You Get The Point (Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Islam)

In a recent Republican debate, presidential candidate Rick Santorum explained his belief on why we should confront Iran on its nuclear program, to the point of waging war on the Islamic state. “They’re a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that…the afterlife is better than this life. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran is martyrdom.” To be fair, Santorum is not the only candidate to adopt the “only good Muslim is a dead Muslim” sentiment. Never mind that Christianity is also a belief that the afterlife is better. This boils down to the “All Ragheads Are The Same” mentality. It is also one of the most ignorant pieces of tripe I’ve ever heard.

I’m not going to comment on whether or not our actions are right or wrong, ignorant or wise. Or what the reasons are for 9/11 or the Iraqi insurgency or the ongoing resistance by the Taliban or the shifting allegiances of the Pakistanis. My intention is to merely point out that the predominant American opinion in regard to Islam, that it is a homogenous, consistent, coherent ideology, is wrong. Dead wrong.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge knows that there are hundreds of different manifestations of Christianity. Why would a religion that is almost as old not have as many? Christianity’s largest movement is Catholicism. Then there are the Protestants, who object to Catholicism. And the Orthodox Church, which thinks the Catholics aren’t Catholic enough. The Orthodox Church splits along nationalistic lines. The Catholics have 39 different orders under four different categories. Protestantism? Don’t even get me started. I was raised in the Church of Christ, but if I tell someone I’ll get a barrage of questions. “Instrumental or non-instrumental? Non-denominational or independent? Christian Union? Disciples of Christ?” You get the point.

Islam is no different. The main schism is between the Sunni and Shiites over who was the rightful heir to Muhammad. Then there is the Sufi, which doesn’t actually reject the religious writings, but believes that the path to God can only be achieved by mystical/spiritual means (similar to the pentecostals/charasmatics?). In addition to the Quran, there are the “hadith” which are quotes directly attributable to Muhammad which are not in the Quran, and one of the chief disagreements between Sunni and Shia is which hadith are valid. The Quranists reject the validity of all hadith, believing only the Quran to be valid.

Within Sunni Islam there are different “schools of law,” or Mahdab, which are differing interpretations of certain aspects of Sharia law. They are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali. There are differing theological traditions as well, the Athari, the Ash’ari, and Maturidi. For instance, it is possible to be a Hanafi and Athari, or a Ash’ari and Hanafi, or a Hanbali and Maturidi, or…well, you get the point.

The Shia are divided among the “Twelvers,” the Ismaili, and Zaidi. The “Twelvers” believe that the Twelfth Imam is on earth already, whereas the Sunni believe he will come in the future. The Ismaili and Zaidi reject the Imam lineage of the “Twelvers.” (I’ll make a Mitt Romney size bet that Santorum doesn’t know that the majority of Iranians are “Twelvers.”)

Then there are the Kharijite who believe that all sinners are not real Muslims and must be put to death, and the Ibadi who are Kharijite but do not believe that sinners are not real Muslims. Huh?

There are differences between Muslims regarding issues such as prayer times, law and jurisprudence, family life, and government (Turkey vs Iran, for instance).

Now, I really don’t have a gnat’s ass understanding of Islam. I knew some basics, and looked up the rest online. I only suspected, as a rational person would, that if all other religions have abundant manifestations, then it follows that so would Islam. In fact, I’ve only scratched the proverbial surface. One thing that I found captivating was in the differences regarding JIHAD, which would seem to be of interest to the Rick Santorums of the world.

To the West, Jihad evokes images of suicidal, fanatical Muslims blowing themselves up screaming “Allah Akbar” and taking as many innocents as they can with them. Surely, such fanaticism exists and it is hardly irrational to fear such a thing. But to hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of a literal handful of adherents is hardly rational, especially when the terrorists themselves may be misusing the concept of Jihad.

The Quran talks of Jihad, but never in the context of fighting (another word is used.) In modern day Arabic the word literally means struggle. Think how many applications of the definition there are in English. Although a Hindu, Gandhi’s struggle in India is called a Jihad. Some call the fight for women’s liberation a Jihad. In Indonesia, it means sacrificing one’s life for the sake of a a just cause; in Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morrocco there is no militant connotation. For some, it is a personal struggle, for others, spiritual. For some it is a commitment to hard work, for others, peace, harmony, and cooperation. There is lesser Jihad, and greater Jihad. There is…again, you get the point.

Anyone who would want to kill innocent Americans, or destroy us, is a potential threat and should be treated as such. Yet to make the leap of logic that the handful of disaffected Muslims that carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks equals 1.2 billion people all acting and thinking like the Borg collective…well, I can only hope that someone gets the point.

A Public Apology To Today’s Youth

Maybe it’s inevitable that every generation thinks the next generation is somehow lacking.  My grandfather thought that Elvis and the Beatles were the antichrist, my parents probably didn’t think much of our generation, and I don’t think much of these soft, unimaginative, stupid, materialistic, wannabe hominids that comprise Gen-Y and beyond.  They listen to rap “music,” wear wool caps in the summer, the bottoms of their shorts come below their knees, which doesn’t matter because the tops of the shorts come below their asses, they have a mop of unkempt hair, are in desperate need of a shave, and a shower, the girls show more ass crack than a plumber, have multiple piercings and tattoos, you can’t even imagine what kind of drugs and alcohol they do, they engage in sexual activity that makes even the 60’s generation blush, they can’t find Germany on a map and cannot spell to save their lives.  They grew up on video games and Cheetos and gushers and Red Bull…you know what I’m talking about.

My generation had 3 channels on television, played outside (toughening the muscle and sinews and imagination), could read, write, spell, and knew basic facts, finally put an end to the Cold War, and in many ways were more disciplined and mature than our parents’ generation.  Politics aside, we were more conservative, had Reagan instead of McGovern, and AIDS scared the hell out of us.  Madonna, racy for her time, seems tame compared to today’s artists.  Things are different.

Yet recent events have made me reconsider my opinion of today’s youth.  Ron Paul’s campaign seems to have caught the attention of this generation.  My instinct is to be afraid, but my intellectual integrity demands that I seek understanding.  Paul’s numbers among the 18-29 Republican voters are tops among Republican candidates.  Which might indicate the direction of the GOP in the future.  But consider that his support among Dems and Indies is TWICE that.  Paul’s message has lit a fire, to be sure.  The young Goldwater conservatives took charge of the GOP in 1964, the SDS/New Left/Counterculture/Civil Rights youth took charge of the Democratic Party in 1972, and those movements have controlled American politics since.  The Paul youth will control politics in the future.  I can’t say when that will be, but if history is to be repeated, it will come soon enough.

You might think, “If this generation is brain dead, as you say, then what does that say about Paul’s message?”  Let me say, as someone who has evolved from conventional political thinking to where I am today, that it takes considerably more understanding and study and thought and originality and scope and factual knowledge to understand the philosophy of individual liberty, of free markets, of military non-intervention, of failed social policy.  Opponents like to refer to us as “Paulbots.”  I was once where the critics were. Looking back, it was embarrassing.

I think that the educational system has failed the kids, but if kids are dumb, they are not stupid.  They still make connections, ask questions, integrate their field of knowledge and develop principles.  The comments of the Youth for Paul rallies at LSU and NYC show an understanding that I didn’t possess at that age.  I shouldn’t be suprised, as I have been critical of the utility of schooling for some time, but that’s another story.

Second, as to the kids being soft and unpatriotic and unconcerned, etc.  I confess that I had reservations about U.S. performance in the First Gulf War.  Our air supremacy essentially won that campaign, although the ground forces performed admirably.  But I always wondered (post Vietnam anxiety, I guess) what would happen if it was just mano a mano, up close infantry style combat.  Those doubts were shattered with the Iraqi invasion in 2003.  There were sandstorms which made air support impossible, and company sized units were still knocking the shit out of larger Republican guard units.  They said stay out of the cities, but the Marines went into the cities and kicked ass.  House to house fighting is the most intense combat imaginable, and our forces prevailed.

What they’ve had to deal with in Afghanistan and Iraq is a wholly inappropriate task for fighting men.  They’re asked to be policemen, in essence, but still they persevere.  There are people on their 6th tours over there.  Ungodly when you consider the insurgency’s methods and the questionable loyalty of the populace, not to mention the policy failures in general.  But this group of fighting men today might just be the absolute best this country has ever seen.  Yes, it’s not World Wars or Korea or Vietnam, but this is a volunteer force fighting these wars and we don’t have the luxury of drafting 15 million people.  I don’t hesitate one bit in putting them on a par with previous generations.

The point is that these same mop headed, ecstasy taking, Red Bull guzzling, tattooed, texting, amateur porn producing kids are the ones getting the job done.  How critical can I be?

Third, as to the kids being materialistic.  Yes, it’s true, but consider that your garden variety conservative or liberal stands in front of the teleprompter promising everyone chickens in the pot, cars in the garage, gold plated dreams and unicorns, but the kids aren’t buying into it.  Ron Paul isn’t promising anything.  They know all they’re getting is freedom from government intervention, which implies personal responsibility, risk taking, and uncertainty.  How materialistic can they be if this is what they’re wanting?

Ten years ago, if I had said that this generation might be the one to turn this country around, I would have had you committed.  This is exactly what I believe today.  I hope I’m not disappointed, and I hope I live long enough to see it.  Until then, Youth of America, accept my conditional apology for ever having lost faith.  Good luck to you.

Now, pull up your goddamned pants!

Rootin’, Tootin’, Lasso Loopin’, Pop Gun Shootin’ Chickenhawks

“It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself.” This quote, attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, is one of the cornerstones of leadership. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. These gentlemen are “chickenhawks,” that breed of politician and citizen who are all too willing to send others out to die when they themselves shirked such duty. One of the responsibilities of the President (and it is ONE, not all), is Commander in Chief, the civilian head of the military. It seems that Rick Santorum reminds us every day. I think he has used the term more than that of “President,” and I wish a psychologist would look into that, but that’s another post.

There are several definitions of Chickenhawkery. One is the proverbial draft dodger. On the other end of the spectrum are those that disparage veterans who served in certain capacities. First, the draft dodger. I am against compulsory military service. I believe in the Daniel Webster maxim, “Where is it written in the Constitution…that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself?” I think this is a powerful check upon authoritarian government. Some have said that if no one will stand for the nation in time of crisis, then conscription is necessary to preserve the state. In my opinion, if a nation ever gets to that point, then it deserves to perish. In fact, it is probably the policies of the advocates of conscription that will have led to the downfall of the country. So, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney taking deferments doesn’t bother me in itself.

What does bother me is that when they had the opportunity to serve, Messrs. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum chose not to. Whether or not there was a draft, or a war, is irrelevant. A real Patriot says, “here I am, for whatever amount of time is required, do with me what you will. If I serve in peacetime or war, so be it. I have made myself available.” In the HBO miniseries “Band of Brothers,” one of the E/506 vets said he came from a town in which 3 men committed suicide because they were classified 4F. Now, I’m not advocating suicide for someone who isn’t physically able to serve. It isn’t their fault. However, it’s that attitude that I find commendable. I had an uncle, since passed on, who wanted to be a Marine more than anything. He served only one month before the doctors found an inner ear disorder and he was subequently discharged. It broke his heart. Incidentally, when he died the Marines sent 2 NCO’s to perform the burial ceremony. My cousins insist that their dad would have been pleased. I only wish our Presidential candidates felt the same way.

I wouldn’t be so critical of these individuals or even insist upon military service if it weren’t for the fact that they want to bomb and invade so many countries. If it were up to them, we would be not only in Afghanistan, but back in Iraq and at war with Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Venezuala, Cuba, North Korea…hell, pick a spot on the map. The GOP is often the first to talk about supporting the troops. I couldn’t agree more. But I think that the first thing we can do is to give them a C in C who understands service and sacrifice and who won’t squander their lives in unwinnable conflicts that only create more unwinnable conflicts for the future. One who has served and understands that in order to be a leader, you first have to be a subordinate. One who values the service men and women and who will only authorize force as a last resort.

At the other extreme is the criticism of individuals serving in certain capacities. I recently had a little online spat with a guy who claimed to be a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam. He criticized the other services, REMFS, stateside duty, non-wartime service, reasons for serving, etc. First, as a veteran, I can assure you that these are generally the ramblings of non-vets and wannabes. But let’s take him at face value. First, a guy serving in a combat role who actually sees combat…I get it. No one suffers more, physically and psychologically, than the guy who is at the greatest risk of dying. The guy who sees death, not only of his buddies, but of innocents and sometimes even the enemy suffers more and pays a larger price than those who don’t. That said, it still doesn’t diminish anyone else who serves. An individual winding up in combat is usually not there because of choice. That’s the choice of politicians. He might have requested his MOS, but history is full of people who wanted to see combat and didn’t. It is also full of cooks and clerks and truck drivers and MP’s and engineers picking up rifles and defending perimeters at places like Bastogne and Khe Sanh. Or aircraft mechanics dying at the hands of sappers at Da Nang. Or Reservists sitting in a hangar eating chow and killed by a SCUD missile. Once you sign on the dotted line, you have made the last meaningful decision of your life until the end of your enlistment. What you do and where you go is entirely in the hands of others. A non-combat role is still no guarantee against danger. This is understood by everyone who has ever worn the uniform.

That is precisely the point of the significance of military service. Whether your service was active duty or Guard, peacetime or war, stateside or overseas, as a combatant or in a support role, the very first act of your military service was to say that you were willing to put the interests of the country ahead of your own. To put your own ass between the civilian populace and the bad guys. To take personal responsibility for the security of the state. This is why Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum are unfit to be President. Forget about the morale problems inherent in serving under a shirker. Forget about the hypocrisy in sending others to do something you were unwilling to do. Forget for a minute that someone who has never experienced the uncertainty or hopelessness of military service will be more likely to treat our servicemen and women as expendable (the euphemism “boots on the ground” is troubling).

Daniel Webster, again. “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” The purpose of government is the protection of liberties, in essence, serving the people, not lording over them. Only a veteran has proven, through deeds, not words, that he is willing to serve. When the President takes the oath of office, and promises to protect and defend the Constitution, only a veteran has proven that he has already done it. As citizens, we hand the government a cocked pistol and say, in essence, protect my life and property. In your hands is the instrument necessary to safeguard my freedom. But I understand that it has the potential to be used against me. Please exercise discretion and wisdom. My life is in your hands.

If people don’t want to serve, that is their business. I’m not ready to go Robert Heinlein and insist upon service as a prerequisite for holding office or for voting. But we need a more substantive discussion. One that focuses less on which country to bomb or not bomb, or what the tax rate should be, or who should be married. One that looks at the fundamental purpose of government, its means of enforcing policy, and the question of to whom the franchise should be entrusted. This was the focus of the Founding Fathers, and the reason for our Constitution. Once we ask the right questions, we’ll arrive at the right answers, and make the right choices.

A Powerful And Obnoxious Odor Of Mendacity: The Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

If you’ve followed the Republican Primaries, you’re probably aware of the Ron Paul newsletter controversy.  I’m not here to argue whether or not Ron Paul is a racist or homophobe or anti-Semite, or if he wrote the newsletters, or if he saw them, or whatever.  My interest in this is the same as my interest in all of life’s endeavors, the quest for the absolute truth.  One of my beliefs is that while we can know the facts, it is extremely difficult to know the absolute truth.  There is always some little nuance which affects the final word.  Of course, that doesn’t stop me from trying.  This concept is why I chose the name of this post, for the dictionary defines mendacious as a divergence from absolute truth.

The mendacious individual in question is James Kirchick.   Kirchick is the writer of the Jan 8, 2008 article in The New Republic online, which exposed the newsletters and provided pdf files of newsletter scans.  For this I bear him no grudge.  The people have a right to know what kind of person a potential head of state might be.  From the perspective of investigative journalism his discovery is impressive.  But for honesty, integrity, and commitment to providing the most complete picture of the issue, the man is lacking.

When Paul was running in 2008, I supported him.  I had been a Libertarian Party member at one time, and had seen Paul at the National Convention in 1993.  I knew that there was an issue in his 1996 run, but after an explanation that some quotes had been taken out of context, the issue was dropped.  I didn’t think anything of it in 2007.  While I intended to support Paul, my state of Ohio always votes late, so I didn’t follow the campaign that closely.  When Kirchick’s article came out, I didn’t read it directly, but had read what others said about it. By that time, however, Paul was already waning in support, so it didn’t matter that much.  Not until this election cycle, when the inevitable newsletter controversy would arise again.

Much has been written regarding Kirchick on this issue, both from supporters and critics.  My focus is on the original piece that appeared in The New Republic. Early on in the article he states “In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications.”

Off limits to their views?  National Review and Kirchick’s beloved Commentary magazine were putting out articles virtually identical to the Ron Paul newsletters during the same period in question. One of the newsletters is criticized for referencing Jared Taylor, a white supremacist who authored Paved With Good Intentions:The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America in 1992.  A Commentary review of the book during the period concluded that it “accurately reflects the indignation shared by many who believe that the way America is dealing with its racial difficulties is unfair and self-defeating.”  In National Review, Peter Brimelow, creator of the racist Website VDare, called the book “the most important to be published on the subject for many years.”  Apparently, Commentary and National Review get a pass.  Ron Paul doesn’t.

In fact, we don’t have to go back to the early 1990’s.  In August, Commentary published an article dealing with the London riots, and compared them to the L.A. riots in 1992 and Crown Heights in 1991.  The author, Max Boot, refers to the “proximate cause” of all three riots being that the victims were black, and then says that looting and rioting is inevitable because of the “runaway id” of the rioters.  The language is prettier than the Ron Paul newsletters, but the implication is the same.

The “mainstream” magazines don’t stop at the issue of race.  One of the Paul newsletters is criticized as “homophobic” because of a quote by Michael Fumento, an investigative journalist who was critical of the politics of AIDS.  Yet Commentary published an article from him in December 1991 that stated that the AIDS epidemic was blown out of proportion because “A mere 727 [as of August 1991] whites, middle-class or otherwise, are listed as having gotten the disease through heterosexual contact—less than one-half of 1 percent of the total caseload.”  Apparently, the other 200,000 AIDS sufferers, presumably gay and minority, don’t matter, but Paul is a homophobe while Commentary is the respected bastion of neoconservative thought?  I couldn’t find anything online about National Review’s  thoughts during the same time, and since I work a real job I don’t have time to search microfilm/microfiche at the library, if these things still exist, but I will attest that as a regular reader of NR back then that similar articles were, indeed, published.

On homosexuality itself, Commentary published in 1987 Marjorie Rosenberg’s article “Inventing the Homosexual.”  A letter to the editor praised the article “as welcome support of those of us…particularly on the campuses of liberal universities where a similar readiness to appease homosexual militants has been visible.”  This is ok, but apparently the RP newsletters are extreme.  Pat Buchanan was a staffer at National Review in the early 1990’s, and he has never had kind words about gay people.  But the Bible of Mainstream Conservative thought can get by with gay criticism, while Ron Paul can’t.

The one thing that I will not abide is that the Ron Paul newsletters were anti-semitic.  Criticism of Israel or American foreign policy toward Israel is not the same as hatred of Jews.  Israel is a state.  Judaism is a religion.  To say that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is to say that our opposition to the Soviet Union was anti-Russian Orthodox church, or that World War II was fought against Germany, Italy, and Japan because of animosity toward Lutherans, Catholics, and Shintoists, or that criticism of modern day China reflects a prejudice towards Buddhism.  Of course, Kirchick is not the only person to equate criticism of Israel with Auschwitz, but one has to wonder how such an intellectual leap can be made or worse, accepted as gospel truth with unflinching acceptance.  Kirchick is a graduate of Yale.  Either an Ivy League degree is no longer worth the paper it’s printed on, or there is a serious moral evasion at work.  I’ll let others judge for themselves.

Kirchick mentions the obsession with conspiracy theories in the newsletters.  For example, there was an article that says that AIDS was created in a laboratory in Maryland.  What Kirchick, who writes on gay issues for The Advocate, fails to mention is that many gay people in the 1980’s were also convinced that there was a conspiracy to wipe them out, or that pharmaceutical companies had the cure for AIDS and wouldn’t release it.  I remember seeing on television the numerous protests outside of pharmaceutical companies and NIH buildings.  It was really heart-wrenching to see so many terrified people, many presumably already diagnosed with AIDS or HIV positive, crying and screaming and scaling fences in a desperate attempt to live.  At the risk of sounding patronizing, Kirchick was a child when a lot of these things occurred and is applying today’s standards to yesterday’s events, and cannot possibly understand what it was like to live through that time.  AIDS scared the hell out of everyone, gay or straight, and we still didn’t know a whole lot about the disease.  Koop only came out with his report in late 1986 while there was still research going on, so there were still a lot of questions to be answered.  But James Kirchick condemns Ron Paul while neglecting to mention gay activists believing the same thing.

Obviously, Kirchick is not really concerned with fighting racism, or homophobia, or anti-semitism, or conspiracy theories.  If he were he would be writing exposes on National Review and Commentary and criticizing the gay community for their own conspiracy theories.  His concern is in discrediting Ron Paul.  But if not because of alleged bigotry, then why?  To say definitively would presuppose knowledge that I don’t possess.  I have no idea what’s going on in Jamie Kirchick’s head, but I can make a good guess.  At the time of the article, Paul had just outpaced interventionist Rudy Guiliani in the Iowa caucuses and was gaining traction in New Hampshire.  He had raised 20 million dollars, and had attracted the support of “Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists.”  This threatened to disrupt the GOP, whose mainstream was and is in full support of Hitler’s wet dream of perpetual warfare.  Branding Paul as a bigot obviously affected the young liberals, and possibly the centrists.

Kirchick is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-interventionist think tank, and feels that foreign interventions are a good thing.  Since Paul wasn’t being stopped due to his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,  he had to be smeared.  The ends justifies the means, right?  Wrong.  I don’t agree with Kirchick, but if he really believes in his cause, he ought to argue it.  Instead, he won by default.  Basically, he won the game by knee-capping the other team’s quarterback.  But injuries heal, and ideas don’t disappear.  The fact that Paul is still a player in the game at this stage 4 years later, with an outside chance to win or, at the very least, to influence the outcome with a third party run or in getting concessions in the GOP platform or from the nominee, is testament to the strength of those ideas.

National Review and Commentary are considered mainstream publications.  Their support is behind the Romneys, Gingriches, and Santorums of the world.  If, as I have shown, their moral and intellectual status is no different than that of the Ron Paul newsletters, why is Paul automatically disqualified from a seat at the proverbial table?  Kirchick mentions Gary North, who advocates execution for women who get abortions.  And just this year Phillip Kayser endorsed Paul.  Kayser believes in the death penalty for gays.  But they’re only a handful of radical evangelicals, and Paul isn’t receiving the lion’s share of that vote.  That is going to Santorum or Gingrich or Romney, but that’s apparently fine with James Kirchick.

Kirchick contacted the Paul campaign in 2008, which said that Paul didn’t write the articles, didn’t see the articles, and disavows them.  Obviously, he finds this hard to believe. “In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf.”  Ironically, that sounds exactly like a dictionary definition of The New Republic during the Stephen Glass years.  In terms of journalistic integrity, not much has changed since then.

The powerful and obnoxious odor, indeed.