We have a tendency to ascribe the expansion of governmental power to malign motives, either to those who harbor aspirations of dictatorship or to those who are simply corrupt. And certainly those are behind some requests for expanded government power. But those are not the only reasons. In the past I have briefly touched on the idea that, even under ideal circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the state will seek expanded power. The personality type that enters government, the natural desire to help, and the pressures of democratic government almost demand it.

First, let us look at the type of person who enters government service. There are a rare few who are drafted against their will into government service, but, by and large, those who enter elected office are there because they have aspired to that position for most or all of their lives. So, what would drive a person to enter government? Especially as winning an election is an expensive, time consuming activity and the salary of elected office is generally lower than the position one is leaving?

People who run for office are those who want to fix things, those who believe in reform. Now, not all of them are left wing types who think government can solve all problems, some are small government types who want to actually reform government itself. But whatever their particular perspective, almost everyone who enters government wants to fix SOMETHING. I have yet to hear of someone who wanted to be elected to maintain the status quo or to serve as a caretaker.

But this activist personality type means that those running for office have a cause, and like most people on a mission they want to achieve certain goals. In general, there will be obstacles to achieving these goals, and, even if those goals are something admirable such as reforming government itself, those goals are easier with expanded power. And so, even if they are not corrupt, do not seek power for its own sake, those who enter office are inevitably of a personality type which wants to achieve their goals, they are expanding the power of government in general.

The second reason is related to the first. Beside the personal goals politicians bring with them into their office, they also are confronted with various problems during their time in office. Some are the proper province of government, such as defense or criminal justice, others, such as financial crises, are not. Still, when confronted with any disaster, whether properly a government responsibility or not, the natural response is to want to help. Almost any human would want to do so. The problem is that those in office have the ability to arrogate power to themselves in order to help. And thus a natural human empathy can lead to the growth of government power as well.

However, so far, none of this is inevitable. While politicians tend to be crusaders, and they can arrogate power when they wish to help, there is still a possibility anoble man could run for office, wishing only to keep the state small and refusing to expand power to deal with crises. But that brings us to our third reason for government expansion, the electorate.

What would happen if our hypothetical noble man were in the senate and said following a flood that it was not the function of the federal government to help with floods, that the states should handle it? Or were he to respond to s tock market crash by saying that the economy is subject to fluctuations and it is not a concern of the state?

And that is what makes governmental expansion inevitable, us. The electorate demands that the state "do something" whenever anything goes wrong. And while most politicians are more than happy to see their own power grow while they fix the problems the public demands they address, were there a politician who kept the government out of matters which were not its concern, the electorate would ensure he would not be long in office.

So, what to do? How do we keep the federal government from constantly expanding its authority until it has unlimited power?

That is hard to answer. So long as we, in our capacity as voters, believe in omnipotent government or insist that the state solve every problem, we will never see any reform. Until we change our minds and begin to value independence more than the nanny state, no reform will do any good.

And once we change our minds, likely no more reforms will be necessary.

I am now worried that the world is about to end. In a situation where they could jump on the bandwagon and blame the evil free market and greedy lenders for the subprime lending crisis, the Washington Post actually puts some blame on the government!

Of course, this may be a really difficult decision for them, blame the free market or bash the Bush administration. So guess it isn't all that surprising that they chose to blame HUD. Of course HUD policy, as most bureaucratic policy, is largely set by lifetime bureaucrats independent of the figureheads appointed by the administration.

Still, it is frightening to hear the WaPo blaming the government. It is kind of like seeing a Chassidic Jew ordering a ham and cheese. The world just seems out of kilter. What's next? The NYT admitting success in Iraq? Obama taking a stand, and only one, on an issue? Al Gore shutting up and going away? Hollywood making a movie where the villain is not an evil capitalist or hypocritical conservative? Truthers admitting that maybe it all really was just a bunch of terrorists? Republicans putting up a real conservative for national office?

No telling what may come of chaos like this.

POSTSCRIPT

I have argued repeatedly that the government, both through explicit lending policies and through artificially low interest rates, is largely to blame for this problem. I have seen some blame deregulation, but anyone with a bit of sense can see that banking, and especialy lending, is far from free. So to blame the free market for the failure of a heavily regulated system is absurd. Yes, regulations were mad emroe lax before the crisis, but that does not mean that caused the crisis. The "stagflation" of the 70's happened during VERY heavy regulation, yet regulation did not prevent double digit rates. So it is far more likely that it is simple coincidence that slight deregulation preceded the crash.

On the other hand, it is possible that by removing some regulations and leaving others the state made things worse (as in the case of the S&L crisis). But that is not saying deregulation is bad, just that partial deregulation does not give the benefits full deregulation would.

I haven't written about my problems with Wikipedia in some time, so I suppose I am about due for an essay. This time it is the interesting insertion of opinion as fact. Worse still it is an opinion relating to an area where the science simply is far too unsettled. From an article on a specific mesolithic culture:

More significant is evidence of cannibalism at Dyrholmen, Jutland, and Møllegabet on Ærø. There human bones were broken open to obtain the marrow. As cannibalism is not practiced to obtain food, the next most likely explanation is that the warlike Ertebølle population ritually devoured its enemies in order to ingest their powers.

The problem here is twofold.

First, even if we grant that cannibalism is not normally practiced as a regular part of the diet, that says nothing about these bones. If a future anthropologist found the bones of the Donner party, would he be justified in thinking that pioneers practiced ritual consumption to gain the powers of others? Is it not possible in these specific finds that people were, for some reason, unable to obtain food and practiced cannibalism out of necessity?

Second, the statement itself is nowhere near as certain as the presentation would suggest. I recall back in my college days there were those who tried to argue that cannibalism simply did not exist as a cultural practice. Apparently the sheer weight of evidence has finally ended that effort. Still, the statement above, sounding quite a lot like a recitation of a dogmatic belief, that cannibalism is always a ritual  practice and never for food, is simply not supported by evidence.

Look at the animal kingdom, many animals use cannibalism to supplement their diets. Why would primitive man be any different? If he could not capture a deer or horse to eat, but he did kill a rival, why would he not eat his rival? Why does any consumption of  a fellow  human have to be based on some ritual?

It seems to me this is the "there are no cannibals" argument tarted up in a new guise. Now it is "well, there is cannibalism, but it is always a ritual". Again, the effort, as in the denial of any cannibalism, seems to be to be to elevate primitive man, reduce his more barbaric practices.It is not coincidental that those who once pushed the "no cannibalism" line were also those most likely to denigrate modern society and elevate the primitives. This effort to downplay the barbarism of early and primitive man is just one aspect of the glorification of the "noble savage".

But I want to write about that Rousseau-inspired idiocy at greater length in another essay, so enough of that. My point here is quite different.

This is yet another perfect example of the weakness of Wikipedia. Someone less familiar with the debates over cannibalism, or less diligent about checking what is sourced and not sourced, could easily read that line and absorb the "fact" that cannibalism is always a ritual practice. Rather than thinking they have read the biased statement of one person, the "authority" of wikipedia makes them think it is a fact.

Not that no opinion or errors ever made it into traditional encyclopedias, but at least there the author's name was known, and if he made an unsupported statement his fellows called him on it and the encyclopedia generally modified their next edition. It was impossible to slip  anonymous statements into a work. Wikipedia, being both anonymous and infinitely malleable makes it far too easy for every opinionated individual to slip their pet beliefs into a supposedly authoritative essay.

POSTSCRIPT

I have written before at greater length about wikipedia. You can read my earlier thoughts in the following essays:

Stop Confusing Me With The Facts!
Mystery Quotes
Wikipedia?
The Failure of Wikipedia

Eventually I will consolidate all of these into one comprehensive essay enumerating all my complaints, but for now the list is short enough that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

I will deal with climate history later in greater detail, but I do have one question. The Atlantic period (about 8000 to 5000 years ago) was considerably warmer than today, yet is also considered a period during which mankind lived in relative ease. In fact, cooling to temperatures closer to those we experience today is considered to have made life harder for mankind. In fact, throughout even recent, recorded history, periods where temperatures were a few degrees warmer are associated with higher culture, easier existence and general prosperity.

Now, I know the hockey-stick graph "proves" that all those historical records re just lies (apparently the oil companies paid off medieval monks and planted fake Norse settlements in Greenland), but let us assume for the moment that historians and climatologists know a bit more than global warming activists, or just the people living in the 13th century knew what conditions were like better than the IPCC.

If life were easier during periods when temperatures were a few degrees warmer, why are we fighting global warming? In fact, as some scientists are worried reduced sunspot activity heralds some significant global cooling in the immediate future, shouldn't we be doing all we can to warm the Earth?

Now, I do not believe we can actually warm the Earth through the release of carbon dioxide, the studies I have seen suggest the amount of carbon dioxide is about at saturation levels as far as heat retention is concerned and adding to it will not significantly increase temperatures. But let us assume we can for a moment. Shouldn't we be striving to slightly warm the earth to make life more pleasant?

Not having much contact with Canada, I was unaware of a specifically Canadian foolishness. The Canadians have dubbed those we misleadingly call "Native Americans", excluding the Inuit and a few other groups, as "First Nations".

Now, I understand the thinking behind this. These people were here before Europeans, so we will call them the first nations. But just as "Native American" understood literally makes nonsense of the name, "First Nations" is similarly misleading, and makes a mockery of history as well.

There have been human habitations in the Americas since the time of the Clovis culture about 12,000-13,000 years ago. Now I know many of the tribes of Canada have an ancient provenance, but I seriously doubt any can trace their founding back 120 centuries. And as they cannot do so, to call them "first nations" is just absurd. They may predate Europeans, but that does not make them first. There were surely cultures which preceded them.

Actually, this term is somewhat insulting to the people it tries to elevate. No one would think of claiming Germany or Poland was "an original European nation" as we know the history and know much came before. By dubbing these most recent tribes "first nations" we are essentially saying "your history doesn't matter, one tribe is the same as another, so we'll just call all of you first nations". It seems quite condescending to lump together all the many tribes of varying antiquity and claim they all are first nations.

But I have come to expect stupidity in the naming of the people of the Americas. Admittedly Indian was a strange name, based as it was on a mistake. On the other hand, there was nothing insulting about it, and, excluding the occasional confusing with the Asiatic peoples of the same name, it didn't lead to the same absurd confusions as the current naming. On the other hand, "Native American" is just absurd. Taken literally, it applies to everyone born in the Americas. "First nations" I have discussed above. And the final option "aboriginal people" is a bit wrong as well, as these people were not in the Americas from the start of time, only for about 12,000 years, making aboriginal a bit misleading. About the only name which works at all is "indigenous people", as it amounts to nothing more than a recognition that they predate the European settlers.

As I have said before, the best choice is to avoid all these aggregating terms entirely, and refer to the people by their tribal or national designation. If that is impossible, or if the need exists to refer to them as a group, then I think Indian works as well as anything else, and has 500 years of history in its favor. I know it upsets some, but why should that mean we have to change the name? I don't like being called an "Anglo-American", especially as my ancestry is only 10% English at most, but I had no choice in the matter. And, even if I did, I recognize that a name is somewhat irrelevant, and to get upset over such trifles is a waste of time.

However, as we live in the age of chronically aggrieved, and as names are the easiest symbolic change to make, I am sure we will not see this end anytime soon. Rather than simply pick a neutral name and stick with it, I am sure we will go through many iterations of PC names for each and every group, leading to endless confusion and countless inappropriate names.

Don't we have anything better to do with our time?

DISCLOSURE

According to family myth I am some small percentage Cherokee. I can say I personally find nothing offensive in the term Indian. In fact I still don't know why it was abandoned for the silliness of "Native American". I think it is more of a status symbol than anything else. When a minority can force a name change it proves they have arrived and are now officially a pressure group. At least that is my theory.

No, this is not a new scandal, just my thoughts on something I read and how it relates to the whole Obama candidacy.

I was reading some IMDB boards about the upcoming American release of ITV2's Secret Diary of a Call Girl, and I came across an interesting debate. Among the many posters gushing about "Belle du Jour's" blog and book, someone pointed out that Belle du Jour could just be making all of this up. As I usually think of that possibility when reading "tell all" books and blogs by anonymous individuals, I read on.

The argument presented against this was that we "don't want to believe it" because we are afraid of females controlling their sexuality and so on and so on. Usual feminist garbage. But the interesting part was the "proof". Because blogs like Belle's have started to appear, it proves it is true. I could not resist, and posted the alternate explanation that perhaps all of these other "true" stories are just as false as Belle's and are simply cashing in on a trend.

So, what does all this have to do with Obama? Two things.

First, the fact that Belle du Jour is believed has less to do with plausibility (I find the stories too pat, it just sounds too perfect to be true) and more with saying what people want to hear. Belle's readers want to believe there is a smart witty woman out there cashing in on her sexuality and in control, so they believe her. That is the basic truth behind Obama's popularity with the Obamaniacs. They see in him whatever they want and they are thrilled. By establishing a vague personality, Obama can be what they want him to be, and so they believe in him. Even when it is pointed out that he is nothing like their expectations, they will not budge, because they want so badly to believe in him.

Second, it feeds on itself. Just as the Belle hangers on "prove" Belle is real, the other Obamaniacs reinforce one another by writing what they see in him. By sharing their imaginary descriptions of Obama they feed upon one another, making one another's beliefs stronger. They find other writers who see in him what they do, and thus they come to believe that it really is there.

What is really a shame is that ll of this is built on a fraud. Rather than spending this faith and energy on something worthwhile, people are being taken in by a politician who has mastered speaking without taking a stand.

I almost hope he gets elected, just so those who believe in him so ardently will have to face the truth. If it wouldn't simultaneous damage the country badly I would be tempted to vote for him just to bring a bit of reality to his fans. But, obviously, I care to much for our future to do anything that foolish.

POSTSCRIPT

As an aspiring, if mostly unpublished writer, in some ways I envy these fake true life bloggers and writers. By tapping into the zeitgeist and pretending the stories are real, they manage to turn mediocre writing and pedestrian wit into a cash cow. And worse still, because they are "ordinary people" not professional writers (or so they claim), they are held to a lower standard, being called extremely witty for mundane observations and literate for being able to write a subordinate clause.

Unfortunately I lack a knack for figuring out what would play well on the Oprah book club or spark discussion in upper east side coffee shops, so I have to continue slogging away in my effort to become a traditional writer. However, if anyone has any suggestions for a "true life" role I could adopt to bring in some cash, let me know. Obviosuly "Belle" has locked up the "I am a happy, wealthy, cultured prostitute" market, but there has to be another fertile field out there.

It is hard to discuss Islam sensibly in the current context, as whenever I try to express myself clearly I end up sounding too extreme in one direction or the other. I come out sounding either too much like George Bush and his conciliatory "religion of peace" position, or too far in the other direction and sound like blind culture warriors who grab out of context Koranic verses to show that Satan was Mohammad's co-author. Since I don't want anyone to misinterpret, let me start all over again and try to make this as clear as possible.

Let my start by saying that whatever I say is not intended to comment on the truth or falsehood of any faith. As I plan to use Christian, Jewish and Islamic examples, I am sure to offend just about everyone, but that should not be the case. I am not talking about the faiths, or their validity (in most cases), but instead man's interpretation of them. Man, being fallible, could take the most perfect divine revelation and turn it into something hideous, so to say that this or that way of looking at things is dangerous or inconsistent is not to fault the faith itself, only those who view it that way. Of course, as I do take a dim view of certain practices, such as many Wahabbi readings of the Koran, or the use of torture by the Holy Office, I suppose those who endorse such practices will still be offended, but that can't be helped. My point being that I do not dispute any faith's claims of divine revelation, but I reserve the right to dispute any man's reading of the same.

Several other issues before I begin.

First, I am a jew. I am very happy with my faith and have no intention of converting to anything else. That being said, I also believe in treating religion fairly. I have argued against those who unfairly malign Christians, and I will do the same for Islam. We must not set up two standards in these arguments. We cannot say, for instance, that the New Testament needs to be understood in context, then turn around and extract quotes from the Koran and read them literally. What we apply to one faith we must apply to all. And I am afraid the way some have been criticizing Islam would show Christianity and Judaism to also be barbarous if applied to them. If we are to be fair in our examination of things religious, we need to be consistent in how we assess these faiths.

Second, we need to clarify the difference between a prophet and the messiah in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic context. A prophet is merely a means through which G-d sends word to mankind, while a messiah is either G-d's agent or G-d incarnate, depending on one's specific faith. Whatever one believes the messiah to be, the morality of the messiah is a valid question, the morality of a prophet is not. G-d is free to pick any vessel to carry his message. Just as I can write true words with a broken pen, G-d can pick a damaged man (eg. Moses) to deliver a true message. My point being that, despite the excessive veneration current Islamic practice demands people show toward Mohammad, there is no need for Mohammad to be perfect or even good, just as there was no requirement of Moses to be good or Isaiah or Jeremiah being a good man. I am not arguing for the truth of the Koran, simply saying that pointing out failings of Mohammad himself logically does nothing to invalidate the Koran. Even if the criticism is simply that as the leader of the faithful he was flawed, it still is meaningless, for the same reason that pointing out the moral shortcomings of a specific pope does not invalidate the Catholic faith, or the shortcomings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young does not invalidate Mormonism. Again, leaders and prophets are merely human, so I expect imperfections, even occasional outright rogues, that is in the nature of humanity.

Third, all religious laws are sensible only in context. Many have criticized Islam by pulling isolated verses from the Koran and said "see how barbaric this is". Yet this is the same method applied by atheist who mock Christianity, pulling verses from Leviticus and asking "so, do you keep slaves" or "have you stoned your daughter". Of course, Christians can argue that Christ's advent means that much of the Mosaic law does not apply, but  there is still the problem that, read literally, there exist contradictions in the New Testament. For example, the simple fact that the Gospels provide differing last words. I know the many readings which account for this, but my point is that we accept that Jewish and Christian holy books must be read in context, that we must allow for interpretation, but we are not allowing the same for Islam.

An even worse example are those who try to abide by this rule but do it badly. They look at the hadith and other secondary material, but they pick and choose to paint the picture they desire. It would be akin to me taking the Donation of Constantine and arguing that Catholicism is a megalomaniacal faith bent on world domination. Again, interpretations change with time, and, unless we are examining that specific historical period, older interpretations are meaningless unless current believers continue to view them as valid. To do otherwise is foolish. For example, by looking at documents before the Council of Trent only, one would think the Catholic church allows, but discourages, marriage among priests. Or one could look at older documents of the Mormon church and believe that the mainstream faith still practices polygamy. Even when looking at secondary materials, there is still more context of which one must be aware.

Fourth, those historical interpretations I mentioned are not necessarily meaningful. They can show the many possible ways the faith can be interpreted, I suppose, but they say nothing about the inherent nature of the faith. Or very little. One can see some general trends in the faith by looking at historical events, but it does not say anything about the nature of the faith. Just as looking at the Crusades, Torquemada, or the Ku Klux Klan says nothing about the inherent nature of Christianity, looking at the practices of the Ottomans or Abbasids says little about the inherent nature of Islam.

Now, perhaps I need to clarify that a bit. I have said before that Islam has a willingness to engage in holy war, and based that on historical events. I could also say Christian postmillenialism has a tendency to use government to enforce morality, as historically that has been true. Or post-Diaspora Judaism has a tendency toward political apathy, especially in the face of persecution. Those are all valid statements, but they are not the entire story. While they argue for a historical trend, and they may help point the future path, in general, the say nothing about any historical necessity. If we looked at Christianity at the time of the Crusades and immediately afterward, we would ahve seen violent conversions in eastern Europe, conquest in the Middle East, the birth of the Inquistion, the Albigensian Crusade, and soon the violent conversion of much of the New World and later the religious wars between Protestants and Catholics. From that example, we would have imagined that Christianity would continue in a history of violent conversion. However, the reality is that shortly after the discovery of the New World the period of violent conversion ended quite suddenly. My point being that those historical trends can end unexpectedly. So while Islam has in the past been prone to violence in the name of religion, it is in no way necessary that the trend will continue.

And that last example brings me to my fifth point. Many have argued that Islam is different as it was born in conquest. Now, it is arguably true that the nature of Islam was shaped by the fact that when it was founded it was founded with a state attached, rather than Christianity which began as a religion unwelcome in most states. But Judaism was born largely as a state religion, yet it lacks the characteristics many say came from Islam's birth, so I am not sure how valid that argument is.

But that was not my point. My point is that saying Islam was spread by conquest is to point out a truth, but hardly a distinguishing one. Almost all faiths, excluding those of very modern provenance such as Mormonism and Bahai, at one time or another spread through conquest. How did Christianity come to the Saxons? Charlemagne forced mass conversions. Or the Wends? Or Siberia? Conquest brought the religion. Even when religious conversion is not the purpose of the conquest, the conquest of a region almost always brings some conversion to the religion of the conquerer. But even if we limit ourselves to war conducted specifically for purposes of conversion, Islam is hardly unique. As I mentioned, Christianity fought wars of conversion as well. Even Israel was founded on the bodies of Canaanites.(Admittedly exterminated rather than converted, but the idea is similar.) To argue that a religion spread by the sword is to point out nothing unique.

Finally, we really need to make a distinction between a faith and the culture that faith engenders at a specific time and place. Many of the things we blame on Islam are not so much Islamic as the result of other cultural forces. For example, a lot of the opposition to the state of Israel was not so much religious as nationalist. Note that the opponents were the "Arab League" not the "Moslem League". The struggle against Israel might have used Islam as one argument, but by and large it was nationalist not religious in nature. And nationalism is a European, Christian and secular (and in the case of Reconstructionists, Jewish) stupidity, not an Islamic one. So, when we criticize the actions of various groups we have to be careful to distinguish between those things they believe because of their faith and those things they happen to believe that have nothing to do with their faith.

Now, with that lengthy preamble out of the way, let me explain my views on Islam.

Islam itself has produced both peaceful, civilized cultures and violent expansionist cultures. There is nothing inherently violent about Islam. Nor is there any greater tendency toward religious intolerance than in any other faith. The Ottoman Empire was the only truly polyglot empire for many centuries following the fall of Byzantium, far in advance of Europe in terms of religious tolerance. And for those who point to special taxes on non-Moslems, I would argue that it is hardly worse than Europe's gradual shift to the ghetto and later the shtetl for Jews. The period between Rome and the modern era was not a tolerant one for any faith.

However,m while historically Islam has had a variety of sects, allowing for multiple interpretations and a range of opinions, in recent times it has become (outside of the areas dominated by Shiites) quite uniform. With the control of Mecca by the Wahabbi version of the faith, Islam has become uniform and much less tolerant. At present to speak of Sunni Islam is almost universally of  Wahabbi beliefs. And unfortunately, the Wahabbi beliefs are strongly fundamentalist, intolerant and are mostly what the critics claim.

This is what I was trying to get across in my previous essay, that I have no complaint with Islam itself, but the present Wahabbi domination means that the dominant school of thought is problematic. It is also why George Bush's "religion of peace" arguments and attempts to minimize the role of Islam in the conflict are so wrong. Were there more variety in Islam, perhaps we would be able to appeal to moderates and we should couch our arguments in nicer terms. But it is not so. There is currently only one faith, and it is rather intolerant and extreme. The beliefs of the Wahabbi sect do not differ significantly from those of the militants. The militants' beliefs are nothing more than the logical outcome of Wahabbi intolerance and fundamentalism. Which means that at the present there is no silent moderate majority, there really are only extremists, those whose beliefs agree with the extremists, and varying degrees of secularism.

This does not have to be so. The differing schools of thought still exist, they simply have no voice. Wahabbi belief  silences all opposition through both their control of Mecca and access to Saudi oil money. However, were competing schools of Islam to arise again, it is quite possible that we could count on moderates existing, and Bush would be right to treat Islam gingerly so as not to drive off the moderates. But given today's circumstances that  is not the case. The only opposition to the Wahabbis at the moment is found in the Shiites, and thanks to the history of the Iranian revolution and the influence of the Iranian clergy among Shiites in other nations, the most prominent Shiite clerics are largely opposed to our interests as well.

Well, hopefully that helped clarify things a bit. I am sure everyone can find something with which to take issue, so feel free to comment.

I keep hearing that we should not describe our fight with Islamic militants as a religious war, should not describe it as a cultural conflict, and should say nothing that would lend support to the claims of the terrorists that this is a conflict between east and west or between Islam and Christianity.

Superficially this is a valid argument, or it appears to be one. Then again, there are several reasons to doubt its validity.

The stated goal is to prevent anything which might lend legitimacy to claims of an Islamic jihad, or of a western war against Islam. The fear is that the moderates in the Islamic world might hear such sentiments and then side with the terrorists. That so long as it seems a limited conflict between a small group of terrorists and the US disconnected from religion or culture, those moderates will not become terrorist sympathizers.

This is wrong for two reasons.

First, in most cases these moderates do not exist. In Iraq there are Moslems who side with the US for practical reasons, and in Turkey the moslem majority is by and large quite western in outlook. But in most nations where terrorists operate, there simply are no moderates, at least not in the sense that people imagine. Those who live in terrorist sponsoring regions either support terrorism or are silent. Perhaps those pushing this position think those silent ones are moderates, but that doesn't matter. If they are silent it means either they assent to the terrorist goals, or else they are so cowed by the terrorists they fear to speak out. In either case they are not going to support the west. So what is the point in trying to appeal to them through circumlocutions which only serve to confuse our own citizens as to the real issues?

Second, I disagree with the basic premise. When the west waged war on Japan in World War II, even going so far as to inter the Japanese Americans in several states, the Japanese did not side with Imperial Japan, but formed military units to prove their loyalty. So why would Moselms act differently? Are those proposing this belief saying the Moslems are any less patriotic than the Japanese? Are they suggesting Moslems are prone to terrorism?

Well, I know some will ask, what is the harm?

The harm is simple, if not obvious. This war on terrorists may not be entirely a cultural war, but on the side of the terrorists, culture and religion are definitely a major factor. To obscure that is to reduce the understanding most people have of the causes and issues of the war. When the average American hears that the other side wants conversion or death, he has great resolve in the fight.  When he hears thatw e are fighting an "Islamist perversion of the religion of peace" he has no idea what we are fighting or why and his resolve falters. By obscuring the real causes of the war, we sow the seeds of our own defeat.

Then again, many of those pushing a PC description of the war are also heavily invested in our defeat, so maybe they are not so upset if their Newspeak description helps hasten our loss.

NOTE

By the way, I wrote before about my affinity for some of the aspects of Islam, especially historically. While I am quite confirmed in my own religion, I still find quite a bit to admire in the writings of Rabia, Rumi, Avicena, al-Farabi and al-Ghazali.* (Not sure why Khalil Gibran is so famous though, never liked him that much. Certainly less than Rumi, for example.) So I do not think Islam is inherently barbarous. On the other hand, the current Wahabbi interpretation does lend itself to extremism, and the fusion of nationalism with Islam that took place in the mid twentieth century does not help.

Still, far from being a hater of Islam, I am someone who sees the value in many Islamic traditions and who sees their current direction as a horrible mistake. But I am also not about to call Islam the religion of peace and claim this is a perversion. This violent, jihadist trend has always been present in Islam. During good times, it was largely suppressed, and the religion flourished, but at other times, such as today, it comes to the fore and the religion adopts a more violent tone. And that violent tendency disturbs me**.

To put it simply, I admire many Islamic scholars, but I also think that we do a disservice by falsifying the history of nay religion. Islam has had both good and bad, and to whitewash their history is to treat them as children. It is far less condescending to treat the religion honestly. I am quite willing to describe the shortcomings of Judaism, and I give Moslems the benefit of believing they are as much adults as I am, and are willing to be forthright about their religion as well. (And those who are unwilling to do so are a big part of the problem, and I see no reason to cater to them in our discussions.)

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

* Yes, it is a very eclectic list, and quite contradictory. For example al-Farabi and al-Ghazali are almost opposites of one another. And if you include my fondness for Maimonides and Abulafia, it makes it even more peculiar. Still I find things to admire in each, even if I don't completely agree with any of them. Which is why I can enjoy such a disparate group of thinkers.

** There are parts of every faith that can harmful if emphasized improperly. Jihadist tendencies happen to be one of the specific faults of Islam. However, to say that faith can be misused in the hands of fallible men is not to say anything about the truth or falsehood of that faith, it just says something about the nature of men. So, please, no one write telling me Islam is divine and perfect, or to argue that their own faith has no weaknesses. All faiths can be perverted. Even if a given faith is true and perfect, men are not.

I realize I haven't posted a rant about spelling or grammar and some time (much to the relief of many readers, I imagine), but tonight I was watching television and heard someone use one of the two phrases which annoy me more than most, "in unison together", the other being "verbatim word for word".

Now "unison together" is slightly less annoying, as "unison" implies "together", but does not specifically mean "together", the way that "verbatim" and "word for word" mean exactly the same thing. Of course, "unison" is still impossible without a "together", so it is redundant, but ti is not quite as offensive. Still, I would prefer if those using these repetitive phrase would expend a tiny amount of thought and pick one word or the other and not end up needlessly using both words.

There, that was mostly painless, wasn't it? Much shorter than most of my grammar and spelling posts.

I now return you to your normal reading.

I shall write on this at greater length soon, but it is nice to see reality bearing out my predictions. In the past I have argued that McCain would slowly shift to the right as he would want to shore up his Republican base. And sure enough, a recent article on his tax cutting pledges shows that he is clearly adopting a more right leaning economic policy.

I am still waiting for him to back off on the environmental positions he has taken, but I am gambling he will either back off, or just silently drop the issue, long before November. He has already made fairly conservative economic statements concerning the mortgage crisis, and has now adopted a conservative position on taxes. And he has always been right on defense, gun rights, and a number of other issues.

I am still leery of his positions on amnesty, immigration, and individual rights, such as his dreadful campaign finance reform. And I worry that his tendency to adopt silly populist positions and bash businesses may undercut his strong economic message, but regardless he is still much better than Obama, and he is getting better with time.

As I said a long while ago, so long as he thinks he can win conservative votes, he will move right. When we say we will never vote for him no matter what, we prevent that process from taking place. I am glad that enough sensible Republicans exist that he thinks moving right will win him votes.

I am sometimes puzzled by the rules our culture has established. So in the interest of clearing my mind, I am trying to figure this out.

In the case of "transgendered" (should be transsexual) individuals, we are fine with accepting their claim that they were born in the wrong body and giving them the external appearance of another sex. But were the same to happen with the case of race, we would not be so good with helping a black man look white. Likewise, deaf activists tell me that cochlear implants, instead of curing a birth defect, are "genocide against the deaf." So surgery to correct defects, or even claimed defects, only applies to those unhappy with their sex.

In the case of homosexuality, there are similarly complex rules for therapists. A man who has both homosexual and heterosexual impulses can be "helped to understand his homosexuality", but he cannot be urged to adopt a heterosexual identity. Therapy can only herd one toward homosexuality, anything else is intolerant. The argument is, apparently, that one is "born gay" and to be "forced' into heterosexuality is cruel. To which I would reply, how do we know those who are confused are born gay and just faking being straight? Couldn't they be born straight and faking being gay? Why assume all are born gay? Is all sexual confusion a certain sign of some "gay gene"? Is there anything in biology which supports this claim?

And then we come to cultures. We are told that to teach majority culture to minorities is oppressive and destroys their identity. But to teach minority cultures to the majority, even to force them to adopt those identities for a time as an "exercise" increases tolerance. Does this mean only the majority can be intolerant?

I am sure there are many more questions hiding in the back of my mind, but those three are the ones that have been bothering me of late. I still don't understand the rules our society seems to adopt, but at least I can put them into words.

Perhaps someone could help me understand the rationale.

In a response to John Stossell's article today, a poster raised the proposition that somehow entitlements are a corollary of civilized Democracy.

Subject: Entitlement as a measure of civilization

If we look at societies with entitlements (social welfare) versus those that don't have, or have shoddy benefits, it is interesting to note that higher entitlements point toward more healthy, educated democracies.
I suspect even, that being a citizen of communist China would be a more healthy existance, than being a citizen of democratic India, Pakistan, Iraq or the entire African continent, because of the (admittadely inadequate) entitlements of that vast nation.
Mr Stossel sir, Zimbabwe has next to zero entitlements, where as Germany provides free education up to and including university courses; your utopia and Mr Mugabe's appear in sink.

Now, I would normally just reply int he comments, or even ignore this, but I have heard this argument before, so I figured I would give it a short response. Other posters took apart the fact that claimed China as a Democracy, and the fact that Zimbabwe is such a mess that to use it as an example of anything other than total chaos is worthless. So I will make another objection.

First, the countries which have offered the greatest entitlements have not been the beloved "progressive democracies" but dictatorships appeasing the masses. Bismarck's Germany, Hitler's Germany, the former Soviet Union and China. In fact, in the US the growth of entitlements has always been during a period of increasing authoritarianism, such as the presidencies of both Wilson and FDR. It seems entitlements are more properly seen as bread and circuses to distract rather than a sign of enlightened concern.

Second, and more importantly, those "progressive" states the left used to laud, such as Sweden, have begun to move away from an entitlement mentality, which does not appear to match this theory. If anything, it appears that democracies, after an early, poorly examined enthusiasm for government largess, have realized the shortcomings of that system and are stepping away from it.

I should probably write about this in greater detail in the future, but for the moment I think my examples have said enough. The greatest proponents of entitlements have been dictators, and those who were not have begun to eliminate entitlements and return to a more individualist system.

POSTSCRIPT

Normally I do not reply to comments in my blog, but the two I chose today were not only particularly stupid, but provided good examples of common errors. The chance to refute popular mistakes was too good to pass up. But fear not, I am not about to fill my blog with replies to comments made about pundits' articles. This was an unusual situation, do not expect me to do the same in the future.

Am I the only one who has noticed that Obama's "forgivable mistakes" are more frequent than the verbal slips that made the left call Bush a moron?

Why is no one collecting a book of Obamisms? If Bush said the things Obama did, he would be skewered over and over again, yet the media and comedians make nary a peep about Obama's tendency to say the wrong thing.

How many times does he have to say something stupid before it is OK to point out his many stupid errors? Or before we can stop calling this lunkhead "articulate"? Being adept at reading from a teleprompter is not being "articulate" and certainly is not a sign of intelligence. It qualifies you to be the next Katie Couric, but not president.

Has the Obama defense been handed over to ten year olds? In every post about an Obama mistake, and the number of those mistakes grows every day, the defense offered sounds like that of a young child. "Yeah, well so did McCain!" (For a particularly silly example, see the post below and the related article by Michelle Malkin. Or see my earlier post on the same topic.)

First of all, that defense assumes that McCain is a popular choice among Republicans. We don't support McCain because we like him, or because his choices are right. We support him for one reason only, he is still better than Obama. So, even if these charges are true it makes no difference. McCain's advisers could be as insider and corrupt as Obama's but it wouldn't turn McCain INTO Obama, so he would still have our support.

Second, it is quite tone deaf. The main appeal of Obama is that he is some sort of "different" politician. For him to argue "I'm no more corrupt than your guy" does nothing to support this image. In fact, it makes him looks like a liar, and worse still, a particularly bad liar. It is hard to make others believe you are something different when your only argument is you are no worse than other politicians.

Finally, if Obama and McCain are equally corrupt and both are traditional sleazy politicians, it still works out to McCain's advantage. If both are equally bad, then McCain, with his greater experience, is the obvious choice over the lightweight, inexperienced Obama.

If Obama, or his supporters, can't find a better defense of their candidate, this is going to be a short race. Provided he can keep from self destructing long enough to actually get the nomination, he won't survive long beyond that. If this is the best he can do, it looks like another Mondale sized loss for the Democrats.

POSTSCRIPT

I know all the "experts" are predicting the opposite, but they are too enamored of Obama to judge. On the other hand, I don't care for McCain, but I can say with confidence, judging from those I meet, what I read on line, and my general impression of public sentiment, the Obamania they think will sweep the nation is much more limited in scope than they imagine, and combined with their overconfidence and Obama's tone deaf handling of the unexpected as well as his weakness when confronted with criticism, is going to spell a massive defeat in November.

We will see who is right soon enough.

In the comments responding to Michele Malkin's column today, one poster indulged in one of thsoe idiocies I mention regularly, blaming deregulation for something the government caused. Here is his post:

Subject: You let the big one get away, Michelle

Which is worse? Having an unpaid vetter reviewing the qualifications of your potential VP candidates who has benefited from the subprime crisis, or having the guy write your economic and housing program who arguably created the subprime crisis?

The last individual was former Sen. Phil Gramm, whose brick-by-brick demolition of the system of financial regulations over the past 20 years has been a huge factor in the subprime mess. Especially while serving as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Gramm was a tireless voice for undoing the system put in place following the Great Depression to make sure we never had another financial system collapse.

At the same time Gramm, one of John McCain's top economic advisors, was helping McCain write his economic program and response to the housing industry mess, Gramm was also vice president and a paid lobbyist for UBS. He was once again advocating further deregulation of the financial industry for a company that has taken a huge hit in subprime American mortgages.

Oddely, McCain's plan was pretty close to the usual Gramm prescription for further deregulation and reliance on the same market forces that have caused the current mortgage mess.

Gramm's employer, UBS, coincidentally has warned its foreign employees not to travel to the US since they could be liable for arrest and prosecution for providing advice and assistance in helping US clients illegally evade taxes.

Now, historically, there have been very few periods of completely unregulated banking. Some regions in the colonial period and maybe Scotland prior to the Bank of England entering the market. And, oddly enough, in those cases, there actually were no boom-bust cycles nor were there any bank runs or other financial crises.On the other hand, during our period of banking regulation we have regular cyclical boom-bust cycles as well as periodic crises of greater import. Obviously it is not enough evidence to be conclusive, but that history alone makes one doubt that regulation serves to prevent financial crises. If anything, the historical record suggests regulation causes more problems, rather than fewer.

I wrote on this before, but let me say it again, the subprime crisis was created by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The state has forced lenders to give loans to high risk customers, which inevitably caused a crash. Not to mention the artificially low interest rates which encouraged excessive loans.

But, as usual, thanks to a partial deregulation, the free market is being blamed for the failure of the remaining regulations. As if the fuilly regulated banking system of the 1970's was doing so much better.

POSTSCRIPT

I won't even mention the absurd pro-FDR propaganda which makes of FDR's Keynesianism a virtue and his love of regulation a safeguard of freedom. Hopefully my readers are well aware of the truth of the FDR administration, and the silly myth that he somehow got us out of the depression.

POSTSCRIPT II

By the way, that final sentence about UBS makes me think that US prosecutors are abusive more than that UBS is a criminal enterprise. And, anyway, what on earth does it have to do with the rest of the post? It sounds like standard liberal scattergun argument: "He robs, cheat and steal from his client. Oh and he hit his wife!" What possible relevance does UBS's legal woes have to do with either Gramm's deregulation or McCain's VP committee? Why is it whenever many on the left engages in criticism, they cannot stay on point, but have to throw in unrelated personal slanders?

By the way, in the interest of disclosure, I have always been quite a fan of Gramm, and supported his ill-fated presidential run. It does not mean I would overlook misbehavior however. But in this case, I just don't see it. The subprime "crisis" is the outcome fo bad government policies, pure and simple, and non have to do with deregulation.

POSTSCRIPT III

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but every time I read this again, I notice yet another problem.

If UBS lost money in the subprime "crisis", then why would they want MORE deregulation? Wouldn't they want to try a different approach? If the deregulation caused them losses, then how is it going to make them rich?

(Actually, I see this a lot, conspiracy theory types who talk about how much money a company lost, but then act as if the law somehow made them rich. You can't have it both ways, either they are losing money or making money, the two are mutually exclusive. Kind of like the theory that somehow speculation is driving up oil prices while, where in every other area it serves to level prices. Somehow these people think that oil speculation serves only to drive up prices, though they never explain how anyone makes money buy just buying oil and never selling.)

On the other hand, if the poster knows what he is talking about (and what are the odds of that), I am happy about one thing. If Phil Gramm is driving McCain's economic policy, we have some hope that McCain may not play maverick and hose the economy. At least Gramm understands economics.