhat clarified by time. It appears that al Qaeda was willing to make a truce with Iraq, and vice-versa. Such truces would be generally in character for other al Qaeda offers to come to a truce with Western countries that would pull their troops out of Islamic lands. These truces have been offered since long before 9/11 to Western powers to evacuate so that the Mujahidin could begin the important task of ridding Islamic countries of 'apostate regimes' and building the foundations of the future Calipahte.

But coming to a truce with Iraq is quite different than collaborating with Iraq.

Call it a preconceived notion, but I will need to see much more than what Captain Ed offers to change my mind to even begin speculating such and that the 9/11 Commission left such evidence out of the final report. A lot more.

UPDATE on Blog reactions:

I would remind Papadoc, at Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill, that Able Danger reports do not mean that somebody knew that 9/11 was coming down the pipe and that there is no reason to believe that the Bush Administration knew about Able Danger. Yes, governments are that big and, yes, governments are that compartmentalized.

I would also caution A Strata--and this caution is for the entire right side of the blogosphere-- that there did not need to be any one on the Commission who deliberately tried to silence the Able Danger information. Again, that's just the way govenment commissions are. They are messy affairs with tons of information. Some one screwed the pooch, yes.

The big story, in my mind, is not who in the 9/11 Commission chose not to include the Able Danger information. That is a little story.

The big story is who in the Clinton Administration decided to follow policy rather than doing the right thing and passing Atta's name from the DOD to the FBI? That is the story about how a bureaucrat could have inadvertently prevented 9/11, but chose instead to follow procedure.

Rick Moran, of Right Wing Nuthouse, is right that if Captain Ed's speculations turned out to be anything more than idle speculation based on almost no evidence--something I have done myself a time or three in the past, so I'm not saying blogs aren't an appropriate forum for spuculation of this sort (I'm always reminding my colleagues that this isn't a peer reviewed journal)---it would be quite the rejoinder to criticisms of the Iraq war. I highly, highly, highly doubt that though. Then again, I have been wrong in the past and expect to be wrong at some time in the fuutre.

Ace is, well, Ace is Ace.

And here's a free ping that has nothing to do with the above post to Basil, since I know he and Phin are both away in Vegas with far too few singles....

-----

UPDATE 8/13/05: Captain Ed and I have been going back and forth on this both in the comments section here and through e-mail. The jist of what Ed was saying was that in light of the Able Danger revelations, it is possible that the 9/11 Commission was predisposed to leave out certain bits of evidence that would run contrary to their findings. It is a good observation, one that I would agree with, but on the grounds that that is just par for the course in any type of research that has to sift through tons of data points.

Another valid point he makes is that his earlier post simply calls for an investigation into what the Iraqi agents were doing in Germany--with a bit of speculation thrown in their to boot. Fine by me. The 9/11 Commission Report is a flawed document just like all other government reports. It is not the final word on 9/11 and those that treat it as such fail to grasp the enormity of the task the Commission had under time constraints. I suspect the next twenty years will produce countless dissertations on the subject by Ph.D. candidates, each one contributing a new piece of information to the overall story of the attrocities that took place on that day.

One of the points that I made to Ed in an e-mail was regarding the validity of his source and his interpretation of the story. My objection was simply that an English synopsis of an Arabic newspaper in Germany may not be the most reliable source. Especially when that source claims the CIA was brought to Germany--something that I am sure they could not have known. My experience with Arabic papers is that any person wearing a business suit and working for the U.S. in any peripheral capacity can be accused of being a 'CIA Agent'.

Ed took up the challenge, and lo and behold, one of his army of readers was able to produce a corraborating account. So, according to MSM reports at the time, we have two Iraqi spies caught in Germany. The non-Arabic sources also mention nothing about the CIA or FBI getting involved and also nothing about a plot for Iraq to involve itself with fundamentalist Islamic terror groups to strike at US interests.

Ed is right that it would be nice to know what those Iraqi spies were doing in Germany. I second the motion. I'm not sure that such knowlege would have improved the 9/11 Report in any fundamental way, but it might have.

To imagine, though, that the fact that there were Iraqi agents in Germany somehow may be the missing link connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 is grasping at straws, in my opinion. Many of us on the right would like to believe that such a connection existed because we believe that that would somehow bolster support for the war. But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the war we are fighting in Iraq now is a different war than the one we fought to overthrow the Hussein regime. It is not simply another phase of the same conflict, it is a different war. We are fighting different people and we now have different goals. In the invasion of Iraq we had the goal of toppling a hostile government that we had been at war with for a decade. Now, we are fighting Islamist jihadis engaged in a struggle to build a Taliban-like state in the vacuum created by the fall of the Baathists.

The second conflict is directly connected to 9/11. We do not need to look to a German Iraq-al Qaeda connection to see this, we simply need to look at the facts as they exist on the ground right now.

What is the name the jihadis have taken on themselves in Iraq? Al Qaeda. Who have they pledged their allegiance to? Osama bin Laden. The three main insurgent groups in Iraq (al Qaeda, Jaish Ansar al-Sunnah, and The Islamic Army in Iraq) all share the same general political philosophy as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. All are part of the network of global jihad. They are our enemies and it they who we are fighting in Iraq today.

August 11, 2005

The Libertarian Case for Drug Control

Bet that headline got your attention. All right, my last long, long word on this for a while and we can go back to posting on GWOT stuff. Rusty, thanks for your indulgence.

You can't be a libertarian and support tyranny, nor can you support slavery. If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other. A slave, or a subject, may have his own will, but he is not free to exercise it except insofar as it comports with his master's.

Likewise an addict may have a reason most of the time, and a complex inner life, but he is in the end a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction. The worst cases--and you can spare me the accounts of the white collar friends of yours who appear to sail through life without a care snorting and shooting up everything in the Harrison Act--I said the worst cases, and there are far too many of them--will kill and rob and mortgage their house and blow the baby's college fund and sell their bodies to satisfy their masters. An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide.

(As an aside, some people in the trackbacks or comments to this discussion have argued that we should nationalize the distribution of narcotics, so addicts would no longer be enslaved to criminals. But then they are still enslaved to and utterly dependent on the government, and that, my friends, is still tyranny.)

That's not just me talking. That idea was the impetus for the anti-opium movement back in the 19th century, before the progressive-era doctrines of government improving human nature controlled the discourse. When you free someone from a monkey on his back, you liberate him just as surely as if you'd shattered his chains with a chisel.

Liberty is the province of reasonable men. Someone who is insane or severely mentally handicapped is not afforded the same degree of liberty as everyone else. Their reason isn't sufficiently unencumbered. Children, likewise, can't buy guns and drive cars. They're not up to it. The self control, the planning and maturity, just aren't there. We do this not just out of compassion for the children who might wreck their cars or shoot someone accidentally. We do it because a world where all the children are armed and the mental defectives run the government just isn't livable for anyone. And likewise for drug addicts. Our government is designed to be run by reasonable men, not by a cadre of stoners and tweakers and junkies. Everyone's liberty is at risk in such a regime.

Now I expect you'll begin to pick apart what I said by pointing to alcohol. You'll say alcohol is worse than pot, therefore we should legalize the weed. I don't concede that point at all, but let's say for a second you're right. Let's say legalized alcohol creates much more of a societal problem than does legalized cheeba. In fact we'll quantify it: Legalized alcohol costs us X units of societal headache, and legalized hoochie weed costs us only X-1. If we're rational and our preferences are transitive, shouldn't we free the herb if we're willing to accept the consequences of legal booze?

Let me answer that distinction by telling you a story about my car, below.

When we bought our car we had a choice to make. We could get a sun roof or a CD player. The sun roof was more expensive than the CD player. I wanted the CD player, my wife wanted the sun roof. So we, um, compromised, and got the sun roof.

You could argue that, geez, See-Dubya, if y'all were willing to spring for the more expensive sun roof (X), you should also have been willing to pay the lesser amount for the CD player (X-1).

But no; then we would have needed to pay 2X-1 instead of just X. And that's almost twice as much! We could maybe have swung that, but it would have been tight. In other words, we made a prudential calculation, based on our finite resources. It's not just a matter of transitive preferences, it's a matter of compounding costs.

Back to the dope. It's not a good argument to say "booze is worse than dope, therefore we should legalize dope." That way we bear the costs of both. Unless you're saying that we should prohibit booze and legalize dope, trading x for x-1, (assuming it's just that simple) and I don't think anyone is really saying that again.

Oh, but I'm not done yet. I'm being logically inconsistent here. If I were consistent I really ought to prefer incurring a cost of X-1 to X. Therefore our drug priorities, just like my wife wanting that sunroof, are logically inconsistent.

To which I say, so the f--- what?

We live in a Republic, homey. We do not live in a tyranny of logic, where egghead sophisters, calculators, and oeconomists decide how we will allocate every resource. The whole French Revolution--and other totalitarian ideologies since then-- centered around subverting life to reason in every aspect, ironing out any inconsistencies and making everything intellectually elegant. (Substitute "The Quran" for "Reason" and you have Islamofascism as well.)Instead, questions of policy are put up to a vote and we work out a messy, often illogical, always imperfect, series of compromises and prudential agreements. Our laws and standards are organic and grow out of traditions, suspicions, instincts, religions, aesthetics, and all kinds of weird things, and the good ones stick around. That's popular government. We're free to take the X instead of X-1.

You can't ban it all, of coursse, nor do we really want to. We can pick and choose among addictive substances--coffee and tobacco and liquor we'll allow, ritalin and percodan we'll allow for medical use but regulate pretty tightly, pot and heroin and meth, nope. Wouldn't-be-prudent. Not worth it. We'll tolerate a little drunkenness and alcoholism, a little edginess from caffeine, lung cancer and stained teeth from tobacco, but not the burned-out stoner or the psychotic meth nut. Just like the sun roof, that's the package of costs we're willing to incur and enforce. But just because we're willing to tolerate that much addiction, hallucination, and drug-induced unreasonableness , doesn't mean that we ought to tolerate more.

UPDATE: Don't forget to read the earlier discussion which inspired this post.

See-Dub's Legalize Crank, says NYT columnist

And Rusty's post which argues the libertarian position against for the legalization of drugs Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War.

August 10, 2005

Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War

Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one.

The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized.

The Rightists I know and admire tend to over-exaggerate the consequences of drug use. Drugs are not only not bad, they are really really bad.

The Leftists I know seem to be a mixed bag on this. Some of them mimmicking the Libertarian position, others of them mimmicking the Rightist position. Only, instead of spending my money on jail cells for stupid drug users they want to spend my money on rehab for stupid drug users. And on needles. And on publicly funded medical marijuana. And on rehab, again.....

The worst arguments I hear are the back and forth medical statistics. This drug is less risky than tobacco. Users of that drug may experience sudden heart failure. Blah blah blah.

Let me tell you where I stand. Drugs are bad, mmmkay. The biggest problem with drugs are not their long-term effects, but their near term effects. That is, people do things under the influence of drugs that they normally wouldn't do. I have a problem with that.

But, just because drugs are bad does not mean that they should be illegal. Stupid things that harm others ought to be illegal, not stupid things that harm yourself. And if the worst bads associated with drugs are when you do stupid things to others, then, well, we already have laws to cover those.

DUI, child abuse, etc.--all presently illegal, and rightly so.

The most common bads associated with drug use are not illegal nor should they be. Work absenteeism, poor relationship skills, and the most common one--stupid judgement in sexual relations--are all rightfully legal.

Oh, man, I was so wasted that I totally don't remember what happened with that chick from the rave last night.....

If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem.

If you get AIDS because you're a geek and playing catcher is the only way you can afford your next hit, I'm sorry, really really sorry, but how is that my or the government's problem.

Yeah, call me heartless. Life is a bitch. And so is personal responsibility.

Drug use is bad. The only thing worse than letting people take drugs, that I can think of, is forcing people to do the right thing and not take drugs.

A slave is not good or bad because his actions are not his choice. People can only be moral when they choose to do the right thing, and a system of government that forces people to be good ceases to be the serveant of the people and instead becomes their master.

I am for the legalization of drugs not because I am for drug use, but because I am for moral government.

-------------

Bsure to read fellow Jawa author See-Dub's rejoinder to Rusty Shackleford in his post The Libertarian Case for Drug Control

--------------

Originally, I was going to let this post by See Dub who is a welcome addition here at My Pet Jawa, pass. As Ace says in his post, "But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?

We had argued this one before, if you don't recall. I understand his sentiment and admire where he is coming from. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

See Dub links to this rant by Jeff at The Shape of Days. A+ rant. I agree that drugs are bad. Really bad. I would use most of those same 'sailor words' if I was talking to a loved one who was on, say, Meth. And if it were my kids, I might just 'drag them out into the streets and beat some sense into them'. That's a figure of speach, by the way. I just don't believe it is the moral responsibility of the taxpayer to intervene in my family's affairs.

But the real reason I chose to sit down with this one is that Ace, Bill from INDC and Jeff Goldstein link See Dubs post. I admire Ace, Bill and Jeff, and understand that we share much of the same audience so I just wanted to clarify to readers that Rusty's opinion of the drug war is different than See Dubs.
-------
UPDATE: Check the links below for further debate. Thanks to The Unabrewer, who I do admire, for this:

Libertarian attitude = Glenn Reynolds
Libertine attitude = Andrew Sullivan

The truth is, though, that if you ever get together with a bunch of Libertarians--I mean, the kind that actually belong to the party or are part of the larger libertarian think tank network--these guys invariably give the libertine argument for legalization rather than the libertarian one. I actually almost ran for Congress as a Libertarian. When I called the state chair he was so excited to know that there was some one else in the state interested in 'the Libertarian lifestyle'.

Libertarian lifestyle? I'm afraid that many who don't take political philosophy seriously, decide therr political ideology based on something like the following:

I like drugs, but not guns: I'm a Democrat.
I like drugs and guns: I'm a Libertarian.
I don't like drugs, but I like guns: I'm a Republican.

I know that's sad, but my experience has been that it is largely true.

Another Update: Welcome Instapundit reader. Thanks to Michael Totten sitting in at the Puppy Blender for the link. [super-secret-insider note to Totten: We're even steven man. But, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, MORE HOT PROTEST BABES PLEASE! ]

August 09, 2005

Legalize Crank, says NYT columnist.

My head just exploded.

I was joking about this here a while back. But John Tierney at the New York Times is serious.

Jeff Harrell is pretty hacked off, too. Don't go here if you mind the sailor-talk.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman, who actually studies this stuff, has more fact-filled (though less rhetorically satisfying) thrashing of Tierney's folly.

UPDATE II: Rusty responds in Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War

August 06, 2005

Eleanor Clift & Washington Press Corp Swoon Over Markos Zuniga

Is it just me, or is Eleanor Clift retarded? So let me get this straight: every single candidate that Markos 'Screw Them' Zuniga raises money for, including Paul Hackett, has lost, yet Eleanor Clift thinks that Kos is somehow an effective Democratic strategist?

Ok, maybe she's not retarded, but at a minimum she is the poster child of the partisan Washington media. Note in this Newsweek article, written by Clift, that the Washington Post sent no less than three reporters to swoon over Kos at a left-wing blogger forum (hat tip: Meme Random). That's right, three reporters! And to cover what? The fact that Kos endorsed a candidate that almost won in an off-year low-turnout election? The last time I checked, almost didn't count in politics. Hand grenades and horse-shoes, yes. Politics, no.

Here's how Clift describes serial loser Kos:

Leading the charge was Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive Daily Kos, which attracts hundreds of thousands of daily visits and is considered one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. For Democrats desperate to find their way back to a winning coalition, Moulitsas, 33, has emerged as one of the most creative thinkers and activists in the progressive ranks. The Post team, along with reporters from other national publications and scores of political operatives, had come to get a glimpse of the future.

Moulitsas is opposed to the Iraq war but says that isn’t what drew him to Hackett.

“It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine … We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.”

I get the feeling it took every ounce of self-restraint Eleanor had to keep herself from throwing her panties on to the stage at Markos.

The boyishly slight Moulitsas responded with an engaging smile, saying that he wished he could claim he was a grand visionary and that his blog was part of a master plan to take over the world. He had no idea it would take off the way it has. It was his way of dealing with the angst he felt as an Army veteran who opposed the Iraq war at a time when any disagreement with President Bush was thought to be almost treasonous. Moulitsas is no stranger to war. He had spent part of his youth in El Salvador, his mother’s native land, during that country’s brutal civil war. Back home in Chicago, he enlisted in the Army at age 17 and spent two and a half years with an artillery unit in Germany. After college and law school, he ended up designing Web pages in San Francisco. He supported the bombing in Afghanistan but was so viscerally opposed to the invasion of Iraq that he was driving his wife and boss and cubicle mate crazy, he recalls. “It was either start a blog and just vent or lose my entire social circle,” he said. Pretty soon he had 100 online visitors, more than he could accommodate in his house, he remembers thinking. When he hit 1,000, he thought to himself, “I’m done,” but he kept going--and now he’s Moses leading Democrats to the promised land.

Hell, Benedict Arnold was a national hero. He was just 'anti-war' not 'anti-American'. He just wanted the war to end so that American soldiers could go back to their farms and not die for the neo-con vision of an American empire. Hell, George Washington didn't even supply his troops with enough shoes to last the winter. And that chickenhawk Thomas Jefferson didn't even volunteer his own sons for the war!

Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nuthouse notes that on the Markos has a reality quotient of 0.4. But who's more out of touch with reality: Kos or the left-wing Washington press corps fawning over him?

Others: Talk Left thinks the article is inspiring. Me too. I'm inspired to go out and buy a Tom Jones album.

MyDD plays down Kos role. Aw shucks, don't give me credit for Hacket losing.

Iowa Voice--right on the money. Bill Quick, too.

July 29, 2005

Anarchy Blogging: Jawas Reveal High School Cliques

Punk's not dead, oh no! Hat tip Professor Chaos. Any other Jawa authors should feel free to post their results here. I have a feeling we're a regular Breakfast Club of bloggers.

More below the fold.

Mad Dog Vinnie reveals why, oh why, he was accepted as a guest blogger:

July 21, 2005

Jawa on Hugh Hewitt

Just in case you were listening, yes, that was me on Hugh Hewitt this afternoon. And, yes, I think their is a strong case to be made that pointing nuclear weapons at Mecca would be a rational deterrent to the forces of Islam using WMD against the United States. I made that point last year here and here.

July 05, 2005

Kos = Osama bin Laden

So I learn from Charles Johnson, who must have some sort of masochistic tendencies because he spends so much time reading Kos, that the asshole himself decides to compare the religious-right with the Taliban. This in response to Iowahawk's little funny here and Ted Rall's screed in which he calls Ward Churchill a patriot (he must mean patriotism in the same way that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were patriots). Idiotic on a scale I haven't seen since 8th grade debate. Hitler was a vegetarian, you are a vegetarian, therefore you're a lot like Hitler! Nice. Anyway, most of the lunatics on the Left who believe this stuff have must be slippery slope retarded, equating, for instance the religious-right's school voucher dreams to the madrassas run by the Taliban.

In the spirit of Kos' logic, I present to you the reasons why Kos and his Leftist friends have more in common with the enemy than they think.

Religious Practice
Al Qaida/Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
Kos Leftist Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
The Right: Religion can be practiced anywhere, including public spaces

Religious Freedom
Al Qaida/Taliban: Forbidden in Koran
Kos Leftist Taliban: Forbidden in Constitution
The Right: Inherent part of Christianity

Church State Relations
Al Qaida/Taliban: The religion of the State is Islam
Kos Leftist Taliban: The religion of the State is Atheism
The Right: no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Equal Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Different punishments depending on sex
Kos Leftist Taliban: Different punishments depending on race
The Right: Equality before the law

Freedom of Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: No
Kos Leftist Taliban: Ok, as long as you, you know, don't offend anybody.
The Right: Ok, as long as you don't incite to violence or criminal acts

Terrorist States
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good
Kos Leftist Taliban: Not any worse than U.S.
The Right: The enemy

Terrorists
Al Qaida/Taliban: Freedom fighters for Allah and against Imperialism
Kos Leftist Taliban: Freedom fighters against U.S. Imperialism
The Right: The enemy

Religious Law
Al Qaida/Taliban: Koran and Sharia only source of law
Kos Leftist Taliban: Religious law is ok in other countries because it's their culture
The Right: Secular governments for all countries

Human Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct
Kos Leftist Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct and only applicable to Western countries
The Right: Human rights are universal

Blame America
Al Qaida/Taliban: Blame America first
Kos Leftist Taliban: Blame America first, ask questions later
The Right: Give America benefit of doubt

Versions of Events
Al Qaida/Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
Kos Leftist Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
The Right: When facts are in dispute, believe U.S. soldier's version

Torture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good if we do it, bad if you do it
Kos Leftist Taliban: Bad if we do it--because we're the only ones that do it--oh, and every time you feel uncomfortable that's torture.
The Right: Bad, but most of what passes as torture is not actual torture.

One World Government
Al Qaida/Taliban: Support a one world government (caliphate)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Support one world government (UN)
The Right: Supports present nation-state system of sovereignty

Child Molestation
Al Qaida/Taliban: Ok, just marry her first (Aisha)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Hey, kids are sexual beings too
The Right: Immoral and disgusting

I guess two can play at this game, eh? Any other suggestions?

Update Pundit Mark ads

Religious Symbols:
Al Qaida/Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed (i.e. those Buddist statues in Afghanistan)
Kos Leftist Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed and defaced, preferably with public funds.
The Right: All religious symbols are OK, even if displayed on public property like a park or courthouse.

Related from Ace.

June 24, 2005

See-Dubya: Organized Crime behind SF "Medical" Marijuana (UPDATED)

Seems San Francisco's "medical" marijuana clubs (hey, if everyone puts "War on Drugs" in smartass quotes then I can do it too) were actually just illegal drug clearing houses and money-laundering schemes for the Asian mob. The DEA busted three of them and found they were also distributing, um, "medical" ecstasy.

I'm flabbergasted. Speechless, really. You mean to tell me that this wasn't just a virtuous, earnest effort to reach out to troubled, anguished souls?

"An affidavit unsealed Thursday said that one of the suspects, Enrique Chan, 26, described in detail how the clubs were used as "a backbone" for illegal sales. The affidavit said Mr. Chan estimated that only half of the people who bought medical marijuana were really sick.

"You'll get busted, but you remember, you got to beat the prosecution in court," Mr. Chan told an undercover agent, according to the affidavit. "So if it comes down to a battle in court, what are you gonna do? You're going to bring patients in court, like really sick patients with cancer, have them sit on the stand for you. And no jury is gonna try, is gonna convict you."

In other words, organized crime is cynically going to hide behind cancer patients to protect its business. Not only was half of the marijuana used in the stores not for sick people, but the warehouses that grew the stores' ganja grew far more than the stores even needed:

"One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said.

The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said.

I am just shocked and appalled at this blatant disruption of these kindly hippie/ Tong bagmen's shiny, happy lifestyles. In fact I'm so shocked and appalled that I'm going to go have me a big glass of "medical" bourbon and smoke a "therapeutic" Partagas.

UPDATE: Now, with new Blockquotes (tm) Technology! Here's another thing to keep in mind. There's no suggestion here of how many of these people actually suffer from, say, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and are unresponsive to other treatments like marinol, which I think are the real hard cases here. In fact, this AP account suggests some of the ailments may be a smidge less horrific:

"I'm scared," said Kathleen Prevost, who said she uses marijuana to control her post-traumatic stress disorder. "All I want to do is have access to my medicine."

Now if you'll excuse me, my ADHD is acting up, and I need some "Medical Cocaine". Oh, and that reminds me: I wrote a little about medical methamphetamine and the Commerce Clause right after the Raich decision.

June 23, 2005

See-Dubya: Hezbollah--Drugs for Bombs (BIGGER, LONGER, UNCUT!)

Sometimes when I discuss my odd--for the blogosphere--opinions about drug legalization with people (I'm against it), I get told, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental economics."

For today, I'll save my several retorts to that in favor of an observation. Did you notice that no one ever says, on this issue or any other, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental sociology"? Why is that?

Anyway, this is just a prelude to a link to Captain Ed's spot on comments on that Hezbollah cocaine smuggling ring they busted in Ecuador and the US: "Snort Cocaine and Fund More Bombings".

Pretty much, yeah.

UPDATE: Rusty responds. One-two-three-four I declare a blog war!

So, I don't get the logic in See Dubs post? On the sociological implications I have no argument other than people ought to be able to poison themselves as a fundamental aspect of human liberty. However, to the larger point. The reason Cocaine is being used to fund terrorists is that Cocaine is very profitable. The reason Cocaine is very profitable is that it is illegal. Unless you want to argue that Phillip-Morris contributes to terrorism.......

Any thoughts y'all??

UPDATE II SEE DUB'S SALVO: What's a blog war and how do I fight it? Who is the enemy? I think we should end the costly and unproductive War on Blogs.

(BTW the sociology comment was purely a throwaway line about the irrelevance of sociology, not a response to the economics point.)

NOW: Rusty, citing Philip Morris, has swallowed the treble hook way back into his gills. Let's set it with a sharp upward twitch of the rod:

Alleged Donors To Hezbollah Facing Trial
By Gordon Fairclough
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

12/03/2001
The Wall Street Journal
B1
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- On Thursday nights, the eve of the Islamic Sabbath, a group of Lebanese immigrants, all Shiite Muslims, would assemble at Mohamad Hammoud's house in a quiet, middle-class neighborhood on the eastern edge of town.

Neighbors didn't pay much attention to the weekly get-togethers, but federal prosecutors say they had a purpose beyond socializing and prayer: Members of the group were also helping to raise funds for Hezbollah, which the U.S. government has branded a terrorist organization.

Earlier this year, a federal grand jury in Charlotte indicted Mr. Hammoud, fellow immigrant Said Harb and seven others on charges they conspired to smuggle millions of dollars of cigarettes and divert part of the profits to the Beirut-based terrorist group.

Mr. Harb and three other men were also charged with trying to procure specialized equipment for Hezbollah, including night-vision goggles, global-positioning systems, laser range-finders and advanced aircraft-analysis software.

Today, a judge in the U.S. District court here is scheduled to hear arguments on a critical aspect of this closely watched case: whether the government can use wiretaps collected by Canada's intelligence agency as evidence in the defendants' criminal trial. The Charlotte case is the first big test of a 1996 law that prosecutors hope will be a major tool in Washington's legal war on terror. The law, known as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, makes it illegal to provide funding or material aid to foreign terror groups.

Conversations between Mr. Harb and an alleged Hezbollah operative in Canada that were intercepted by intelligence agents are central to the government's claim that he provided "material support" to Hezbollah. Mr. Harb's lawyer, Christopher Fialko, says that the wiretaps should be thrown out, claiming that they were obtained in violation of Mr. Harb's constitutional rights.

(SNIP)

By the mid-1990s, prosecutors say, Messrs. Hammoud and Harb were involved in a large-scale cigarette-smuggling operation that was initially discovered by a local sheriff's deputy, Bob Fromme. Mr. Fromme and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pursued the smugglers for years as they plied the roads between North Carolina and Michigan, where they delivered their cigarettes to gas stations owned by another Lebanese immigrant.

In North Carolina, the state cigarette excise tax is just 50 cents a carton. In Michigan, it is $7.50 a carton, enabling the smugglers to pocket much of the difference, law-enforcement officials say. Between 1996 and 1999, the group funneled millions of dollars of cigarettes to Michigan, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars for themselves, according to investigators' estimates.

By the summer of 1999 -- when the ATF and the U.S. attorney's office in Charlotte were ready to seek indictments in the case -- the FBI stepped in. Agents said they had been investigating members of the smuggling ring for possible involvement with Hezbollah. FBI counterterrorism agents had been watching suspected Hezbollah members in the U.S. for years. The radical Shiite Muslim group was implicated in the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks outside Beirut that killed 241 people, among other attacks. Three alleged Hezbollah members also are on the list of most-wanted terrorists assembled by the FBI in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Prosecutors allege that significant sums of money generated by the Charlotte group's smuggling operations were sent to Lebanon by courier and wire transfer for use by Hezbollah. They cite letters from a person they say is a Hezbollah member in Lebanon that were sent to Mr. Hammoud in Charlotte. "The group thanks you a lot on your contributions and may Allah reward you," the Hezbollah official writes in one exchange.

Mr. Harb's lawyer, Mr. Fialko, says in a court filing that Hezbollah was "founded and run by Shiite Muslim clerics" and that Muslims "have an obligation under Islamic law to provide financial support to religion, including entities such as Hezbollah." Mr. Fialko says that the government's ban on contributions to Hezbollah violates his client's rights to freedom of speech and religion. [SEE DUBYA: I love that part!]

The suspects in Charlotte apparently weren't waiting until judgment day to reap their rewards. Prosecutors say the defendants bought houses and cars and invested substantial amounts of their allegedly ill-gotten gains in legitimate businesses. Embracing the American way of life, Mr. Harb even arranged for some of his relatives to marry Americans so they could get U.S. citizenship.

Messrs. Harb and Hammoud, who pleaded "not guilty" to all charges, are in custody awaiting the start of their trial, now set for April. Even if Mr. Hammoud, who isn't a U.S. citizen, is acquitted, prosecutors say he could be deported for allegedly lying to immigration authorities. Mr. Harb, however, has been a citizen since the mid-'90s. In a November 2000 letter headed "In the Name of God," Mr. Harb wrote from jail to the federal judge presiding over his case: "I want you to know that I love this country."
_______

So: cigarettes are legal and taxed, and yet they're also smuggled to support Hezbollah. The reason cigarettes and cocaine are profitable is partially because they're illegal, yes, but mostly because they're so addictive people will pay nearly anything to get them. Cocaine's extremely addictive properties are, not incidentally , why it is illegal.

UPDATE III: (See-dubya)--Another one on the line. Pixy Misa writes:

"In North Carolina, the state cigarette excise tax is just 50 cents a carton. In Michigan, it is $7.50 a carton, enabling the smugglers to pocket much of the difference, law-enforcement officials say.

Well, don't do that then."

Of course not. These differences in state taxation are an incentive to smuggle. Obviously the Federal government should maintain uniform levels of taxation on controlled substances throughout the states.

Surely these individual tax assessments of sovereign states affect interstate commerce. We can justify it through the Commerce Clause!

Oh, wait a minute...

Blog War II: The Rusty Strikes Back

Again, the reason cigarettes are being smuggled is because taxation at such a high rate in some states makes them de facto illegal. Anyway, my main argument for ending the war on drugs is a moral one: liberty. Liberty implies the right to choose to do stupid things, like take drugs. There is no need for government to try to discourage people from doing stupid things. Natural selection kinda has a way of taking care of that.....

Jeff at Shape of Days decided to get in on the blog war........

June 16, 2005

Kos Says U.S. Torture 'Equal' To that of Saddam Hussein (A comparison)

Will somebody please punch Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas in the mouth? I'm not kidding (although I may be speaking in haste and out of anger). Some remarks are so disgusting that they are fighting words. Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States. Via my blogfather Charles Johnson over at LGF this from Markos Moulitsas Zunigas who has clearly gone beyond the pale:

The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate floor.

Almost all of the accusations of 'torture' are NOT REAL TORTURE. Instead, they are minor instances of harsh treatment--the kind of treatment you probably wouldn't want to be subjected to--but they aren't TORTURE.

There are some instances of abuse and perhaps even the occasional act of real torture, these, of course should be investigated. But to say that the occasional abuse is somehow equal to the institutionalized and routine torture of the Saddam Hussein regime is disgusting, immoral, and anti-American.

If even the worse accusations turn out to be true, which I do not believe for an instance they will be, they would be nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein routinely did and on hundreds of thousands of victims.

You, Kos, are a certifiable idiot whose blind partisanship is disgusting and unethical.

Warning: Graphic images follow.

The picture below is of a prisoner at the Abu Ghraib prison being tortured by dripping nitric acid on him. This was a matter of routine under the Saddam Hussein regime. Tens of thousands were subject to similar torture methods.

Below is a picture of a family member of a Kurd who finds the remains of a loved one in one of the hundreds of mass graves in Iraq. Most of these victims would have been tortured in prison before taken to an open pit and then shot. For a recounting of the horrors of the Hussein regime, see the Iraqi Truth Projects excellent documentary WMD: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein.

The Kurds in Northern Iraq have opened a museum dedicated to the victims of Saddam Hussein. This is one of the exhibits showing how the Baathists routinely tortured their victims.

While not a victim of Saddam's torture chambers, this little child was targetted by the Hussein administration in an act of collective punishment. Chemical weapons were used to destroy this child's village.

While Kos complains that letting a prisoner urinate on himself is 'torure', perhaps he should check out the kinds of torture instruments used by the Baathists. Notice the saw?

Here is a victim of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers. Remember, Kos says,
"The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command."

Another torture victim of Saddam. This one did not escape with his life.

These three victims of Saddam Hussein did not survive to complain about the air conditioning at Camp X-Ray or that guards there desecrated the Koran.

Below is a finger vice used by Uday Hussein to torture members of sporting teams who didn't win.

This iron maiden was used for the same purpose. The interior is full of spikes

Please pass the word along.........

For other assessment of our 'torture' vs. our enemies TORTURE see our previous post 'torture' vs. 'TORTURE' or an animated version of the same theme from Rocco DiPippo here.

UPDATE: Grapevine's Ramblings adds three more photos grabbed from an A&E; documentary for your conideration.

Bill Quick has another photo of one of Saddam Hussein's not so lucky victims here.

The Headmistress reminds us with the photo that made Kos say 'screw them' in the first place.

Jeff G. has a great essay here.

UPDATE: Donald Sensing on comparing Gitmo to the Nazis with graphic images...

[UPDATE: Trackbacks seem to be down again. Try it again later and they should be working....]

June 13, 2005

The Odd Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories of Leftist Bloggers over the Iraq War

Conspiracy theories begin with a premise and then search for evidence of that premise. But as any C+ student of basic methodology can tell you, evidence does not equal proof. There is some evidence that the moon-landing was fake, yet such evidence is overwhelmed by masses of counter-evidence. At some point the evidence becomes such that any still believing in the conspiracy have gone beyond all rational discussion, are no longer involved in a search for the truth, and have become faith-based zealots believing in a premise that gives their lives meaning.

The Left's obsession with the Downing Street memo is a perfect example of a faith-based conspiracy theory in search of proof. This faith begins with the assumption that the war in Iraq could not have been for the stated reasons but rather that there is a hidden agenda to the Iraq conflict. From what I gather, the Left is divided over the specifics of this hidden agenda (the theories, though, usually center on some sort of Imperialistic grab for power in the Middle East, which will eventually lead to a US war against Syria and/or Iran) but they do agree that a conspiracy existed at the highest levels to lie to the American people as to the real reasons for going to war.

Via Duncan 'Atrios' Black this post by Digby is indicative of such conspiracy theories:

I honestly don't know why there is any question that the Downing St Memo is the most important historical document to emerge showing that Bush and company took us into Iraq on false pretenses. It's true that there have been many hints --- the biggest of which is that, uh, there weren't any f*cking WMD --- but this is clear proof that they lied prior to that....

It is a full-on game plan for obfuscation and "rolling out the product" that proves they knew that Iraq wasn't a threat. ....

They may never be able to admit all that. But in that it officially documents the fact that the administration knew there was no threat and knew there was no connection to terrorism, the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.

Another part of this particular conspiracy theory is the notion that it's not enough that members of the Bush and Blair administration are involved but that leading news organizations, such as The New York Times, are also part of the plot to mislead the American people. For instance this post by Kevin Drum and this one by Nico over at Think Progress. Both begin with the premise that the conspiracy has objectively (I mean objectively in the epistemelogical sense, that is that the authors believe as an objective fact rather than as a matter of opinion this view) been proved in the Downing Street memo. Thus with the conspiracy proved, anything short of front-page coverage at The New York Times is evidence that the publication is part of the conspiracy.

The problem with Digby, Atrios , Nico, and Kevin Drum's assesment of the Downing Street memo is the same as with all conspiracy theories: they begin with the conspiracy premise, selectively use evidence, and disregard any evidence to the contrary. So, the Downing Street Memo is seen by these conpiracy theorists as 'the smoking gun' which 'proves' that Bush has ulterior motives for going to war.

Such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the reasons (there were multiple reasons, if you don't have amnesia) for going to war were exactly as stated. Further, such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the decision to go to war was not finally made until shortly before the invasion.

This does not mean that most people, President Bush and Tony Blair included, did not think that the invasion was not inevetable. To assume that Blair and Bush did not believe war was coming is to think that they were idiots. Of course they thought war was coming and were making the necessary arrangements. Duh, this is what governments do! A conspiracy theory about the real reasons for going to war is not needed to explain the Downing Street memo, as Michael Kinsley, to his credit, points out here:

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Did the Bush and Blair administrations believe that a day of reckoning was coming with Saddam Hussein? All indications say yes. But so what? Plenty of times in history the same sort of writing has been on the wall. In June of 1941 did the Roosevelt administration believe a conflict would soon be coming between the U.S. and Japan? Of course it did! Sanctions were not working to get the Japanese out of China and there was a lot of saber rattling on both sides. But that is not proof that some sort of grand conspiracy existed to start a war with Japan. Did Lincoln believe that a war was coming between the North and the South? Yes! Fifty years of history all pointed to such a conflict. But that is not proof of some sort of grand conspiracy by Lincoln to start a war.

The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia. The truth of the matter is that the paranoid obsession with the grand Bush conspiracy theory runs so deep among the Left today, that no amount of evidence to the contrary could make them disbelieve.

May 12, 2005

ON VACATION!!!!!!!!

It's 12:21 in the morning. There are three of us still at the office on this floor. What idiot decides to schedule finals less than 24 hours before grades are due?

Un-freaking-believable!!

Anyway, I just turned in the last of my grades. I am officially on vacation. Yes, the difficult life of a college professor. I have 75 days of vacation....

...wait a sec...did I forget something...oh....no.....SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

Don't panic. You're teaching a one week course...actually, taking the students to D.C. Gonna meet Stev-o, Maximum Leader, Cranky, Prof. Stotch and others (and maybe Rob-o if he'd grow some nads around the house)....

GOOD TIMES ALL AROUND

Oh, and if Steve the Llama Butcher is reading this post: I'm the bitch?

May 10, 2005

Andrew Sullivan: All the way gay*

So Andrew Sullivan tries to act all hetero for a few posts. Dude just doesn't get it. Stick with the gay thing man. HETERO MOMENT II:

Are you straight guys as irritated as I am by the metrosexual craze? Please please please don't remove a single hair from your body. Ignore Queer Eye. We homos aren't all crazed, plucked product queens.

Then AS links to The Superficial, which is cool since they've linked to me in the past and given me a ton of hits. But to call such a site hetero?? HETERO MOMENT I:

Here's a great blog obsessed with - and very funny about - the lives of very hot, twenty-something famous babes. My friend Jay Jaroch and others on the Bill Maher writing team alerted me to it. It's hilarious and obsessive and very bloggy.

*apologies to Jay and Silent Bob

Eschaton:Paranoid Idiotarian of the Day

Ok, I don't really have time to post, but I read this over at Eschaton's place.....talk about freaking nutty!!! Look, Atrios is just your run of the mill left-wing activist in the Democratic party. I've never considered him part of the tin-foil brigades, just part of the gay-hating pretending to be gay-loving gay-outing partisan left. But whoever this guy Avedon is.....man, this guy takes the cake!

Here is the post in question where he (she?) accused the Republican party of rigging elections. Evidence? Well, why else would they be so confident that judicial fillibusters won't be needed in the future if they aren't completely sure they will be in the majority for the foreseeable future. Idiot.

One reason I don't think it's at all paranoid to suspect that the Republicans have deliberately taken over the voting system in order to cheat is that they keep doing things that don't otherwise make sense. There's a rather long list of things you just wouldn't expect them to think they could get away with unless they really thought they could control the ballot box, because otherwise they would have to expect that the public would kick enough of them out to not only end some political careers but also make impeachment - and prison - a distinct possibility. And then there's this nuclear option thing - why would they be willing to remove any possibility of stopping majority party initiatives unless they were absolutely sure that they could never become the minority party again?

Conservatives have made good use of the filibuster over the years, on judicial nominations and a lot of other things. Are they absolutely certain no one will wake up and get rid of them? Or are they just sure that how we vote isn't going to matter?

May 03, 2005

I've got the biggest balls of all

Dean responds in a post titled Where are your balls? to my earlier rant on Islam.

The reason I'm pestering you Dean and not Dr. Hessabalah, is because you are a friend. I'm not interested in engaging Muslims who wish to rewrite history. That is a dialogue they need to be having with themselves. I don't know what true Islam is and frankly I don't care. What I care about are actions. And not just the actions performed by the jihadis, but the actions of mainstream Islam in regards to basic human rights such as the ability to choose one's own religion. Something forbidden in all but the most extreme liberal circles of that faith.

If Dr. Hessabalah was really concerned with convincing fellow Muslims of the error of their ways then why is he not writing in Arabic, Persian, Malay, etc.? Instead, he tries to convince us that Islam does not require infidels to be murdered. As a member of CAIR's Media Relations arm I'm not surprised that he would focus on convincing us that Islam is mmmkay, peaceful, but that is the nature of expansionist religions. You put your best face forward when trying to get new recruits or when trying to defend the faith.

I hope and pray liberal Islam eventually succeeds in replacing mainstream and conservative Islam. But when sincere liberal Muslims, historical revisionists, and liars wishing to put a shiny happy face on Islam in an attempt to convince we infidels and people of the book of Islam's peaceful nature.....well, it sort of chaps my hide. To liberal Muslims I say stop trying to convince we skeptics of the merits of your religion. Instead, convince the jihadis and Islamofascists who intentionally murder civillians for the good of the umma and mainstream theologians who embrace the fascist idea that while it is ok for an infidel to become a Muslim, it is forbidden for a Muslim to become an infidel.

So what bothers me is a) I admire Dean b) I hate to see a friend play the dhimmi.

On a personal note the immortal words of AC/DC come to mind:

Some balls are held for charity
And some for fancy dress
But when they're held for pleasure
They're the balls that I like best
My balls are always bouncing
To the left and to the right
It's my belief that my big balls
Should be held every night

I've got big balls
I've got big balls
And they're such big balls
Dirty big balls
And he's got big balls
And she's got big balls
But we've got the biggest balls of them all

Indeed.

April 20, 2005

Pope=Hitler

Overheard all over the tin-foil side of the blogosphere.

More. And even more.

UPDATE: He doesn't like Kerry? He must be Hitler.

UPDATE II: Pope worse than Hitler, opposes condoms!

UPDATE III: Run and hide, Pope is anti-Christ!!

UPDATE IV: THE END IS NEAR!!!

UPDATE V: Let's bring this back to reality. The Pope is not the Anti-Christ. He's just a Nazi. So calm down the rhetoric.

April 15, 2005

I Am a Digital McCarthyite! (Updated)

First it was the vast right wing conspiracy. Then it was digital brownshirts. Now it's the digital McCarthyites. Well, sign me up folks. I'm a digital McCarthyite. From Mary Mapes new book:

“Conservative bloggers are part of the story. They have vilified me, mounted a “wilding” attack against me…we were, it seemed the first victims of a new kind of digital McCarthyism, which uses the same techniques as the old McCarthyism–rumors, slurs, false charges and ugly attacks–but now employs the Internet, talk radio and cable TV echo chamber to ricochet information around the world

Thoughts Online notes that the connotative usage of 'wilding' refers to the 1989 Central Park Jogger incident. Thus, Mapes equates right-wing bloggers with a pack of rapists and paints herself a sexual assault victim. Classy.

Prepare for the swarm Ms. Mapes.

Any other volunteers for the Digital McCarthyites? Any one have a better logo they can think of?

UPDATE: Tom over at Scared Monkeys Digial McCarthyite designed this logo. Awesome! Feel free to download the image here.

Goldfalcon comes up with his own McCarthy photoshop (it helps if you know something about old movies).

Other Digital McCarthyites (like a gang 'wilding' Ms. Mapes in an online Central Park): Charles Johnson, Bill Quick, Mean Mr. Mustard, Ace, Cream and Bastards, Scared Monkeys, INDCent Bill, Vince Aut Morire, Scared Monkeys, Beth at My VRWC, Dread Pundit Bluto, Musing Minds, NIF, The Right Nation, The Nose on Your Face, and a whole gang of others...

Making Holy the Unholy

Dr. Zen doesn't quite get the Bonfire of the Vanities. It's the less than serious side of the blogosphere's chance to showcase not their best, but their worst post of the previous week.

My frequently crappy posts are a staple of the bonfire.

You may know Laurence Simon from his frequent comments (usually defending some stupid cat or another) and the occasional link from us, but his Is Full of Crap site steps up to the take on the fine tradition that is the Bonfire. I kiss the papal ring of Avignon!

UPDATE: Carpe Bonum has an interesting take too.

April 13, 2005

Nazis, the Holocaust, and Mormons

Instead of apologizing for his absurd post earlier, Jay Tea digs the hole deeper. Where do I begin to respond?

First, what is offensive is not the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead, but bringing the Holocaust into the debate. This is offensive for the same reason that calling people you don't like a Nazi is. The Nazis were so evil that to call someone a Nazi flippantly is to minimize the evil nature of the Hitler regime.

To single out Holocaust victims when objecting to the Mormon practice of proxy baptism for the deceased likewise. The Holocaust was a crime of singular and spectacular evil. By bringing the Holocaust into a theological debate over what seems to be an odd practice trivializes the evil that was done.

Further, to compare the practice with forced conversions is, well, just plain dumb. As far as I can tell the Mormons aren't actually converting anybody. Had Jay Tea bothered to read his own comments, he would have seen that Mormons do proxy baptism just in case the deceased becomes converted in the afterlife. They do not believe the proxy baptism is the mark of a conversion.

Of course, Jay Tea is right, this is an arrogant practice. But, er, so what? All religions teach that their religions are correct. And that means what exactly? It's the nature of philisophical debates.

But as much as it is arrogant it is equally selfless. That's the nature of proxy work. You do it for the benefit of others. Just think of Fonzi standing in for Richie Cunningham when he finally gets married but is off in the Air Force. See, the Fonz knows all.

As to Jay Tea's final point that the Mormons' renigged on an earlier promise to not baptize in behalf of Holocaust victims, Tom at INFDL notes:

The Mormon church as an institution does not have alot of control over who turns up on the database of names of deceased. It's mostly done privately by church members themselves. So how is the church itself supposed to completely stop it? Plus, is it just assumed that mormon church members are stealing the names of jews, with no relation to themselves? Right down the street from my folks' house there lives a jewish convert to the mormon church. Yup, him and his whole side of the family were jews who converted to the mormon faith. They're very devout, and like most devout mormons they will do their own geneology and perform this particular practice for them. So if ancestor rights are presumably owned by descendants, then the whole argument concerning "leave my ancestors alone" becomes much more complicated.

They don't actually dig up your body, some dude just gets baptized on behalf of some dead guy. Again, they are not making you a post-mortum Mormon. They're just catching you. You know, just in case.

But what is really irritating is that a lot of people, like Sorta Pundit, take offense to Mormons telling dead people that they were wrong. I don't get it. Mormons are saying the same thing about the living. Yup, they think your atheism is wrong. Is that a surprise?

Why is it more offensive to say a dead person was wrong than the living?

The last time I checked the Catholics thought living Protestants were wrong, and vice-versa. Oh and Wesley had this slight disagreement with the faith of Calvinists, etc.

*****Exclusive*****Must Cite Jawa Report*****

Pope still Catholic. Archbishop of Canterburry still Anglican. Dalai Llama still Buddhist.

More breaking news as it happens......

Sobek and Aaron have the humorous take. And yes Aaron, very funny.