Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts

27 November 2008

Morning Coffee (139)

Happy Give-Thanksing.

Apologies, Coffee drinkers, for failing to deliver two steaming cups in a row. You may boycott me if you wish.

Stupid is as Stupid Does:
I have said for years that if our nation falls, it will be because of one underlying cause from which all other problems will be derived: the lack and erosion of civil virtue. With civic virtue comes civic knowledge, and through that knowledge citizens can take not only an active part in our nation, but also a meaningful part. A citizenry that lacks civic virtue cannot have adequate civic knowledge, and thus, they can not make meaningful contributions. What contributions that they do make, will be poor, and perhaps even detrimental.

Let me be clear on one thing. We are losing our civic knowledge, which is a clear indicator that our civic virtue has long since began to erode. Want proof? Two-thousand five-hundred eight American adults, with education levels ranging from advanced degrees to no high school diplomas, were given 33 multiple choice questions on various subjects pertaining to "civil literacy," or American history and institutions, by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The results are appalling. The segment from Harvard, unsurprisingly, did the best with a 69.56. Fifty-six percent of the Americans who took part in this test could identify Paula Abdul correctly - as a judge on "American Idol." Easy, right? But only 21% recognized a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. Only 24% are aware that the establishment of an official religion is barred by the First Amendment. I'm sure they all know that it entitles them to all sorts of "free speech" though, since they all yammer about that even if they're cursing in a restaurant.

You are not inoculated to failure by getting a college degree, either. A bachelor's degree will net an average score of 57%, or failing. Tens of thousands of dollars spent on a bachelor's degree will translate into a score increase of 13 percentage points over those with "merely" a high school diploma. College EDUCATORS scored a 55.

What, you might ask, is scarier than a citizenry whose ignorance leaves them ripe for manipulation by politicians hell bent on subverting the Constitution? How about politicians who don't know what the Constitution says? The ISI's report says, "Elected officials score lower than the general public." Imagine that.

You can take ISI's quiz, HERE if you'd like. I scored an 84.8, which while far and away better than most, still saddens me.

I must say one thing, in full disclosure. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute traditionally has a conservative bent, so some of the economic-based questions probably have "ISI correct answers" that a liberal typically wouldn't agree with. I didn't like that aspect, even though I'm not even remotely an economist - and because I'm not, I didn't really "get" some of the answers. But while I can argue that those questions are biased, questions asking which speech a certain popular phrase came from are fair game, and Americans failed them as frequently as they did the biased questions.

But take a look at the summary page on the test results. Conservatives, who would agree with the ISI's assertions on the economic questions, fared worse than liberals. You can peruse other portions of the test, such as the major findings, additional findings, and the survey method. I think that after weighing all evidence, one can come away from this firmly convinced that we're in trouble.

"Office of the President-Elect?":
As you may have recently seen, Barack Obama has taken to giving press conferences in front of a podium labeled "The Office of the President Elect." This has sparked a great deal of discussion in the media, to include the so-called blogosphere. It is also preposterous. When this first came out, many bloggers and pundits, including a surprisingly high number of liberals, were somewhat taken aback by Obama's use of this term and podium adornment, feeling it was cheap showmanship. Then Obama's defenders brought to bear the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, interpreting that this act created such an Office. And then there was all sorts of apologizing and retractions, made reluctantly by most conservative bloggers, who in their apology just criticized something else.

But there was no need to apologize or retract anything. There is no Office of the President Elect. What the Presidential Transition Act does is give support to the President-elect and his staff in order to ease the transition. It gives office space, if the President-elect asks for it. Office space is not an Office (proper noun). It allows the President-elect and Vice-President-elect to use the mail in the performance of transition related duties. Free mail use does not an Office make. Let me repeat for those of you who are easily swayed by feeble arguments that office space equals and Office: The so-called Office of the President Elect, while used before Obama, exists not in reality, but in the minds of ego-maniacal politicians with a flair for showmanship. See, an Office (proper noun) must have powers associated with it, otherwise it's not an Office. Do you see the difference between the two? There is no Office of the President Elect. Obama has no power to do anything. There may be office space for the President-elect, but no Office of said person. Obama has even said as much, which makes his use of the "Office" even more absurd.

Further, Obama technically isn't the President-elect yet. That doesn't happen until the Electoral College convenes in December. Nevertheless, I have no problem calling him the President-elect. The Electoral College will elect him. But I do have a problem with these faux-Offices with no power invented solely to make someone appear more authoritative. You're going to be the President, buddy, stop with the theatrics. Especially when you've already been criticized before for such things.

Muhammad, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny:
Germany's first Professor of Islamic Theology, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, recently asked that someone kill him as soon as possible. Kalisch has concluded, through years of theological research, that the Prophet Muhammad probably never existed. But the man who converted to Islam at 15 insists that he's still a Muslim; he just wanted to subject Islam to the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism, noting that German scholars first questioned the accuracy of the Bible in the 19th century.

Kalisch was slow to come to his conclusion, however. When he first arrived at Munster University in 2004, he was criticized as being too conservative, defending sharia, adamantly. But he read books questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and felt that while he had dealt with Christianity and Judaism, he needed to deal with his own. So he did, obviously. He also questions the veracity of the Qu'ran, saying, "God doesn't write books." Not surprisingly, Kalisch has been declared an apostate, which in Islam means that he must be killed.

Kalisch has some guts, I'll give him that, even though I really don't care whether or not Muhammad was a real person. The fact doesn't make Islam's or Christianity's present day followers any less real.

This issue was first brought to my attention in the 15-16 November issue of "The Wall Street Jounal."

I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. I'll try to Brew some more tomorrow. Enjoy the Coffee and the Turkey.

Word of the Day: Emollient (adjective): 1. Softening or soothing. (noun) 1. Something that softens or soothes.

On This Day in History: The Roman poet Horace died (8 BCE). Pope Urban II declares the First Crusade (1095). Alfred Nobel signs his last will and testament, effectively establishing the Nobel Prize (1896). The first Mac's Thanksgiving Day Parade is held (1924). Lyndon Johnson is told by the Pentagon that the number of troops in Vietnam must be increased from 120,000 to 400,000 if planned operations are to succeed (1965).

"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney.

02 December 2007

Morning Coffee (73)

Certain events have necessitated a weekend edition of the Coffee; something so absurd, yet half-expected. So here we are on a Sunday. If someone wants to pay me, I’ll gladly brew up weekend editions until the cows come home, and we know that might be a while because cows like to wander the open range.

Mighty Mo’(hammad) Revisited:

Yesterday, I told you of Gillian Gibbons’ personal nightmare, in which she is accused of denigrating Islam because her students named a teddy bear Muhammad, and was at risk of being punished by death, or 40 lashes and a year in prison. After I related to you that bit of madness, and informed you Coffee-holics of the court’s decision to punish her with 15 days in prison and deportation, the Associated Press reported that “thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied…and demanded the execution of [Gillian Gibbons]…”

Before the sentence, I was right in that no unruly mob had demanded her death. But the situation sure changed quickly. I’m guessing that the masses didn’t think that the punishment even remotely fit the crime, especially considering some did indeed call for her death before hand. So, they gathered in the city center to make sure the world knew where they stood on the issue of Ms. Gibbons’ lax sentence. Some protesters carried green signs with the name “Society for Support for the Prophet Muhammad.” Other protesters chanted, “No tolerance: Execution,” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

We have really no basis for comparison in the US, so it’s hard to understand, even a little, what goes on in the minds of some of these Muslims who to us appear to grossly exaggerate their response to perceived slights. Even having a “society” dedicated to giving support to a long-dead prophet (who according to their religion is likely sitting at the right hand of God, or for us, is God) is completely alien to most of us. Nevertheless, I sat here trying to think about how I would feel if someone were to name a stuffed animal Jesus or Joseph Smith or Eddie Vedder or something, and I could only chuckle because I wouldn’t care; usually that’s seen as a sign of respect and admiration. But I then tried to get into the fame of mind that this naming of an inanimate object after a holy man was an egregious sacrilege, and that I should presently be in a murderous rage. I simply couldn’t do it. I can think of nothing so sacred that the mere naming of something after it would elicit such a response from me or from, I dare say, most Americans. Some, yes, perhaps those members of the Westboro Baptist Church, but not most.

The Clash of Civilizations:

The situation is really quite interesting, and it provides us insight into the minds of many practitioners of this peaceful religion. Some of you (hopefully most) will remember the outrage over the Muhammad cartoons. Maybe you remember the fatwa demanding the death of author Salmon Rushdie, or the actual murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. What strikes me is the insistence on toleration and acceptance of Muslim beliefs by Muslim leaders, yet the perceived majority, or at least a very vocal minority, of Islam’s practitioners in Third World countries (and other countries) rally around cries like, “No tolerance!” You have Muslim clerics lamenting about the West’s lack of acceptance of Islam, insisting that the West is out to get them and is fearful and repressive of Muslims in Western countries, yet these same clerics encourage riots over cartoons, issue orders to kill authors over books, and suggest the killing of a woman who went to Sudan to help them over a perceived slight. They see oppression everywhere except in their own backyards. Are they all this way? No, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are enough of them are to hold large rallies and conduct large riots – and kill people.

I am of the opinion that the world is in the throes of a Clash of Civilizations, which has been described by a number of authors and thinkers such as Samuel Huntington and Mahdi Elmandjra. The Clash of Civilizations theory is one that states that cultural and religious identities will be one of the main sources of conflict in the future. I think what we are seeing now is contact between skirmishers, which precedes major battle between the main lines. These two civilizations, the West and Islam, simply cannot understand each other, no matter how hard they try, which neither do with regularity. I’m beginning to think that the two are wholly incompatible, and cannot live together in peace and harmony. Each civilization has portions of its system that cannot be accepted by the other; at least not while maintaining the status quo in each civilization. This means that one civilization has to abandon certain tenats of its system in order to appease the other; otherwise, conflict is inevitable. Or vice versa.


But is it possible to abandon an aspect of your culture? I pose that it is probably possible, but that it is extremely unlikely to happen. Cultural identity is a strong force. Already we’re seeing the backlash of abandoning or modifying one’s system, albeit unconsciously, in Western Europe. In the Netherlands there is a fair amount of discussion of the loss of Dutch culture; they are beginning to feel the pressure after trying to accommodate Muslim immigrants. So too are the British, who have to contend with sharia superseding British law in some areas. It is happening in Sweden. It has been happening in the Balkans for hundreds of years. We are even seeing it in the Southwest of our own country, albeit with a different culture than Islam. Tensions will inevitably arise when a culture is forced to abandon their traditions, language for example, in order to accommodate others.

The reaction is worse when a people wake up one day and find that their ideals have been subverted and used against them, like acceptance in the West. Perhaps “forced to abandon” is too strong a phrase. “Encouraged” makes it seem like there is active erosion by some force or group, although as a cultural group gains more power, through concessions or otherwise, they gain the ability to lobby for exactly this. I would say that a driving force behind this is apathy. However, people only seem to be apathetic (and thus accepting) until they start to see the disappearance, the erosion if you will, of their cultural identity. That is when you have hate crimes committed by ignorant red necks and soccer hooligans. Telling these people to be accepting of others is not enough. Even basing your culture around acceptance only goes so far.

Perhaps there are some evolutionary benefits to protecting and preserving a society’s cultural identity. When conflict arises, it’s surely useful to be able to say, “our culture is valuable; perhaps more valuable to us than it is to them; thus to us, our culture is better than theirs.” But it seems that we, in the West, have lost our ability to say anything like that. To insinuate, even obliquely, that our culture is, to us, more valuable than, say, Islamic culture, is met with ridicule and scorn; you would be decried as an intolerant racist.

You may wonder, dear reader, why I insist on using the phrase “to us” when I discuss this. It’s simple: intrinsically, no culture or way of life is really better than another. Instead, it is the member of a culture that perceives his group’s way of life as better than another. To illustrate this concept, I once again point you to the Roman Republic/Empire. Romans believed that their way of life was simply better than that of the barbarians. Much Roman philosophy and scholarship was dedicated to examining the differences, and it was beneficial from the standpoint of survival that this scholarship inconclusively point to the supremacy of Roman culture. This conclusion justified the Roman expansion, and greatly influenced the future. Even now, one can easily see where the “civilization” of Rome ended, and the barbarian frontiers began; just look at the languages of Europe.

Today we are able to examine Rome’s views with relative objectivity, and we know that barbarian culture was not worth less, intrinsically, than that of Rome. We know that many groups of barbarians, for example the La Tene culture along the Rhine, were quite civilized by Roman standards. But the Roman view that barbarian culture was of less value, nay, that Roman culture was a gift to other peoples, was beneficial to Rome’s survival. This wouldn’t always be the case; as Rome’s cultural identity was eroded, so too was the Roman ability, and cultural fortitude, to survive.

I wish to make clear that what I am NOT saying is that we “wipe out” any other group of people or culture. What I AM saying is that there is nothing wrong with saying, “our culture is valuable to us, and is thus worth defending from erosion.” There is nothing wrong with expecting a certain amount of conformity to our culture by people who wish to be a member of our society. There is nothing wrong with, for example, expecting Muslim women to remove their face coverings in order to take their pictures for drivers’ licenses and photo IDs. There is nothing wrong with expecting Muslim Somali cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport to transport individuals who happened to purchase a bottle of Jim Beam in the duty free store.

There is, of course, a bit of hypocrisy in this idea: if it is okay for us to be somewhat “intolerant” of others, it is thus acceptable that they in turn be “intolerant” of us. Yes, that is a flaw in the system. But I would not say it’s a flaw, necessarily. It simply is what it is. I do not expect to go to Saudi Arabia, or China, or Iran, and continue to live life as a free American/Westerner. But I also do not expect a Saudi Arabian or Iranian to come here and live as a hard-line Islamist. Perhaps this answer is the most respective of tolerance and acceptance. Simply knowing what you’re getting. But that’s not to say that I don’t view my culture as more valuable to me than theirs. It is also not to say that I don’t desire that they adopt my culture; it is only natural to wish that. Christians wish I believed in god and fans of Harry Potter wish I liked those books.

I too have been conditioned to feel creepy and slightly nauseated to entertain thoughts like this. Even right now, I question whether or not I want to post this blog at all; whether I should censure myself. Part of me feels it is utterly wrong to pose these ideas, because after all, we’re all (globally) equal, diversity is good, and we should be loving and accepting of others who are different from us. But I’m still torn, even knowing all these things, because I love our way of life. I see the world and come to a profound realization that virtually no other culture in the world feels of other cultures as we do. No other culture seems to welcome diversity so much that it suppresses its own ideals. Quite the contrary; these other cultures seem perfectly fine with exterminating interloping ideals.

If we do not value our system, or if we truly believe that our system is, to us, no better than any other system, we had best be prepared for the future. That future may entail speaking Chinese or Arabic, or praying to Mecca five times a day. Being woke by the call to prayer emanating from tall minarets. It may entail the honor killing of your daughter because she was gang raped. Your legal cases may be heard by religious scholars specializing in sharia rather than judges specializing in Constitutional law. Madrassas may be the new public schools, and in them, your son might be encouraged to blow himself up in the name of Allah. You may hate free speech and despise rogue authors enough to kill them. You may be incited to riot, incited to murder, over the naming of a teddy bear or a cartoon. I tell you, my dear readers, the 13th century has never looked so terrifying to me.

Word of the Day: Vicissitude (vih-SIS-ih-tood) (noun): 1. regular change or succession from one thing to another; alteration; mutual succession; interchange. 2. irregular change; revolution. 3. a change in condition or fortune; an instance of mutability in life or nature (especially successive alteration from one condition to another).

On This Day in History: President James Polk announces that the US should aggressively expand into the West, formally establishing Manifest Destiny (1845). Riots break out in Jerusalem in response to the UN Partition Plan (1947). The Senate votes (65-22) to condemn Joseph McCarthy (1954). Castro announces that he is a Marxist-Leninist and that Cuba will adopt Communism (1961).

“The idea that war should be conducted within a moral framework may seem like a quaint medieval practice, but as speech separates humans from the apes, so morality separates civilization from the barbarians” – Emmanuel Goldstein

“If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.” – Thomas Sowell

30 November 2007

Morning Coffee (72)

It’s the last day of the second to last month in 2007, and we’re still here, sipping piping hot Coffee. Good for us. I really wish I could quit my job and just do spectacularly awesome Morning Coffee’s for a living. I’d be the Starbucks of the blogosphere; making delicious opinion lattes and wonderful cynicism frappucinos for the world to enjoy. But alas, I have bills to pay, and the Morning Coffee, for all its greatness, simply doesn’t bring in more than zero dollars a month.

American Legionaries – Unwitting Victims:

There is a site I visit once a day, maybe less, the main crux of which is nude women with tattoos and piercing. It’s classy stuff if you’re a biker or a goth. But lately, I’ve visited solely for their current events writers. They’ve got a pretty decent set up there. I think there are 30 writers or so who opine regularly. I call it pseudo-journalism, because they take themselves very seriously, but aren’t really bothered with things like journalistic integrity or other inconveniences. Much of what they write on isn’t really news at all, but a bunch of uber-liberal opinion (what do you expect from a site such as this?). Don’t get me wrong, a few cite sources (links), and most are intelligent and articulate. Some even make good points. Then, site members are semi-welcome to post comments about the articles, usually provided that you agree with the author and/or hive. Woe unto those who do not. My point though isn’t to explain the site or why I go there to read things, however. Let’s just say that I like being exposed to stupid, er…opinions different than mine. I digress…

There are so many “good” articles that it’s hard to pick just one about which to write. However, yesterday I read one about Al Gore’s meeting with President Bush. The author was wondering, in their snide, sarcastically demeaning way, what the topic of the conversation was between the two. His (her?) take was that Bush was a blithering idiot and merely wasted the regal Al Gore’s time, and he even provided us with a possible script of what took place. A discussion of the actual article is not worth my time, but it’s the comments posted below it that I want to address. A short back-story before I get to my main point. Some poster, a member of the Air Force, made mention to the audience at large to stop whining that their guy lost (which is what some were doing in their snide, sarcastic, hipster way). Well, wouldn’t you know it, the community jumped on this guy pretty good. He stated that he was glad Bush won (imagine the argument that elicited – robbed election, I dare say!), and that he was better off because of it, despite deployments in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Then someone said, “well, you’re in the Air Force, why don’t you ask some soldiers and Marines!” He retorted that he knew soldiers and Marines and they too were okay with, *gasp*, doing their duty. Then someone whipped out the big guns…they pointed him to the Veterans Against the Iraq War (VIAW) website, as if that were the end-all, be-all of soldierly opinion and sentiment.

My point, which I’m taking overly long to make, is this, and I want to make this abundantly clear: we are not victims. Soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are not victims being abused by some warmongering government. I know that liberals (who make up a majority of this particular site) like to champion victims; it’s in their DNA to find victims all over (I really think it’s some sort of compensation complex many have). That’s fine. Sometimes it’s necessary. But we (the aforementioned groups) do not need a victims’ advocacy, shouting loud for all to hear, lamenting about our plight – that being volunteering to be members of a military force and then having to go to war. It’s not a plight, folks. It’s a duty. One that the vast majority of men and women who serve carry out proudly, with honor, and with nary a complaint. You might even say that some of these men and women, young and old, actually desire war. I know that most people don’t want to hear that, but it’s true. Some of these men and women live for warfare, because if they didn’t we wouldn’t have all those handy manuals and, get this, the most proficient military machine (i.e. killing machine) in the history of warfare. Warfare is the ultimate team sport, so why should soldiers’ sentiments about it be any different than they have for thousands of years (the length of time dependent upon the weight you place on the fossil record).

But the fact is, some people, liberals mostly, want to make us into victims. “Bush is sending these people to fight in this unjust war!” The implication is that they’re being sent to die and that it’s against their will. Ignoring the justness of this war, these men and women are neither being sent to die (although some will) nor being sent against their will. When someone points out these facts, a liberal’s response is to simply point that person towards a group (VIAW) that does feel victimized, as if that segment of military society represents the whole. Not true. These people also like to point to the wounded (the more horrifically the better) and suggest that this is the fate of those who are sent to fight and die, against their will, in this unjust war. They are hijacking our wounded comrades to make political statements that border on misleading, if not wholly misrepresentative of the majority. These people also like to point to rare instances of bureaucratic ineptitude – such as the soldier who was asked to return his enlistment bonus because he was wounded and thus couldn’t fulfill the contractual obligations of his reenlistment – and suggest that this is the norm; that this is how our soldiers are treated and victimized by the rich, white, Protestant elite. Never mind that these errors are usually quickly corrected. It’s all evidence of victimization. It’s the liberals’ “white-man’s burden” to champion us.

“'Forward, the Light Brigade!' Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.” This prose, written by Lord Tennyson about in ill-fated charge during the Crimean War, is what it means to be a soldier. If a soldier (or Marine, sailor, airman) doesn’t know that this is what he is about while he wears the uniform, then he is in dereliction of duty; then he is the victim. But we signed up for this; without coercion we spoke the Oath of Enlistment with our right hand raised. From that point on, ours is not to make reply, nor to wonder why; ours is but to do or die, and into the Valley of Death will we ride, a duty about which we shall never cry.

The Religion of Peace:

If you have not read about Gillian Gibbons, a British school teacher who left her country to teach children in Sudan, I suggest you do so. You’ll be shocked, amazed, and appalled at the behavior of some of the practitioners of the “Religion of Peace.” Because her students named a teddy bear Mohammad she was under threat of death. Not by an unruly mob as is normally the case, but by a court. Now, death was not a sentence that was considered, but some suggested that it be. She could have received 40 lashes and a year in prison, but instead will serve 15 days and be deported. She’s lucky that cooler(ish) heads prevailed. She’s also lucky that she’s being deported, because some young Muslim with too much time on his hands would surely cut her head off because she “insulted” Islam. Do you know how many Muslims are named Mohammad? Hint: it’s more than a baker’s dozen. Since the bear was actually named after a student in class, how is this even a question? She’s lucky. I hope that this teaches some hard lessons to people who wish to Third World countries to help educate its populace.

Word of the Day: Malapropos (adj): Unseasonable; unsuitable; inappropriate. (Adverb): in an inappropriate in inopportune manner; unseasonably. Sort of like a death sentence for naming a teddy bear Mohammad.

On This Day in History: Elizabeth Hodges is hit by a meteorite after it bounced off her radio in her living room, giving her a mere bruise. She’s the only known person to have been hit by a space rock (1954). The famous (or infamous) Cleopatra died today (30 BCE). Also, 300 cities around the globe celebrate “Cities for Life Day”, during which these cities declare their opposition to the death penalty. Excellent, now let’s divide our death row inmates equally amongst these 300 cities. Each should net at least 10 or so murderers and/or rapists.

“When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! All the world wonder'd. Honour the charge they made! Honour the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred!” – Lord Tennyson, Charge of the Light Brigade, 1854.