The Republic of Dissent

Reviewing John Yoo

John Yoo, who I like to call the Godfather of torture for he wrote the now infamous memo who argued that it was acceptable for the US not only to violate the Geneva Conventions, but to use some forms of torture, has written a book, which I plan to read, “War by other means.” Michiko Kakutani has a review of the book in the New York Times and it confirms what I feared about Yoo and that is that he is such an ideologue that the law has simply become a tool to express his ideology or at the very least to make sure that reality reflects his beliefs. He doesn't believe in laws, treaties, and in the judiciary if they constraint the actions of the executive. What makes Yoo dangerous isn't that just that he believes that the rule of law should be superceded by the rule of men or in this case of one man, the President, but rather to the facts that he is willing to cross the line that needs to be between an advocate and the cause that he defends that would force him to obey ethical rules so as not to defend the indefensible.

The Video du Jour: because it's Halloween, here comes Borat!

Just because it's Halloween and that I need an excuse to show Borat, here is a skit for Saturday Night live.  I don't know but Borat scares me (in a good way) even though he also makes me laugh.

How many times can John Kerry allow himself to be swiftboated?

I feel we are back in 2004 and that John Kerry is again an inept presidential candidate who is trying desperately to explain his words, who doesn't know how to take a punch and more importantly, who doesn't know how to give one. His words were bungled and meaningless for no one seriously think s that he believes that Americans dying in Iraq are uneducated. However, the fact that he puts his foot in it and that the Republicans are at easy coming after him shows at least two things. The first is that they would rather fight John Kerry than defend the war in Iraq and that it is easier for them to argue about words than about policy. What is the point of all of this? Does it matter? John Kerry is no longer running from president and nobody believes that he is just a rich snob who despises American troops. So where's the beef?

Tabula rasa vs. Innate ideas

The New York Times has an article, which discusses the findings of Marc Hauser, a Harvard biologist, who argues that infants aren't blank slates, but are born with some notions of right and wrong created by evolution, which are part of what he calls, "moral grammar." Money quote:

It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying “that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine.” Dr. Hauser argues that the moral grammar operates in much the same way as the universal grammar proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural machinery for language. The universal grammar is a system of rules for generating syntax and vocabulary but does not specify any particular language. That is supplied by the culture in which a child grows up.

Hitchens and Staying the course

One has to admire Christopher Hitchens' loyalty to his own ideals and his stubborn refusal to admit even that Iraq may not be winnable. He has another brilliantly written article questioning the impact of that a rush of the Americans for the exit in Iraq will have for the supporters of Democracy:

But the many disappointments and crimes and blunders (the saddest of which is the utter failure to influence Iran, and the corresponding advantage taken by Tehran-backed militias) do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq's affairs, starting with the 1968 Baathist coup endorsed by the CIA, stretching through Jimmy Carter's unforgivable permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, continuing through the decades of genocide in Kurdistan and the uneasy compromise that ended the Kuwait war, and extending through 12 years of sanctions and half-measures, including the "no-fly" zones and the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It is not a responsibility from which we can walk away when, or if, it seems to suit us.

Of course, Hitchens is right and that US has great responsibility in Iraq, the most important of which is to make sure that its people are able to live in a peaceful environment where they are able not only to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, but also able to control their destiny. However, staying although it may be the most visible way to demonstrate the US 's commitment to fixing Iraq may not the most efficient way to do so. One may argue that the US's failures in Iraq are solely due to incompetence and to an inflexible ideology. On the other hand, one may argue that they are historic factors as well as political factors involved such as the fact that given the situation in the Middle East, an American military occupation of a Muslim country can never be productive, but will always be toxic. Should the US stay even if it becomes more obvious that its presence is becoming part of the problem and not of the solution just to disappoint strong believers in Democracy? No, they will get over and they aren't the most important people for it is the Iraqis lives, which are at issue and not the hopes and dreams of fervent idealists. The key is to do what works on the grounds and not doing transforming the issue of fixing Iraq into an ideological struggle while American soldiers and Iraqis die.

The best of Yesterday: the Internet, pornography, and Rape

The best article I read yesterday was an article on Slate written by Steven Landsburg about “experiments” which find a correlation between watching porn on the internet and the decrease of rape statistics. Even though I'm skeptical, the article and the study are interesting. Money quote:

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

[…] Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you're living with your parents, it's a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.

Does this mean that to reduce rape, we should subsidize the porn industry or that we should make porn more readily accessible? I think there is something that is flawed in this study in that it assumes that if the men weren’t watching porn they would be raping women when what causes a man to rape may not have anything to do with a man’s sexual desire, but with something else in his environment.

Liberty and the Veil

You've probably noticed that the issue of the veil fascinates me. This fascination is in great part because though I would never wear it and though it goes against everything that I believe, I nevertheless feel that women have the right to make a choice with which I will never be able to agree as long as it is made freely. Karen Armstrong argued for the veil in an article in the Guardian (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan) by making the following point:

Muslims feel embattled at present, and at such times the bodies of women often symbolise the beleaguered community. Because of its complex history, Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden agenda. Instead of improving relations, they usually make matters worse. Lord Cromer made the originally marginal practice of veiling problematic in the first place. When women are forbidden to wear the veil, they hasten in ever greater numbers to put it on.

I agree with her. I was listening to Salman Rushdie, whom I love, talking about this issue in a speech in New York and he argued that the veil was offensive, that it couldn't be anything other than a symbol of oppression, and that women couldn't freely choose to wear the veil. On this point, I disagree strongly with Rushdie, with whom I rarely disagree. It is true that I feel uncomfortable when I see a woman in burqa, but that is something that I have to learn to deal with and to be more accepting of by telling myself that the veil is a distraction to the real issue of difference and acceptance in Western societies. I don't want veiled women to be isolated from societies and to become targets of those who feel that they have to free them or rather than they're being oppressed by tradition or by Islam. I don't want them to retreat from the world and to feel that they have to wear because it is the symbol of their identity and that it is impossible to be a Muslim woman and not to wear the veil. The key issues to me in this issue are the ones of choice and liberty. Every other issue is a distraction.

The video du jour: American theocracy?

The images of this clip aren't very good, but the discussion is fascinating. The point in my opinion is that religion and politics shouldn't mix.

The best of yesterday: Paging Doctor Armey

It is always refreshing when those who have been in power are able to analyze their tenure and attempt to make a diagnostic about what he and his party did wrong. Dick Armey who was, before Boehner and Delay, the Majority leader attempts to make such a diagnostic in an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Where We Went Wrong." Money quote:

Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy.We emerged as a wounded party; we stopped trusting the public; and we internalized the wrong lesson. Since the party won the majority in 1994, the GOP Conference had been consistent in requiring offsetting spending cuts for any new spending initiatives. (In fact, during the aftermath of a large Mississippi River flood, Rep. Jim Nussle even waited to find and approve offsets before moving the relief legislation for his own state of Iowa.) But by the summer of 1997, the appropriators -- rightly called the "third party" of Congress -- had begun to pass spending bills with Democrats. As soon as politics superseded policy and principle, the avalanche of earmarks that is crushing the party began.

Not learning the right political lessons is usually a lesson, which politicians refuse to learn when they stay in power too long. I think that the other mistake that the Republicans made was to sharpen the division between the left and the right and to refuse to share any type of power with the minority, which made it less likely that the two sides would work together and the democrats would realize that they had no interest in making anything work. Pelosi may make the same mistake, but let's hope that she tries to do something with the power that she has and she recognizes very soon that ideology is less important at this time than having a vibrant house of representative.

Food for thought: blaming History for the failures in Iraq

“Iraq is one of those new nations. Like other artificial creations in the Balkans, Africa and elsewhere, it has never had the cohesion of nations that evolved over the centuries out of the experiences of peoples who worked out their own modi vivendi in one way or another. […] But we can at least hope that the Iraq tragedy will chasten the hubris behind notions of "nation-building" and chasten also the pious dogmatism of those who hype "diversity" at every turn, in utter disregard of its actual consequences at home or abroad. Free societies have prerequisites, and history has not given all peoples those prerequisites, which took centuries to evolve in the West.” Thomas Sowell, “Diversity’s Oppressions.”

Closing down the land of opportunity

Stephen King (not the author) has an excellent article in The Independent on the recent decision by Britain to require the citizens of upcoming EU members to get visas to work in Britain in an attempt to limit the immigration from Eastern European countries. He shows the contradictions of those who argue for managing immigration without knowing its impacts and it benefits.

Inappropriate

Billmon has a cartoon of Wolf Blitzer with a black face. The point made is that after being slammed Lynne Cheney for being unpatriotic, Blitzer admitted that he was surprised for he covered the Cheneys a lot time and that someone Blitzer is like a slave surprise that his master's wife is beating him. I am not outraged, but just shocked that such a comparison can even be made. The cartoon is inappropriate and offensive.  I wonder why people feel that they can use slavery  or rather the relationship between slaves and their masters to make political points.

The video du Dimanche: O'reilly vs. Letterman

How do you argue with someone who believes that people who disagree with him are full of it, wrong, fools, and despicable? I wonder if this is the way.

Patriotism and dissent : wanting the US to win and wanting it to be good

It's 1945 all over again. I know this argument is usually made by those who argue that we are in the midst of World War III and that Islamism is fascism, but those aren't arguments I'm about to make. I saw Lynn Cheney putting Wolf Blitzer and CNN on trial for questioning the Bush administration and not shutting up as they did in the first years since 9/11. She asked him, “Do you want the US to win?” as to imply that nobody has the right to question the actions of the United States and that anybody who dares to do that is unpatriotic and wants Bin Laden to become the president of the United States. When I listened to Lynn Cheney, I understood why Colin Powell was no longer a member of the Bush administration and why many conservatives who don't have arguments have decided to revert to old tactics of calling those who disagree with them Islamic sympathizers, cultural relativists, and people who don't understand that winning is everything. In short, to those people, we're not in 2006 but in 1945 and the US is fighting the Nazi and those who dare to ask questions, to say “Quo Vadis?” or “I don't agree” are Nazi sympathizers are like those people who thought that the US should be involved in World War II. But that of course is a ridiculous argument, which is solely made in an effort to divert us from the real question, which is Winning everything and does be an American and a patriot mean to shut up and sing or do whatever else you are doing while the grownups fight the battle and protect you. It is important before answering that question to make the following point to show that the History analogy that is made with World War II is wrong and purposely misleading. The United States waited before it was attacked to enter World War II, Roosevelt knew about the concentration camps, that Jews were dying, and nevertheless he thought the United States didn't have the right to be involved in a bloody war between European powers. At that time in the US history, those wanted the US to get involved that were in the minority and that were protesting the fact that the US was standing of the sidelines while Hitler was conquering Europe. I'm using that example simply to show that the majority isn't always right and that the minority can be right and that even if it isn't it plays an important role in forcing power to justify its action and not to assume that we are in dictatorship where discourse, justification, convincing the people is unnecessary.

Winning isn't everything for a democracy especially for one as the United States which is leading the world and which has inspired the world with great ideals such as the one that the people have the right to happiness and their consent is essential. Lynne Cheney, Bill O'Reilly and all the others are trying to change America, because they can't stand dissent. More importantly, they fear a rational and calm discussion, which would force them to justify their point of view that America should do everything to win including betraying its principle because they know that the only way for them to convince is to stifle debate and to appeal to people's fears and to the worst of all of us. Therefore, they ask in an indignant, stand offish and dismissing manner, "Do you want the US to win?" as some parents who are tired their petulant children ask them "Do you love me?" when the child is asking stubbornly "But why?” In a way to them, we must see our leaders as omnipotent parents who are dealing with all the shit (forgive me for using that word) that there is in the world, and who are willing to get dirty so that the people can continue to live peaceful lives innocently. Their argument is that in return for them protecting us, we should shut up, not ask questions, and just be grateful that they are doing what needs to be done. Well, I can't agree with that because the people are children and leaders aren't parents. In a democracy, the people are all grown up who are entitled to ask those who govern them question and to ask them to be accountable for their actions. It isn't speaking against power in difficult times that is un-American, it is shutting up, presuming that power knows best, and kneeling down when important questions need to be asked and answered. After all, America was created because a weak group of people dared to ask England "why are you taxing us when we don't have representation?" and dared to go to war when answers weren't given to their question. They understood that democracy couldn’t work by treating the people, the governed, as children who can't understand the difficult issues of their world and who therefore should not be allowed to ask questions and to dissent.

If the Bush administration and its supporters can take dissent and can't answer difficult and important questions without answering as a way of avoiding them, "Do you want the US to win" then the American people should be worry because it shows that they don't have any answers and that their actions are motivated by an ideology that is so repressive and so inflexible that it can't deal with reality.

The video du jour: Glenn Beck, France, ideology, and stupidity

I am starting to be sick and tired of hearing that Paris is burning and that the malaise in the French banlieues in the fault of extremist Muslim youths who are trying to islamize France and Europe. It has been proven that last year violence in the French suburbs had nothing to do with religion or even with a desire to burn things just for the simple pleasure of burning them. The truth is that at the heart of this violence are the questions of integration and identity. What does it mean to be French and European? And more importantly how does society integrate those sons of immigrants who are for the most born in France, but nevertheless don't feel French or know that simply because of their ethnicity they don't have the same chances as others to succeed in life? I was going to write that Glenn Beck was an idiot, but I stopped myself when I realized that would be not be dealing with his ideas which are dangerous. Beck is an ignorant and arrogant man who doesn't feel that he needs to learn about Europe and  France because he has an ideology who veils his reality. It is fine to have a point of view, I have a point of view and it is a strong one, but I don't let it get in the way of learning and of seeing reality.

Food for thought: Intolerance, hypocrisy, or simply fear?

“After all, if politicians and journalists in the West wanted to draw critical attention to groups of people wearing costumes that set them apart, that convey a message of separateness, they could point out Old Order Mennonites, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews, or maybe even the outfits worn by the Pope and Dalai Lama. What gives the narrative about the niqab its traction in the media is that it is the thin edge of the wedge in a critique of Muslims in general, not just those who wear the niqab. The question that is being asked, in a highly coded way to be sure, is whether Muslims constitute an alien presence in our society. Can they be relied upon to fit in as immigrants, to assimilate and become members of our society? Or will they be a dangerous, separate people, and even a source of terrorist recruits for attacks on us, with repeats of attacks like the suicide bombings in London in the summer of 2005?” James Laxer, “Veiling Intolerance in Liberal Discourse.”

Video du Jour: can we laugh at anything?

In this part of a funny episode on Satan trying to conquer the world through Halloween, the south park guys are once again getting being provocative by using Steve Irwing for humor. I didn't think that they crossed a line for they used of Steve Irwing wasn't graphic or even offensive and they just showed that the character was being insensitive. But I can't be wrong, however this episode poses an interesting question: can we make fun of everything?

Standing up for Abortion

It is sad to admit, but it is becoming increasingly to defend the right to choice or rather the right of a woman to have an abortion. Zoe Williams in the Guardian (hat tip: Kevin Drum talks about the fact that even people who consider themselves pro-choice say that Abortion is a disgusting practice without realizing that by making that judgment, they are making harder to defend that right. Nicaragua has just outlawed abortion in all cases even when the life of the mother is in danger. How is it possible to make abortion a vital right when people start the conversation, but deploring the procedure rather than saluting the fact that women have the right to make that choice?

Webb and literature

Jim Webb, the Democratic candidate in the Virginia Senate race is under fire for some salacious parts of his novels, which involve of course sex and incest. Is it just me or is this campaign more entertaining and more creatively nasty than usual? I wonder what is the point of the Allen campaign pointing to Webb's books, are they trying to say that his writing reflects his values? I know it is rhetorical question, but I’m just stunned by the fact that they are able to make this argument and to get away with it. However, I think that what is going to make the implicit charge that Webb is a lewd character is that his writing is just going to confirm his portrayal in Allen's negative ads and that is that he is a sexist pig who can sees sex everywhere for he once said that the Naval Academy was a horny woman's dream. I will make the following prediction, Allen is going to win the race by 2% unless Webb is able in the next two days to come back with some graphic proofs that confirm the image of Allen that he has tried to create and that is the one of insensitive, corrupt and out of touch Bush Republican. I can't wait for the election.

Andrew Sullivan vs. Hugh Hewitt

Here is the transcript of the interview Andrew Sullivan did with Hugh Hewitt, which was surreal for I don't understand why Hewitt would question Sullivan's christianity as to imply as Limbagh did with Michael J. Fox that he is faking it when he says that he is a christian or otherwise he would be more in agreement with Hewitt and with Bush. It was an amazing interview and Sullivan talks about it in his blog. Here is an excerpt of the transcript:

HH: Let me try this a separate way. If, in fact, a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin, as the Church defines mortal sin, may they receive communion?

AS: I think that’s a very hard…no, they should not, if they sincerely believe that they are in a state of mortal sin, yes.

HH: And if the Church has a teaching about what moral sin is, and it is sufficiently clear, and it’s in the Catechism, and you reject that definition, or a Catholic rejects that definition, does that empower them to receive communion?

AS: I think that’s up to the individual. What the priest would say in any particular pastorl sense is that that depends between what you and your priest say, and the conversation you have, and the conscientious decision you reach. Now your entire mindset is authoritarianism. That’s your politics, that’s your belief, that the point of all faith is to submit to authority, and to give up judgment and conscience, and the kind of faith that I believe in. I disagree, and I think most Catholics disagree, and I think the Second Council disagrees.

HH: And it’s…

AS: But you know, that’s what you want. You support a president who has complete unitary executive authority to seize people at will and imprison them and torture them. And you believe in a form of Christianity in which the individual conscience has almost no role at all.

HH: Given that I haven’t written any of that, I find it interesting you’ve come to that conclusion. But you may hold that opinion for as long as you’d like.

AS: You support a president that suspends habeas corpus. I’ve read it.

HH: I’m more interested in this book. Again, I would love a footnote.

AS: And you support his imposition of torture. I’ve read it.

HH: I would love a footnote at some point, and I have not. But I would like you to go back to the book again. When you write that…

AS: You don’t support the president’s detention policy?

HH: Again, Andrew, it’s your book. If you want to have me do an interview with you on your blog about my book at some time, I’d love to do that. But I want to focus on The Conservative Soul.

AS: But the basis of your arguments are entirely based upon your worldview. It’s perfectly up to me to be able to ask you to describe where you’re coming from, because you’re not simply asking these questions, Hugh.

HH: You can. I allowed you to do that.

AS: You are accusing and cross-examining.

HH: I…no…

AS: That’s the way you do these interviews.

HH: I’m just asking questions about what you wrote.

AS: No, you’re not. You’re asking loaded questions to which you know the answers, to trick people into…you do it all the time, Hugh. That’s your modus operandi.

Obama and winning in 2008

Jacob Weisberg analyzes the possible candidature of  Barack Obama in 2008 in an article in the Financial Times. Charles Krauthammer predicts that Obama will lose, which of course is not surprising. The Guardian has a small portrait, which contrasts him to Hillary and argues that he is not only fresher, but less dividing. Well one thing is sure, there are a lot of people including journalists who want Obama to run not just because he is a talented politician, but because his entry in the race would make it spicier and thus more interesting, but I wonder how long that good press will last and he can survive something, which McCain couldn't survive in 2000 and that is a bloody and dirty campaign?

Primitiveness masquerading as sanctity

The Australian has published an edited transcript of the words of a Muslim cleric Sheik Hilali who has caused outrage in Australia. The sad thing is that those people are not religious at all but conservative misogynists who are using religion, which has to evolve with the times to hold on the only world where they can still have power one where modernity and freedom are the enemy and therefore become signs of evilness. The question that I ask myself is how Hilali was ever able to become an Australian resident. Although I believe that he has the right to say what he is saying, he is using religion to argue not a dangerous point of view, but to incite dangerous actions. Do his words have to criminalize? No. However, people who are so hostile to the West and his values should be allowed to immigrate there and to create a community outside of it. My point of view is still raw, so it may evolve, but for now, I think that if you reject integration and if you incite others to disintegrate and to conduct dangerous actions then you shouldn’t be welcome in the society, which you resent, detest, and seek to destroy. Here is a long excerpt of Hilali’s sermon:

"But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs)."Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it."

"If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

"Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You're my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you're my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you're the best of my weapons.

"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

Civil society, secularism, and religion

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has an article in the London Times on secularism and tolerance titled, “A society that does not allow crosses or veils in public is a dangerous one.” He argues that secularism cannot become extreme and a civil society needs religion and attempts by the state to regulate are dangerous. Money quote:

We in the UK do not have anything like this history of top-down rule by regulation. Yet when people talk about whether we should “become a secular society”, I wonder if they realise that they are in effect echoing the idea that the basic and natural form of political organisation is a central authority that “franchises” associations, and grants or withholds their right to exist publicly and legally within the State. Up to now, we have in practice taken for granted that the State is not the source of morality and legitimacy but a system that brokers, mediates and attempts to co-ordinate the moral resources of those specific communities, the merely local and the credal or issue-focused, which actually make up the national unit. This is a “secular” system in the sense that it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body; but it is not secular in the sense of giving some kind of privilege to a non-religious or anti-religious set of commitments or policies. Moving towards the latter would change our political culture more radically than we imagine.

So the ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen — no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils — is a politically dangerous one. It assumes that what comes first in society is the central political “licensing authority”, which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality.

I don't agree with the Archbishop’s arguments even though I agree with him that banning religious symbols whether it is the veil, the cross, the kippah is a mistake. I don’t want veiled women for example to be isolated from society and never to be exposed to a different point of views that may lead them to change their view or simply to think for themselves. I am very European on my view of religion in the sense that I believe that it should be a private matter and that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. Nevertheless, I believe that banning religious symbols in fact criminalizing religious beliefs for after all a woman would be able to wear the veil if she asserts that she wears it simply because she feels like and not because her religion orders her to do so. Openness and tolerance is essential so is the need to “reprivatize” religion by taking it out of politics.

Questions of integration: Islam, Minnesota and America

The Star Tribune has an important article about a "controversy" created by the refusal of Some Muslim Somali cabdrivers to drive passengers carrying alcohol beverages. I have the feeling that we are going to hear more of those stories about American Muslim and issues such as the veil and other issues, which differentiate them from others. However, the key answer is going to be the same as it is in France and in Britain and that is what type of society does the United States want to be and whether every cultural or religious difference is acceptable. I am a strong believer not only of multiculturalism, but of cosmopolitanism as long as difference doesn't become an excuse for intolerance and totalitarianism.

Iraq, America, and reality

Peter Bergen has an op-ed in the New York Times in which he writes about Iraq and about terrorism. His analysis isn't new, but he adds something but making a suggestion about the way to make Iraq less of a fuel for international terrorism. Money quote:

Yes, there is little doubt that the botched American occupation of Iraq was the critical factor that fueled the Iraqi insurgency. But for the United States to wash its hands of the country now would give Al Qaeda’s leaders what they want. This does not mean simply holding course. America should abandon its pretensions that it can make Iraq a functioning democracy and halt the civil war. Instead, we should focus on a minimalist definition of our interests in Iraq, which is to prevent a militant Sunni jihadist mini-state from emerging and allowing Al Qaeda to regroup. While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The problem with Bergen’s solution is that it assumes that the US can still effectively fight terrorism in Iraq and that American troops can play a constructive role in Iraq. Although it may be hard to admit, it may just be that any type of American presence in Iraq is radioactive no matter how small it is because Iraqis and Middle Easterners will always associate it with imperialism and neocolonialism by pointing at it as the source of their trouble. If we agree that there is an insurgency in Iraq and that most Iraqis don’t want the United States in their country, it is possible then to argue that American troops should remain in Iraq because that would just be a cosmetic act designed to make leaders feel good about the fact that they haven’t lost the war and that they are still fighting terrorists.

Ford, Corker, Tennessee and racial fears

The New York Times has an article on the controversial GOP ad attacking Ford and its effects in Tennessee:

Representative Lincoln Davis, the conservative Democrat from the heavily rural district in the state’s midsection, introduced Mr. Ford at a rally in Crossville with a fierce attack on the advertisement.

“I’m ashamed at what I see Republicans putting out today,” Mr. Davis declared, as an overwhelmingly white audience of more than a hundred cheered on the small town square. “You tell Karl Rove that we don’t want this stuff on TV in Tennessee. We don’t want our kids seeing that.”Mr. Ford told his audience here, and elsewhere in recent days, that the attacks were simply a sign of desperation, a sign the Republicans have nothing else to say. He added, “You know your opponent is scared when his main opposition against you is, ‘My opponent likes girls.’ ” The audience erupted in laughter.

I believe that this ad no matter how disgusting and how sleazy it was will work. For one thing, Ford has had to admit that he went to the Play Boy  party of the Superbowl, which is in contradiction to the image of the nice and religious he had able to create. Negative and controversial attack ads work and with this one, the Republicans hit a bull’s-eye for it will help them win Tennessee. However, the ad could hurt the Republicans outside Tennessee even though I think that the negative effects will be mild. It pays to use old fears in political advertising.

The best of yesterday: the return of Separate, but equal

The best post I read yesterday was the one by James Balkin on the Bush administration support for regulations that will allow schools to have separate schools for boys and girls. Balkin is right to point that this is a step backward not forward and I even go a step further and argue that such a move isn’t one in support of traditional values (which is an oxymoron in my view), but rather one against modernity and progress. By taking such a position, the Bush administration is in fact arguing that boys and girls are not only difference, but that they can live and leave in the presence of one another as if putting them in the same schools can only have bad consequences (sex, pregnancy, …etc.). The point is if one agrees that our society cannot separate men and women in real life, at work, at churches, at theaters, etc why would they separate them at school? Balkin makes those same arguments and provides more background and more facts to show the policy cannot be constitutional. Money quote:

Today, when we think about proposals for single-sex schooling, we should keep in mind that both elements of race and class will inevitably be involved. One should have no illusions that simply because single-sex education seems benign in schools like Wellesley or Smith that it necessarily is so when it is transposed out of the paradigm of elite women's education and placed in the setting of inner-city schools In the urban setting, single-sex education tempts school administrators to focus on the interests of black boys to the detriment of black girls. It repeats in racialized form the familiar idea that girls are the cause of boys' lack of educational success and that boys must be kept free of distraction. Single-sex education may seem to serve the goals of class equality and upward mobility because it gives poor families something that only rich families were once able to afford, as well as offering the promise of discipline and moral rectitude. Yet it can also unwittingly become a method of preserving traditional gender roles for women.

[…] As for the possibility that single-race schools might improve educational opportunity, the answer is quite simple: America already has plenty of single-race schools. They have been produced by the de facto segregation that reigns in this country fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. A recent study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government estimates that more than a third of the nation's black schoolchildren currently attend schools with a minority enrollment of 90- 100%, and the percentage of black schoolchildren who attend such schools has been rising since the mid 1980's. There is no evidence that this de facto segregation has worked to the advantage of black and Latino children. If it has worked to the advantage of white children in suburban school districts, it is because those schools generally have vastly superior resources. […] Separation of the races, like separation of the sexes, is a diversion from the real issue: educational equality in funding, resources, and attention.

Jesus responds to Michael J. Fox

This video is why I feel uneasy about celebrities doing political ads because they always obscure the issue. These days, you will always be able to find a celebrity to support any issue or to counter a political point of view made by another celebrity. Politics isn't about that. Although I applaud Michael J. Fox for giving up his time and for fighting for what he believes in, I think that he shouldn't have done the ad and should have just kept on supporting Claire McCaskill by speaking for her and doing other things because nowadays, celebrities can hurt more than help a candidate.

A major decision in favor of gay rights

The New Jersey Supreme Court has just held that the gay couples have the rights as heterosexual couples to have the benefits, which comes from a state-sanctioned marriage. This decision doesn't mean that the court is allowing gay marriage, but that it is forbidding the state to discriminate against same sex couples by giving them less rights than others or no rights at all. It is the legislature of New Jersey, which will have to decide whether it wants to call a union between two people of the same sex marriage or a civil union, but the court has said that whatever it is call, it must give gays the same rights as everybody else. You can read the decision here and a comment of the decision from Scotus blog here. I think that it is the right decision because there are no convincing arguments to justify discriminating between gay and heterosexual couples. I wonder what effect this decision will have on the elections.

The video du jour: Rush attacks Fox

This video shows Michael J. Fox endorsement of Democratic candidate Claire McCaskill because of her position in favor of Stem Cell Research. He has Parkinson disease and believes that Stem Cell research provide a realistic hope for a cure. Rush Limbaugh attacked him and said he was faking his disease. One can disagree on Stem Cell Research and even question the right of celebrities to weigh in this political debate, but to question their illness is to cross the line.

The Veil and politeness

Anne Applebaum had another fascinating take on the veil and its meaning in the Washington Post yesterday. She argues that the Veil is hurting Western sensibilities, because it is considered to be impolite. It is a different and provocative view. Money quote:

And yet, at a much simpler level, surely it is also true that the full-faced veil -- the niqab, burqa or chador -- causes such deep reactions in the West not so much because of its political or religious symbolism but because it is extremely impolite. Just as it is considered rude to enter a Balinese temple wearing shorts, so, too, is it considered rude, in a Western country, to hide one's face. We wear masks when we want to frighten, when we are in mourning or when we want to conceal our identities. To a Western child -- or even an adult -- a woman clad from head to toe in black looks like a ghost. Thieves and actors hide their faces in the West; honest people look you straight in the eye.

Food for thought: Voting for democrats is a vote for Bin Laden

“Even so, bin Laden, et. al, know the biggest prize looms just ahead — the chance that the Republican Party will be ousted from one or both houses of Congress. There are many factors contributing to this possibility: the Foley abomination, other corruption cases, the trumped?up "crisis" over First Amendment rights and the administration's ill-informed and ham-fisted handling of the Iraq and Afghan wars. If the Republicans are ousted, pundits on both sides of the aisle will find the causes strictly in America's navel.
    But what will bin Laden and his Islamist allies think? Well, if Republican defeat comes to pass, they will first thank the Almighty — "Allahu Akhbar!" or "God is the greatest!" — for tangible proof of approaching victory. In Spain, Thailand, and Britain — where Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered the fate of Messrs. Aznar and Thaksin for the same reason, but is leaving gracefully — al Qaeda and its allies see politicians winning power who argue: "The military option has been tried and it has failed. We must seek other-than-martial means to defuse the Islamists' appeal and power." As in Europe and Thailand, this has been the refrain of Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jane Harman, and a swath of Republicans who value their seats more than U.S. security.
    If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling "Happy Days Are Here Again!"” Michael F. Scheuer,   “Another Bin Laden Victory.”

The video du jour: the gutter, politics, and attack ads

No, I know what the anti-Harold Ford bothered me, it reminded me of this old ad, which Jesse Helms ran against his opponent Harvey Gantt who was also an African American in the senate race in North Carolina. Judge for yourself.

Choices and Iraq

Richard Holbrooke , the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, offers the President some advice on what to do with Iraq. His view is that there are no good options, but that the least toxic is to “lay out realistic goals, redeploy our troops and focus on the search for a political solution.”

Globalization and Fair Trade: Stiglitz on Doha

Joseph Stiglitz argues in an article that the failure of the Doha Round shows that the United States pays only lip service to free trade and that reviving those trade negotiations is in its interests. Money quote:

America and other advanced countries are the real losers from the demise of the Doha Round. Had the Bush administration fulfilled its commitments, Americans taxpayers would have benefited from the elimination of huge agricultural subsidies - a real boon in this era of yawning budget deficits. Americans would have been better off as consumers, too, with increased access to a variety of low-cost goods from poor countries.

Likewise, migration pressure would have been reduced, because it is the huge disparity in incomes more than anything else that leads people to leave their homes and families to immigrate to the US. A fair trade regime would have helped reduce that disparity.

Indeed, citizens throughout the rich developed world all stand to benefit from a more prosperous globe - especially a world in which there is less poverty, with fewer people facing despair. For we all suffer from the political instability to which such despair gives rise. But it is America that perhaps now stands to gain the most by reviving the Doha talks with a more credible and generous offer. America's influence in the world has suffered greatly in the last few years; the Bush administration's hypocritical use of free-market rhetoric while pursuing protectionist policies has made matters worse.

Food for thought: Withdrawing from Iraq

“Because it turned out we had no postwar plan, our invasion (which I supported) amounted to a bet. Our withdrawal, when it comes to that, must be different. If we decide to reduce forces in the country under the current anarchic conditions, then we are both morally and strategically obligated to talk with Iran and Syria, as well as call for a regional conference. Iraq may be closer to an explosion of genocide than we know. An odd event, or the announcement of pulling 20,000 American troops out, might trigger it. We simply cannot contemplate withdrawal under these conditions without putting Iraq's neighbors on the spot, forcing them to share public responsibility for the outcome, that is if they choose to stand aside and not help us.” Robert Kaplan, “We can't just Withdraw.”

Anti-Harold Ford ad, funny or just plain sleazy?

I just watched this ad against Harold Ford, which was produced by the RNC. I wonder if it goes too far in the gutter or it is fair. I don't know may be I am too sensitive or too bias, but what bothers is the white girl, who portrays a sleazy playboy model not to use another word, which is used too often to describe women who ooze sexuality. Judge for yourself.

Patronizing Turkey

Denis Macshane, a labor member of parliament has a great op-ed with which I agree wholeheartedly about the European Union and its reticence to accept Turkey as one of its members. MacShane argue that this reticence can only have dangerous consequences not only for Turkey, which may be forced to turn eastward if it is not accepted by Europe, but also for the European Union because admitting Turkey is a way to ensure that to promote stability and democracy in the Middle East. Macshane is right because I believe that all the hurdles which France and other countries put in the road of Turkey to EU membership is just a way to hide their own ambivalence about whether a Muslim nation can be a part of the EU and about whether that union is about the creation or rather the affirmation of a European Identity or rather about trade and other common interests. Arguing like Chirac that Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide is a moot point because Turkey to become a member state would have to do other reforms, and become a more democratic state, which will undoubtedly lead to the recognition of this sad part of its history. Thus, there are two biggest hurdles to Turkey's membership to the EU and they haven't been resolve because the attention has been on controversies such as the French law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide and the trials of several writers such as Orhan Pamuk for insulting the Turk Identity. The first issue is whether other members are willing to accept an Islamic state within the European Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, the likely French rightist presidential candidate is against it. The second issue is whether Turkey is able to become more democratic by reforming its laws and its institutions. It is likely that Turkey with time will change and will Europeanize itself, however the interesting question is whether it will even be welcome in Europe.

Fabulists and fear mongering

I just read this post from Bear Creek ledger, which a mixture of ignorance, fear mongering, wishful thinking, and just plain stupidity about how beheading is used by drug cartels and how the US should fear illegal alliens for most of them will soon harm America one way or another. I guess that people just need to see monsters everywhere in order to justify a sometime intolerant and hateful ideology. It is a legitimate position to argue that the US should guard its border and eliminate illegal immegration, but it is not acceptable to use fear and ignorance to fabricate stories in order to make extreme point of view less dangerous.

The video du jour: SNL, Fox, and Bush

Schröder on Religious America

Gerhard Schröder, the ex chancellor on Germany has many interesting things to say about the United States and George Bush in interviews that he is giving in order to sell his autobiography. Here is one of his most biting comments:

[...] if a person [President Bush] adopts a policy based on what he gleans from his prayers, in other words, a personal talk with God, it can lead to difficulties in democracy. [...] We rightly criticize that in most Islamic states, the role of religion for society and the character of the role of law are not clearly separated, [...] But we fail to recognize that in the U.S.A., the Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible have similar tendencies.

The best of yesterday: is it possible to love the veil?

The best article I read yesterday was Yvonne Ridley, “How I came to love the Veil” published in the Washington Post. In that article, Ridley argues for the veil by saying that it is not a sign of Muslim women oppression, but rather a way for some women to reject the libertarianism and the decadence of the West. Money quote:

I was a Western feminist for many years, but I've discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women's liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for "representing the victory of women's rights."

Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety -- not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex.

I didn't know whether to scream or laugh when Italy's Prodi joined the debate last week by declaring that it is "common sense" not to wear the nikab because it makes social relations "more difficult." Nonsense. If this is the case, then why are cellphones, landlines, e-mail, text messaging and fax machines in daily use? And no one switches off the radio because they can't see the presenter's face.

Under Islam, I am respected. It tells me that I have a right to an education and that it is my duty to seek out knowledge, regardless of whether I am single or married. Nowhere in the framework of Islam are we told that women must wash, clean or cook for men. As for how Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives -- it's simply not true. Critics of Islam will quote random Koranic verses or hadith, but usually out of context. If a man does raise a finger against his wife, he is not allowed to leave a mark on her body, which is the Koran's way of saying, "Don't beat your wife, stupid."

Many argue that Ridley’s love for the word is strange, that it is Islamic propaganda and that it is impossible for some women or as a matter for any woman to agree willfully to be veiled and to prefer less rather than more exposure when her body is concerned. I disagree. I think that it is ethnocentric to argue that argue that there is one way of live that is so clearly superior that nobody can freely choose not to follow it. I always argued that women should be free to make any decision that they want to as long as they do not harm anybody else even if their decision is not a popular one. I have no doubt that Ridley likes wearing the veil and that she does because she wants too, but she isn’t the typical woman. She is educated; she has been exposed to different cultures and to different ways of lives. She is aware of what is out there and that she can choose to stop to wear the veil if she chooses to. My wish is that all women whether they are Muslim or not has the education and the opportunities, which Ridley receives to be able to make the choice freely about how she wants the world to perceive her body. The issue here therefore isn’t the veil, but the fact that most women, who wear the niqab do not have any other choice for they know that they will be ostracized at best if they make the decision not to wear and more often than not they don’t know any other way. Knowledge is power and it can only help women to make the choice that is good for them no matter what the world is telling them that they should do. In a free society, people have the possibility to show more or less, to dress whichever way they want to, however consent to be meaningful must always been informed and making the informed choice to wear the veil cannot be an unacceptable choice.

Polygamy fallacies

Becker and Posner are having an interesting discussion on Polygamy. But I think that in a way they are talking around the real issue with polygamy, which is the following, why only allow men to marry as many women as they want, and no women. As I have always said, my only rational objection to polygamy is that it places the focus on masculinity and its desire and ability to fulfill numerous women. I think in order to even have a serious discussion about polygamy it is necessary to put men and women on equal footing and to then ask can and should be allowed to marry more than one person? Polygamy in my opinion is part of the past precisely because it cannot the issue of gender and of equality. Are women possessions, which men can allow to collect or are we all possessions, which both men and women should be allowed to collect?

Blog, politics, and reality in Darfur

Jan Pronk, the UN envoy to Darfur was ordered to leave the devastated region by the Sudanese government for comments he made on his blog. Dan Brezer makes a good point on his blog about the whole incident, but the one thing that I believe he fails to emphasize is the fact that the Sudanese government is using this so-called incident as a pretext. They would have found something else to justify the expulsion of Pronk. The sad truth is that nobody seems to find the atrocities horrific enough to stop them. The timid reactions of the Bush administration are the most disturbing because after having the courage to call what is happening in Darfur “genocide” it has failed to adapt its responses to the situation as it has identified it. The message that this lack of urgency sends to the world is that there are some genocides that the world and the US will tolerate.

The French Creon and power: the quest of Ségolène Royal

The Financial Times had what I thought was an acceptable portrait of Ségolène Royal who is likely to be the French socialist candidate to next year presidential election. The thing that is most striking to me about Ségo as I like to call because I am one of her admirers is that although she is a work in progress she knows her strengths and her weaknesses. If I had to make a prediction on her future, it would be the following, if she were able to convince the socialists to let her be their presidential candidate, she will the next president of France. In short, I think the most difficult thing for her is becoming the candidate for I think that the context in France right now is extremely beneficial to her. But I will emit one big reservation and that is in the event that terrorism takes center stage in France because of a terrorist attack, I hope it doesn’t happen. In that case, I think that Sarkozy will win because the electorate will vote for somebody whom they believe will protect them. Ségo reminds of Creon in the Antigone of Anouilh not of Sophocles. She chooses duty and pragmatism over passion and revolt. To come back to the article, its best quote comes from Jean-Pierre Mignard, a family friend: “Will. Character. Application. She is like Winston Churchill - although she doesn’t smoke cigars.”

Truth and consequence

“I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq.” Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy of the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

“Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on al-Jazeera, I realised that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase: 'There has been arrogance and stupidity' by the US in Iraq.’ (…) This represents neither my views nor those of the state department. I apologise.” Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

Ideology not clothes

Asra Nomani writes in the Washington Post that the real issue concerning Islam and women isn't the fact that they need to be fully clothed in a way, which hide their bodies, but rather how they are treated and perceived. Money quote:

Born into a conservative Muslim family that emigrated from Hyderabad, India, to West Virginia, I have seen many female relatives in India cloak themselves head to toe in black burqas and abandon their education and careers for marriage. But the Islam I knew was a gentle one. I was never taught that a man could -- or should -- physically discipline his wife. Abusing anyone, I was told, violated Islamic tenets against zulm , or cruelty. My family adhered to the ninth chapter of the Koran, which says that men and women "are friends and protectors of one another." [...] As long as the beating of women is acceptable in Islam, the problem of suicide bombers, jihadists and others who espouse violence will not go away; to me, they form part of a continuum. When 4:34 [a verse in the Koran] came into being in the 7th century, its pronouncements toward women were revolutionary, given that women were considered little more than chattel at the time. But 1,400 years later, the world is a different place and so, too, must our interpretations be different, retaining the progressive spirit of that verse.

The video du dimanche: difference and gasoline

Food for thought: The real issue behind the Veil

“The issue in need of serious discussion is not the niqab — the veil that covers all but a woman’s eyes — but the larger question of the place of Europe’s Muslim minority. Even if Mr. Straw is correct in describing the niqab (used by a small minority of European Muslims) as a barrier to assimilation, or to communication, it is still not the source of the current anxiety.

The problem is that the discovery of jihadists in Europe — whether those who plotted 9/11 or the Madrid or London bombings — has made non-Muslim Europeans far more suspicious of the large Muslim minorities among them and what they perceive as a self-imposed isolation. Those suspicions have, in turn, bolstered the arguments of a small minority of Muslim leaders who call for more isolation.

The real debate should be about the failure of European governments to address the sources of immigrant discontent — which include high unemployment and discrimination — and about the failure of Muslim leaders in the West to counter the rise of extremism in their communities.” New York Times Editorial, “Behind the Veil.”

The return of Compassionate Conservatism

The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating article on Michael Gerson who is know as the man behind the famous and now passé expression "Compassionate Conservatism." Michael Gerson has very interesting things to say about Conservatism and its future:

[…] compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself.

[…] It's almost a shame to say, […] but evangelicalism doesn't have that rich a tradition, and so you look for other sources that represent an authentic Christian witness in society.

[…] My view is summarized by Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that the church should not be the master of the state, or the servant of the state. It should be the conscience of the state.