So last week I finished The Post-American World and I have to say it was one of the best books I have ever read. Although relatively short at 259 pages, it is amazing the breadth of information he has managed to pack into it. I can’t remember another book where I found myself nodding in agreement to almost everything he said. I do have a problem with the title, though. It absolutely makes sense in the context of the book but I think it’s a little too inflammatory for those that aren’t familiar with his work and it will probably cause a fair amount of people to dismiss it as “just another anti-American book.” Really, it is anything but that. While he certainly doesn’t pull any punches in criticizing American blunders, he is also careful to point out the myriad of successes and instances where we’ve gotten an undeserved bad rep. Overall he presents a vision of a world where, yes, America will inevitably be stepping down from its role as the sole super-power but where we also have a very important new role to play and we will be instrumental in determining whether or not the age of globalization surges ahead smoothly or lurches forward unsteadily. In the analogy of the world as a corporation, we will be the Chairman of the Board. We wield the most power at the table, but we will no longer be able to unilaterally act without the cooperation of the rest of the Board of Directors.
Rather than expound on the subjects he talks about, I thought it would be better to give it to you in his own words, with some commentary from me after each quote.
On Terrorism
“Some Western leaders speak of a single Islamist movement – absurdly lumping together Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite warlords in Lebanon, and Sunni jihadists in Egypt. In fact, a shrewd strategist would emphasize that all these groups are distinct, with differing agendas, enemies, and friends. That would rob them of their claim to represent Islam. It would also describe them as they often are: small local gangs of misfits hoping to attract attention through nihilism and barbarism.”
This is such a great point. Even in anecdotal discussions with pretty well-informed people I have often heard (and been guilty of saying myself) things like “well, the Sunnis want this, and the Shiites want this” when the reality is far more complex. In the U.S. if someone were to make a statement that the KKK, the IRA, and pro-lifers that bomb abortion clinics were all the same because they are all radical Christian-based organizations, people would rightfully look at them like they were crazy. But far too often we are eager to group things together and gloss over all the extremely important complexities of the situation. We do so at our own peril.
“Here is the bottom line. In the six years since 9/11, Al-Qaeda Central – the group led by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri – has been unable to launch a major attack anywhere. It was a terrorist organization; it has become a communications company, producing the occasional videotape rather than actual terror. Jihad continues, but the jihadists have had to scatter, make do with smaller targets, and operate on a local level – usually through groups with almost no connection to Al Qaeda Central. And this improvised strategy has a crippling weakness: it kills locals, thus alienating ordinary Muslims. . . The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant”
Now I’m sure a lot of people will see this as goading the terrorists but I think this is a far cry from Bush’s “Bring it on” from 2004. The most important thing, and the thing we need to improve the most upon in this country, is to keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. If you don’t like the above quote, consider this one: “Get on the damn elevator! Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist! It’s still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave.” That’s from John McCain’s book (Why Courage Matters, 2004). Fighting terrorism, like fighting crime, is an important part of any country’s safety. It should not, however, be dominating the political agenda.
The Effects of Terrorism on the Economy
“In the West, the effects of terrorism have diminished with each additional attack. After 9/11, global financial markets collapsed and did not return to 9/10 levels for 2 months. After the Madrid bombings in 2004, the Spanish market took a month to recover. After the London bombings in July 2005, British stocks were back to pre-bombing levels in 24 hours.”
As an economics geek, I find this kind of thing really interesting, and it is one of the things I have believed for a while. Since terrorism cannot kill the genocidal type numbers of a huge war, the only way it really succeeds is if it manages to create instability and fear within a population. That is why I was actually upset when, on the evening of 9/11, there was nothing to be found on the TV but WTC coverage. Certainly I don’t think that it wasn’t newsworthy, I just thought that the best response to the attack would have been a collective shrug where we get on with our lives. It bothered me that we kept saying “the terrorists failed” while all the while further solidifying that 9/11/01 will be a pivotal date etched into the history books. That’s what they wanted to do, and they succeeded. 9/11 should not be our date or our rallying cry. 9/11 is about a group of misguided extremists who decided to bring tragedy and destruction into the lives of innocent people. That’s their date. You know what our date is? 7/4. Always has been, and always should be. To quote The World is Flat, “we need to restore 9/11 to its rightful place on the calendar. The day after 9/10 and the day before 9/12.”
Climate Change
“Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build 800 new coal-fired power plants – with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”
Again, this is all about perspective (though this time in the reverse). It’s all well and good for us Americans to switch to fluorescent lights and even drive our hybrid cars, but unless we are able to get China and India on board in the fight against climate change, it’s probably all moot. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though.
American Hypocrisy
[This is Fareed quoting a Chinese government employee]“When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is ‘And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?’ We see the hypocrisy, we just don’t say anything, yet.”
Fareed expounds on this a lot in the book. Bush is fond of saying how much he loves democracy and condemns countries that support non-democratic regimes. Yet the rest of the world sees our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and our words seem very hollow. We consider those countries to be “exceptions”. But we either need to stop having our own exceptions or realize that other countries are entitled to their exceptions too and drop the empty rhetoric.
“On terrorism, both parties continue to speak in a language entirely designed for a domestic audience with no concern for the poisonous effect it has everywhere else.”
When our politicians fall all over themselves decrying this and that country and leader, it’s always with the mindset of how American voters will see the issue. But the rest of the world watches too, and it does not set the stage for very effective diplomatic relationships.
The Global Economy
“For all its abuses of power, the U.S. has been the creator and sustainer of the current order of open trade and democratic government – an order that has been benign and beneficial for the vast majority of humankind.”
“That is why it seems perfectly natural that the largest casino in the world has been built in Macao, China – and it is an imitation of St. Mark’s Square in Venice, which is itself strongly influenced by Moorish (Islamic) design. Is it Chinese, Western, Moorish, or modern? Probably all of the above.”
From the Pew Global Attitudes Survey – “Of the 47 countries polled, however, the one that came in dead last in terms of support for free trade was the US . . .We want the world to accept American companies with open arms, but when they come here – that’s a different matter.”
“Over the last 15 years the U.S. has placed sanctions on half the world’s population. We are the only country in the world to issue annual report cards on every other country’s behavior.”
“Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that, in the early decades of the 21st century, the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission – it globalized the world. But along the way, they might write, it forgot to globalize itself.”
I don’t have a lot of comments on these individually, as I think they generally speak for themselves. I think together they paint a pretty good picture of the role the U.S. has had in shaping the current world and global economy we operate in, and also the challenges that we face in now needing to reshape the way we interact with this new world order.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Damn, I was going to read this and now you ruined the ending. Hehe.
I have thoughts on probably all these topics, but the first paragraph stood out in my mind the most. When you say "America will inevitably be stepping down from its role as the sole super-power..."
I can't agree more. If for no other reason than from population and globalization. We used to be able to somewhat control the world market through the use of innovation and technology. Now that the world is getting smaller (global corporations, the internet, 24 hour access to news and information, reverse engineering etc...) the US can no longer invent something and hope to be the only country using the technology for 20 years. If the US invents something truely unique, it will be mass produced in foreign countries withinn the year, and more than likely within 2 months. That being said, we can do the same thing, but it doesn't matter because of...
Population. You talk about the population growth in China and India when it comes to climate change, but population alos has a great deal to do with world standing. Can you imagine going to war with China? They have 3 times the people we do! Also, I think they have mandatory military service.
So, if you combine a giant population with a shrinking technology gap, America is most definatly starting to lose its claim to the "World's Only Superpower" title.
This is why diplomacy is going to be so important over the next 20 or 30 years, because we need to position ourselves as China's friend. In essence, we need to be England to their America. But we also need to do it in a way that advances our agenda of such things as climate change and human rights.
Allright, I'm done for now.
Totally agree, Weir.
I looked up Hegemony in the dictionary, and no where did it state "The United States of America".
It is truly tiring to repeatedly hear again and again how awful the U.S. is from people who benefit from the generosity and kindness of the citizens of the United States every day.
Fareed Zakaria, a Muslim born in Bombay India, was educated at Yale, and was a member of Scroll and Keys (a secret society with ties to socialism, communism, Anti-War groups, and Big Oil).
Now let me officially say this: I don't think Mr. Zakaria is a bad person. I just want to point out that perhaps someone with this background and who grew up in a revolutionary family (look up his father), might have an axe to grind against percieved injustices perpetrated by an "Imperialist Government".
Viewed in this light and with a little skepticism (and John, I know you have a little to spare), maybe every one of the quotes you have in your post could seem a bit... um, un-American?
Weir, I think you're mostly correct. Hopefully our influence can reach beyond technology alone and into human rights, gender equality, and socio-political alignment with the rest of the world. The U.S. does, after all, consist of almost $160B worth of their export business.
I meant to say Anti-American, not Un-American.
Sorry.
And Mikey comes out swinging with some right-wing bullshit! Talking politics, I was wondering how long it would take him.
Questioning and prognositcating do not immediatly make you anit- or un- anything.
While those on the right may want you to believe otherwise...
You can question the war and support the troops at the same time.
You can believe that the past 7.5 years (and to a lesser degree the last 50 years) has seen American Imperialism run rampant under the guise of 'spreading democracy.'
You can be patriotic without wearing a flag pin on your lapel or putting your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.
And questioning your leaders does not make you a traitor.
We, as American's, think we have some sort of right to be the worlds fucking schoolteacher. Sending kids to detention, stopping fights, and handing out grades. The minute someone else has the balls to examine or criticize our means or our methods our panties twist and we impose sanctions or bomb them. It is time we get our collective heads out of our asses and accept the (righteous) criticism that is coming our way and the black mark the history books will paint on the last 8 years.
Free speech bitch, sometimes you have to live with people who disagree with you.
Let's also bear in mind that THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT! I'm taking your word that this guy was a foreign born Muslim that was educated in the US. You know who else fits that criteria? The fucking 9/11 bombers. If you have a beef with someone you talk it out and have scholarly debates about the issues.
That being said, Mike, I thought you were better than to blast something you haven't read off 6 out of context quotes in a blog. I know I'm not, but I thought you were better than me.
Hegemony from dictionary.com
(Where they do, in fact, use the US as an example when refering to international economic systems.)
Honestly, this is what happens when there is nothing good on TV. It is going to be a long summer.)
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. What do you prefer, dead babies or a pile of bricks? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
The Great Derangement: A terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire
Twilight of the American Empire? Empire makes it sound so negative, this guy must be un-American.
And how dare he say our Empire is in its twilight? This guy must be un-American.
This guy must work for some crazy left-wing crackpot publication.
Rolling Stone? Never heard of it. Probably some guys blog.
/sarcasm
BTW, Rev. Don Spitz is my new hero.
I would totally rather have a pile of bricks instead of dead babies. Those are my only two options, right?
(Also BTW, he should have said "pile of bricks" or "pile of dead babies." The alliteration is better and the image is hilarious.)
Did the 4th of July come early this year? Because I'm seeing a lot of fireworks.
This is a perfectly crystallized example of how political discussions rapidly deteriorate. Mike, you didn't choose to argue or object to any specific quote and chose instead just to attack the messenger. This reminds me of having climate change discussions where people think just because you can point out that Al Gore is an idiot automatically means that everything he says about global warming is wrong.
Then we have Weir, who sees Mike's post as indicative of all things right-wing, and he goes on a rant against the right in general. Your points may be valid (and indeed I agree with almost everything you said) but note the interesting thing that has happend here. We're now not talking about any of his or my points from the post, we're just having a political ideology war. I don't have a problem with that, but I just want to point out how quickly the discussion got derailed, because you see this time and time again in debates.
Next, Mike if the quotes I used do come off as anti-American to you that is at least partially my fault. While I did quote him accurately and also tried, where possible, to provide some context, this was a relatively short blog post and there are inherent limitations. As such, the quotes I chose because either 1) they were succinct in transmitting a complex thought in relatively simple language; or 2) I had some specific thoughts about them. All that said, your statement that "maybe every one of the quotes you have in your post could seem a bit... um, anti-American" is quite over the top. I chose 11 quotes, and only 6 of them even mention the U.S. (and one of those is specifically complimentary).
And I will also echo Weir's sentiment that something critical does not make it anti-anything. That's the very definition of constructive criticism. Telling your child that their grades are unacceptable and they need to study more does not make you anti-child. Likewise, telling your government that some of their actions are unacceptable and they, too, need to study more does not make you anti-American.
Finally, I do want to stress again that this book has a ton of really good things to say about America. Specifically, he makes a compelling case that the idea that our top-tier universities are losing their prestige and that we are losing ground in technological breakthroughs are both myths. But a statement like that requires a lot of support, and I couldn't very well reprint 10 pages worth here. That's just one example; there are a number of others. Overall, I think he strikes the right tone of pointing out our successes, failures, and opportunities.
And Weir, I can see you watched the Daily Show last night . . .
I already told you John, I get my reading list (adult syllabus?) from The Daily Show, guests on the real news channels, and digg.com.
Re-reading my post from last night, I realize that it can be read that I called Mike a bitch. To be clear, when I said "Free speech, bitch..." I wasn't refering specifically to Mike, but meant "This is free speech people!"
I also probably over-spoke, as re-reading Mike's post it isn't nearly as inflammatory as I first thought.
However, something I missed which I feel must be adressed:
What was the point of pointing out that he is a Muslim?
If he was a foreign born Catholic would you have mentioned it? Doubtful.
You add 'Muslim' to the guys name and hope to immediatly cast a shadow on his character. Like right-wing TV and Radio constantly saying "Hussein" when reffering to Senator Obama. Anyone catch that woman voter out of West Virginia explaining why she voted for Senator Clinton? She says it was because "His name is Hussein, and we've had enough of the Husseins."
I don't know if it was on purpose, but that kind of subtle and subversive scare tactic makes me queasy.
Hmm... I counted eight.
Anyway, I've accepted the fact that in this little microcosm I have become the embodiment of all that is evil and "right wing" with the world. It's unfortunate that you may have a preconceived notion that, just because I vote for the lesser of many many many evils, I agree with everything the republicans have to say. I will say this again, for the benefit of those that have not been listening to me.
I am a fiscally conservative, socially liberal free thinker. I voted republican, and will for the forseeable future, because they are the party least likely at this point in time to screw me financially, thus taking away the only freedom I have left right now in my life.
I am skeptical of left wing socialist propaganda, just as I am skeptical of the far right's nutty religious scare tactic propaganda. You mostly just get to hear the skepticism of the left because no on here, except me, seems to be conservative. And I'm not about to start tearing down my own posts.
All I was saying, and I thought I was pretty clear, is that given the (admittedly) few quotes from the book that John has reprinted, it seems like there might be an agenda here. Yes, it does seem anti American to me. I'd be happy to specifically point out what seems anti American, but I really would like to read the book first. Perhaps my opinion will change.
There is a trend that we as a people seem to be following that any time someone disagrees with us, or questions us, we view that as an attack. But on the other hand, any time we disagree with or criticize someone else it's our right as an American. Weir, I disagree with you. John, I disagree with you. But I absolutely will defend your right, privilege, and DUTY to speak your minds. I just expect the same in return.
And regarding hegemony; dictionary.com uses it in a sentence, but not as an example of a hegemony. Subtle difference, I know, but a difference nonetheless.
Well, then be queasy bitch!
;-)
Yeah, I did point it out specifically because no Catholics that I know of have specifically stated that The United States is an evil zionist regime that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
See, now you've made me go and be THAT GUY.
Seriously, though... I thought, and still think, that it is notable because of the history of militant Islamist rhetoric that has, sadly, been the loudest voice of Islam.
Either that or I am just a jingoistic racist who fear mongers on blogs worldwide.
Well, lets be grateful then that the KKK is not the loudest voice of Chritianity.
First there was Sears. Then there was K-Mart. Now it's Walmart. These types of things have always run in cycles, and while I can point out a number of reasons that Walmart is GOOD for the economy, it won't have any impact on your line of thinking because you have lost your historical perspective.
Supply side economics works when it's properly implemented. The problem we're in now is that we have, for 16 years, been working toward a mercantilist economy rather than a free market.
If a developer decides to build a skyscraper, and he uses only the best materials, architects, and laborers to build his castle in the sky, but builds it on mud instead of bedrock, then it will likely collapse. Right now our economy is built on MUD. We have limited the free market through absurd regulations and backward incentives that encourage production to move offshore rather than remain in our country. This turns us into a purchaser of everything we consume rather than a producer of everything the world consumes.
Geeze! You are a master of changing the subject, Aren't you?
By the way, I no longer shop at Walmart.
"Seriously, though... I thought, and still think, that it is notable because of the history of militant Islamist rhetoric that has, sadly, been the loudest voice of Islam."
I find it quite amusing that you follow this up with your next post saying that Weir has "lost his historical perspective".
Are you seriously suggesting that Islam has been more militant than Christianity? If so you need to read more history. You can start with Bosnia 10 years ago when Serbs ethnically cleansed the country of Muslims, then knocked down all the libraries and temples they had built and declared that they had never been there. Then you can go back 60 years and look at the Holocaust. Then you can go back 150 years to manifest destiny where we had no problem commiting genocide of the indigenous people in the name of god. Then you might want to look at the 900 years of the Holy Roman Empire, and that whole minor 300-year Crusade business. Finally, wedged in there nicely is the Spanish Inquisition (I'll be deeply disappointed if someone doesn't prompt me with the correct line here in the next comment).
Islam has a lot of blood on its hands, but it can't hold a candle to Christianity in that regard. So that begs the question, why is it more suspicious that someone is a Muslim?
To say that the militant wing of Islam has been the loudest is true, but irrelevant. The kooks are ALWAYS the loudest, because they are lightning rods for controversy. What do you think the rest of the world has seen from our religious leaders lately? They have seen clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Pastor Hagee saying inane things ad nauseam all over the 24-hour news stations. Imagine how misguided it would be for someone in another country to think that they represent the thoughts of the U.S. populace or the majority of Christians. Now shine that light back on yourself and see if you are not doing the same thing.
Sure, Ahmadinejad has made statements about blowing Israel off the map, but 30 years ago that was something every Arab leader said. Now, he stands with only 2 or 3 other leaders in saying that. That's a lot of progress in relatively little time. Islam is currently going through its version of the Protestant Reformation and it will continue to marginalize these extremist groups just as the Western world has done. We can hasten this progression by recognizing this and not insultingly lumping them all together.
Could go on for another 500 words but I'm going to stop . . .
well shit, now i'm left to defend Christianity, and I'm a friggin AGNOSTIC!!!
You guys... I swear.
No, I'm not asking you to defend Christianity. I'm asking you to defend why hearing that someone is a Muslim makes you more suspicious than hearing that they are a Christian.
John:
I think everyone has lost a little "historical perspective". Let's please remember there is a big difference between "Christianity" and rulers of "Christian" nations, states, empires, etc. Religion is a convenient rallying cry that leaders of all different types of religions have used to motivate the masses to wage war. Therefore it's a simplification to say any religion has more blood on its hands than another. Wars are fought over land, wealth, and influence. Occasionally religion happens to offer a convenient justification for war and/or committing atrocities.
Because you offered Bosnia as an example of Christian violence, et me share a common joke told in the countries that used to constitute Yugoslavia: What is the difference between a Serb, a Croat, and a Bosnian? The punch line was a Serb is an Orthodox Christian that doesn't go to church, a Croat is a Catholic that doesn't go to church, and a Bosnian is a Muslim that doesn't go to church. Religion wasn't an issue there (Yugoslavia literally had almost 0 "religious tension" until it began to dissolve) until Nationalist leaders sought to gain influence over tracts of land as the country began to fall apart and used religion as an excuse to take land that didn't belong to them. The Muslims happened to be less well armed (The US's fault)which is why their buildings were destroyed and not the Serbs'. Keep in mind, the mutually Christian Croats and Serbs initially bombed the hell out of each other-Christian on Christian violence-not sure how to fit that in here.
Anyways, it's probably incorrect to say Islam "can't hold a candle to Christianity" in regards to levels of violence. Our history, as the human race, is filled with a bunch of jacka**** from a number of ethnic, religious, and national backgrounds that have done terrible things to other people from differing and/or similar backgrounds. And they did those things to consolidate power and gain valued territory, not because they really believed their religion was superior from a theological perspective.
It is interesting to examine the holy texts of each religion because that is where we how they approach the notion of shedding blood. Jesus had his own blood on his hands. Mohammed had the blood of his enemies on his hands. Each text deals with violence differently, but it's historically and textually accurate to say that Islam was forged through warfare while Christianity was forged by non-violence, at least initially. Of course, as the religions gained popularity, their initial messages we're reinterpreted by a multitude of s**heads that used the words "Christianity" and "Islam" to further their personal agendas.
So, I started to try and figure out how to defend my deeply held belief that Islamic/Muslim terrorists hate me, my country, and my way of life.
Hey, guess what?
I don't have to. They'll tell you themselves:
This one is a peach... Read it a couple of times, please. It takes a good second or third read to really hit home the level of contempt for the U.S.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=42492&d=4&m=4&y=2004&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
Al Jazeera always has something useful to say
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=113534
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=122111
And Weir, here's some video so you can digest it easily
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4ESLj-bKI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
In fact, the only place I could find anything officially opposing terrorism was the CAIR website, and they're being investigated for financing terrorist organizations (United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et. al. Case No. CR-3:04 CR-240-G , USDC, Dallas, TX)
Islamic and Muslim fundamentalists hate America TODAY(!). They blow stuff up, and then they dance in the streets when it happens. There aren't any KKK idiots or Nazis trying to overthrow the government. There aren't any Roman Catholics tying anyone up on crosses on State Street. There are certainly no Spanish Inquisitors crashing airplanes into buildings. But then again, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think they are all out to get me, but that's an awfully big crowd in that last video. Not really what I'd call "fringe" given that it's broadcast on state run television all over the middle east. And given my perception (which I feel is pretty well founded, and I'm not trying to fear monger... you brought me to this by poking me with a prove-it stick over and over) I think it's not only my right, but my responsibility to look at something written by someone I don't know I can/should trust, and question its'/their authenticity, and its'/their motives.
While writing this I did come across this web site. It gives me hope that I am woefully wrong...
http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/fullstories/Aug2006_beingamuslim.html
1. Wow, the fundamentalists hate America? Big shocker there. You know why you don't hear much out of the KKK nowadays? Because their dream ticket has been in the White House for 7.5 years. Kanye wasn't lying.
2. I didn't have time to read your links or view your videos so I will politely back away from this discussion. I will also bow out because I have to hurry up and finish the book I'm reading because...
3. I have to get ready to read my new best friend's book. What Happened? from Scotty McClellan. In fact, I'm torn between watching his interview on Countdown tonight, or watching the extended edition of last week's Lost. Decisions, decisions.
(By the way, I can use the HTML tags for bold and italics but I can't underline a book title?)
(Mike, the elder, not Jr.)
The KKK's dream ticket has been in the White House for 7.5 years?
Please explain.
Mike, even I got what Weir said about the dream ticket!
And I know it's off the subject but I'd like to address Rev. Don Spitz:
Rev. Don, if one bombed an abortion clinic, does one do so when it's closed and empty for the night in order to make your point? A pile of bricks versus a pile of babies...what about the pile of body parts?
I love those kind of half-assed arguements....I guess I better go pray.
John, someone beat me to the Spanish Inquisition comment! There was a Monty Python marathon on BBC this weekend, did you watch any of it?
Well, I don't know if this was obvious or not, but I was being mostly inflammatory and sensationalistic with that comment, and trying to tie a previous comment forward, but...
Katrina. Yeah, some of the stories out of there were blown out of proportion, but I find it rediculous that we have support to Myanmar halfway around the world within 24 hours, but we can't get relief to New Orleans for 3 or 4 days?
An assinine border policy. "Good fences make good neighbors" does not mean build a bigger and better fence. And municipalities paying rednecks in pickups packing rifles and shotguns to patrol vast areas of Texas desert isn't the answer either.
Enforcement of laws that encourage voter suppression.
Ultra-conservative supreme court apointees.
Rollbacks on social programs.
etc..etc...
All these things negatively effect minorities in disproportionate percentages.
(Damn, I said I was going to leave this discussion alone...)
(Welcome Elder Mike. I can assume Mike called you in to look at what his crazy friends were talking about.)
(I don't know how I got onto this. Minority issues arent something I normally soapbox about.)
Sure, I think I know what he meant too, but would like to rebut specifics. Throwing out the line that Bush, et al, hate black people (no matter how it's disguised) is not fair. Some examples to work from would be helpful.
"So, I started to try and figure out how to defend my deeply held belief that Islamic/Muslim terrorists hate me, my country, and my way of life."
I'm not sure why you were bothering with this, as no one ever disputed it. I asked you to defend why a Muslim person was more than suspicious than a Christian, and you respond by saying that Muslim terrorists want to kill us. Do you not see the incredible leap in logic there? Muslim person does not equal or even imply extremist/terrorist.
Now, for your links. The arabnews one doesn't work, so repost it or e-mail it to me. And youtube is blocked for me at work, so I haven't seen those yet. However, I don't know what the al Jazeera articles are supposed to prove. The first one is certainly not complimentary of the U.S. but please point me to a single quote in the whole article that advocates terrorism against the U.S. (and, as an aside, I am pretty much in complete agreement with the article). As for your other link [shrug] I fail to see how the opinion of "Cliffie from South Africa" posting on an al Jazeera comment section indicates the prevailing teachings of Islam.
As for the youtube clips, even though I haven't seen them I can say with a fair degree of certainty that they don't matter. A "fringe" group is not defined by raw numbers; it is defined by percentage of the whole. There are roughly 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, so unless you are going to tell me that there are at least 140 million people in that group, I still feel confident that my claim is valid.
Finally, how could you steal my joke! I make the Monty Python reference, I call for the set-up line, and then not only do you fail to give it to me you usurp the punchline!
Dan - I knew that if anything was going to get you involved, it would be talking about Bosnia. I agree with just about everything you said. I think it is pointless and arbitrary to try and compare body counts of one religion to another. The point I was really trying to make (though obviously it wasn't very clear) was that Christianity has gone through varying periods of peace and violence, but has the actual tenets of the religion changed? No. What changes are the people that choose to use religion as a justification to push their own agenda. And the more unhappy and opressed people are, the more ripe they are for a charismatic leader to rally them together against a common enemy (whether real or imagined). Just as these past extremist groups commiting atrocitites in the name of Christianity didn't really represent "true" Christianity, the same is true of Muslims today.
Most Americans believe (rightly) that the majority of people who consider themself Christian are content with seeing their faith as something between themselves, their family, and god (the occasional forwarding of stupid religious e-mails to their entire address book notwithstanding). And we believe this in spite of the bombardment of images from Rev. Wright, Pastor Hagee, and our new friend the Rev. Spitz because we see that, even though they all have ardent followers, they do not represent the mainstream thoughts on Christian dogma. Yet we seem unable to make this same connection when we see images of Muslim extremists in other countries. We see the image of a few thousand angry men yelling "Death to America" at a rally because the image of several hundred million other Muslims praying at home or at their mosques is not news.
John says a few thousand people yelling "Death to America" shouldn't be representatvie of 1.4 billion people, and I agree.
I was trying to come up with something similar that we do that could paint us in a similar light abroad.
And then I remember this.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
And the whole audience laughs.
On one hand you have a couple thousand people shouting "Death to America."
Then on the other hand you have a Presidential Candidate joking about blowing up an entire country.
Self-fulfilling prophecy?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Chicken and the egg?
Like John said, it is pretty easy for a charismatic leader to stir up a mob, but at the same time I have no idea what those people would say if you got them 1 on 1 and asked them 'Why?'
"(I'll be deeply disappointed if someone doesn't prompt me with the correct line here in the next comment)."
I thought I was. Oh well.
And Dad... I was mike here first. You'll have to pick something else, 'cause I'm not going by "Junior". Of course "Indy" has a nice ring to it (here's your chance John).
And Weir, My parents both read this blog. In fact, I think they read it before I started.
Now, on to rebuttals and inflamations: Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powel, Roderick Paige... All a bunch of Uncle Tom's, right Weir? Bush has had the most diverse (gender and race) judicial and cabinet appointments of any President, including your first "black" President, Bill Clinton. Of course, you'll say now that no self respecting minority can be conservative. Go ahead, say it.
JOhn, I don't think we can go any further around on this. Think of me how you will, but I am suspicious of Muslims. I feel I am justified, and there are numerous published former muslims who think I am justified, and yet you disagree. Nothing I say will change your mind, but I doubt you have bought your tickets to go hang out on the beautiful beaches of the Gaza Strip either.
First, the link that didn't work. Sorry about that:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=64357&d=26&m=5&y=2005
Now, the Al Jazeera Article:
"...its own short-sighted tendency blindly to support Israel’s positions, to buttress Arab autocrats, and to oppose the large, populist Islamo-nationalist movements..."
Blind support of Israel? C'mon.
Populist Islamo-Nationlist Movements??? How about Terrorist groups.
"The United States, on the other hand, seems often to want to stoke the fires of ideological tension and military conflict..."
YOu're not reading John. This is clearly Anti-American, unless you actually DO believe that we, or our government, wishes to actively start problems. And if that's the case and you do believe that, there's no point in even discussing any of this.
"Episodic local tensions have now been transformed into a major and chronic cycle of region-wide political battles, pitting U.S.- and Israeli-backed “moderates” against a wide array of Islamists, “extremists” and “militants” in the Arab world and Iran."
Yeah, we started all of this. Everything was fine until we got involved. Thousands of years ago when we got involved. I'll be so glad when we stop "helping" the rest of the world. I'll be content to let them fight their stupid little wars over some stupid imaginary border where some jackass 500 years ago insulted someone's third cousin twice removed .
These are examples of the outright lies, the gentle bending of facts, and the brainwashing propaganda techniques used by their media, and Americans are starting to believe it.
Look back at my first post. My ENTIRE reason for writing that post was to ASK if you had even questioned the motivations of the person writing the book you read. You're more than willing... even gleeful, to question the motivations of republican politicians and the "right wing" media here in our country. Why the willingness to line up while someone fills your tummy with what might be poisoned cool-aid?
And you still haven't answered the question.
Sorry, I guess you did answer the question I asked in writing regarding the anti-American sentiment. And the question during our converstation where I elaborated on the post and further asked if you had done any research on Zakaria was answered during our conversation, but feel free to post the answer to that question here.
Prior to Katrina, FEMA’s mission was to come in after two or three days and support the local government with extra help. New Orleans had a plan in place for an emergency. They didn’t follow it or even do much at all. The police and many other emergency personnel just disappeared. The people were left to fend for themselves. Even the mayor bagged it and moved his family to Texas. That’s doing the job you were elected for. The next state over, Mississippi, was hit just as hard. The people there picked themselves up and got to work and started fixing things. They didn’t sit around saying, “Help me”. Granted, FEMA apparently still managed to mess up. But initially, the local and state governments were supposed to get things going. They dropped the ball.
The U.S. is a sovereign country. We should have a secure border. If it takes a fence to keep out the hordes, then build it. Contrary to popular opinion, conservatives don’t hate Mexicans and others sneaking into the country. What they don’t like is people breaking the law by not entering the country legally. There are many waiting in line to enter, it’s not fair to them to have others bumping ahead of the line. Now I have to say that I don’t agree with Bush on immigration/amnesty. There are other things I don’t agree with him about, so I’m not 100% for his plans. The sad reason that citizens had to watch and patrol the border is that the Border Patrol wasn’t doing their job. They’ve been hamstrung by political higher-ups telling the line officers not to stop people crossing. Or there aren’t enough officers.
I don’t know how enforcing laws having to do with voting is suppressing the vote. Should people who haven’t registered to vote or are not citizens be allowed to vote? I personally don’t mind showing ID when voting. I’m sure you guys don’t mind showing ID when getting a drink at a bar or restaurant. States that have enacted ID laws are going out of their way to provide identification (at no cost) to anyone who needs it.
Well, I guess we’re going to disagree on Supreme Court appointees. I prefer any court to have someone who follows what the constitution says, not someone changing it for their own needs.
Social programs, or entitlements, have gotten way out of hand monetarily. Sure, people need help sometimes. But people should not look to the government to be their mommy. Many have forgotten how to be self-sufficient. Families should learn to help each other more. The taxes we all have to pay is getting to be too much.
Michael, I’m sorry that my name is the same as yours (Mom wanted it that way). Anyway, when I log in to Google is puts my name there. Mine is the little orange symbol with a B. Yours it the little head and shoulders symbol.
Besides, you’re the one who said they were ganging up on you!
Hey, I just said if you were reading it anyway, you needed to get in the game!
I suppose that's true. Maybe I thought they were ganging up on you. Sorry to all.
We named the dog Indiana.
(BTW, I was looking for someone to post "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" instead of jumping straight to the punchline, but no worries; I was just giving you hell)
Yes, I agree that it's time to wind this down for the time being since we are rapidly approaching (or have already reached) retreading points already made.
OK, I hope it's clear now that I was agreeing that the al Jazeera article was anti-American; I just don't think it was pro-terrorism. Maybe you do. Who's right? Who knows . . .
I certainly think that al Jazeera is biased, but I also believe that media from all countries is inherently biased because it reflects how the events of the world are seen through the prism of each country's culture and current outlook (and certainly not discounting possible editor agendas). I don't believe the U.S. media is right-biased or left-biased; it's both. People tend to think that the parts of the media which presents their side is the "true" record, and the other media is the one that is biased. The closest thing to an official "paper of record" to me is The Economist because even though their opinions are not impeccable, their facts usually are. Still, even with that I wouldn't accept something from them that was contradicted in multiple other sources.
As for considering the source when I read something, I tend more to consider the data presented and then the logic used to reach a conclusion. Therefore I tend to not much care who is actually saying it, because I assume that everyone has an agenda.
But yes, I know a lot about Fareed Zakaria. I have watched This Week with George Stephanopolous for the last 2 years and he is a frequent contributor on the panel there. He also writes a weekly column for Newsweek and is, in general, a well respected journalist. Some may consider him to be liberal, but he would describe himself as centrist and I would agree. He is a staunch supporter of free trade and was for the Iraq War though he, like McCain, has been a long-time critic of its execution. Basically, he hates the Democratic party line on trade and most economic issues, and hates the Republican party line on foreign policy. Not surprisingly, that pretty much mirrors my feelings.
Again, it is very ironic to have the discussion about allowing ourselves to be "poisoned" in the course of talking about a book that is one of the more optimistic and pro-American books that I have read. I do hope you read it, and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about it after.
great post john. Eric, you may now disagree.
Mike Sr,
I was going to go point for point with you, but I just don't have the mind grapes to do it today.
Quickly though, we can agree to disagree on things, nothing wrong with that.
The reason I don't like the border fence is that it teats a symptom (illegal immigration) and not the disease (a Mexican economy that sucks and a currency that is next to worthless.) Find a way to bolster the Mexican economy and the illegals wont want to come here as badly. (oh yeah, and the polution, crime, corruption, etc...)
And 'strict interpretation of the constitution' is, itself, open to interpretation (See: 2nd amendment.) The Constituation needs to be a living document. And the strict amendment procedures and percentages (combined with partisan politics) do not provide enough room for growth. (this is not a fully formed thought, please don't beat me upside the head with it.)
And Indiana,
Maybe what you're missing is exposure to actual Muslims. I worked with one (yes, I know ONE isn't exactly the greatest sample size) for 10 months and a nicer guy you could not meet. Actually it was only for 8 months because he took a leave of absence to pilgrimage to Mecca. The pictures he brought back were breathtaking. People as far as you could see. Like Mardi Gras for praying.
Anyways, I'm out for the weekend. Later all.
Just wanted to say something about the Border Patrol not doing their job...
My sister's friend is an EMT in some town not far from the border, I believe in Souther California. He was telling her recently that they are having major issues with the hospitals closing down there. The reason being is that border jumpers are either getting hurt on the way over, or purposely allowing themselves to get hurt on the way over. What happens then is the border patrol dumps them off at the hospital for care, leaving them there so they don't have to spend their budget processing paperwork or shipping people back. Then once the illegal immigrant is well enough, they are free to leave but because they are illegal many of them slip out the door never to be found again. This leaves the hospitals footing the bill. Now there are many hospitals having to close because they run into deficit due to covering so many medical procedures. It keeps happening because the immigrants have caught on to the scheme. He told Erin things are getting bad as emergency medical care is getting more difficult because they have to travel much further to reach an open facility because local ones have closed.
Good job Border Patrol!
OK, just to jump in with my 2 cents on the Weir-Mike Sr. discussion:
Katrina - Since this occurred I have been in the unique position of defending Bush (to a point) on this one. Being that I now have a lot of family in Houston (which is very close to the Louisiana border) I have something of a more local perspective. It is common knowledge down there that (apart from the couple weeks of Mardi Gras) you do NOT want to get into any kind of legal trouble in LA. They are known for having some of the most backwards and corrupt police and elected officials and there are large areas of the bayou that are fairly close to lawless. Within this climate, something like this was really just a matter of time. For 2 decades administrations in New Orleans (both Republican and Democratic) were warned that the levees might not hold if the storm was bad enough, but they did nothing to fix the problem. Bush's mistake (or, really, the mistake of those advising him) was that when Katrina hit he treated it as a "normal" hurricane and assumed he could just declare it a national disaster area and that FEMA and the local government would get things sorted out. Given that he was governor of a neighboring state, he probably should have known better.
Immigration - I have a lot of thoughts on this and started to write some down. However, I realized that I have so many thoughts that I'll make it a separate blog topic (maybe we can top 40 comments on that one).
Totally agree on social programs getting out of hand. Increasingly, I find myself engaged in debates about our taxation system. While I certainly have my thoughts on the subject, I think it's another case of, to use Weir's line, treating the symptom and not the disease. We are taxed in order to pay for the government's expenditures, so rather than discussing this or that tax hike or cut we ought to be centering the discussion on the government's use of the money. If we could cut down on the ridiculous amount of government waste, the taxation question would almost become irrelevant because everyone would be paying far less across the board.
Post a Comment