Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! Violent Peace Lovers (Not) in the News

You won't see this in the news.

No, that's not true. I did read about "The Sedition Report" in the news: "Report Cites Increase in Attacks on Military Recruiting Centers" FOXNews (March 26, 2008). But I've learned that for many people, FOX News isn't news, it's ultra-right-wing radical propaganda.

Mainstream, or Traditional, News

So, I checked a more 'reputable' source, looking for articles about attacks on military recruiting centers, or peace protesters, and found this:

• "Photo of Times Square bombing suspect released"
  CNN (March 8, 2008)
• " Leads in Times Square bombing fizzle"
  CNN (March 7, 2008)
• " Anti-war protesters arrested at IRS"
  CNN (March 19, 2009)
• " A timeline of Tibetan protests"
  CNN (March 14, 2008)

One of them wasn't even about peace protesters in America: but it showed up in my 'peace protester' search. Apparently, the only violence against a recruiting center is a bomb that happened to go off in Times Square.

As for peace protesters, "College students from New Jersey to North Dakota have planned walkouts, while students at the University of Minnesota vowed to shut down military recruiting offices on campus." They are nobly motivated, these peace protesters: "Craig Etchison, 62, a retired college professor from Cumberland, Maryland, and a Vietnam veteran, said he has been protesting the war for years.

" 'I've watched with horror as Bush has lied about this war,' he said in front of the building. "I'm appalled at the number of civilians we've killed just as we did in Vietnam.' " CNN (March 19, 2008).

Now that's news!

CNN shows their "real" America: anti-war protesters demonstrating for peace and social justice, earnestly striving to educate the masses and sway an uncaring establishment with cries of "Out of Iraq," "No war, no warming," and "No blood for Oil!".

And, best of all, a reference to Vietnam!

It's enough to warm the heart of any child of the sixties.

The problem is that this is the 21st century.

It's not just CNN. They're just one of the more successful - and, for the most part, a-political - of the traditional news outlets.

Wake Up! It's 2008!

Quite a bit has changed in the last forty years, but at least two things haven't:

• "Peace," or "anti-war," protesters
• How they are handled in traditional news media

Although many peace protesters are content with carrying signs and giving fuzz the one-finger salute, some carry their anti-war fever further, setting off bombs in their efforts to achieve world peace.

Odd, how people who advocate military action on terrorists, with the intent of bringing peace to a region, are 'hypocrites,' while people who hate violence and bomb military recruiting offices - aren't.

I know the excuse: the anti-war bombers aren't trying to kill anyone. But get real: sooner or later, there'll be collateral damage in one of those attacks.

But wait: There's only been that one attack, in Times Square, and maybe another one someplace else, right?

Wrong.

Anti-Military Activist Violence: Not Ripped From the Headlines

"The Sedition Report" is "a report of the numerous anti-military acts committed by groups right here in the United States. This list is constantly being updated ..." This report is the work of Move America Forward, "a non-partisan, not-for-profit charitable organization committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces." (Talk about radical!)

Move America Forward's executive director, Catherine Moy, and a military spokesperson were quoted by FOXNews, commenting on the report:

" 'We hope that people will see the report and see that this is not just one or two incidents,' Moy said. 'They are attacking these institutions to try to stop the war even as we are winning the war.'

"Moy continued: 'These people will stop at nothing.'

"The Pentagon reviewed the report but couldn't confirm that the more than 50 incidents listed were actual 'attacks.'

" 'Beyond incidents of vandalism, it's obviously difficult to count non-violent protests as an actual attack since these demonstrations usually do not result in deliberate acts against the U.S. military,' said Paul Boyce, a U.S. Army spokesman at the Pentagon."

The Pentagon, as usual, was very cautious in its statement. However, I'd say that the following might be considered attacks, even by the Pentagon's narrow definition:

• Broken windows
  (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 19)
• Broken Recruiting center, from a bombing
  (New York City, New York, March 6)
• More broken windows
  (Minneapolis, Minnesota, February 22)
• $1,000 worth of damage
  (Beaumont, Texas, January 1, 2008)

And that's just a selection from the thirteen incidents listed so far this year.

Where Shall We go? What Shall We Do?

Unlike Rhett, I do care about those questions. I've read people saying that they'll leave the country, if some candidate wins the election. I don't think that's a good idea, if you're already in America.

I've thought seriously, a few times in my life, about moving: and each time, after serious research, I couldn't find a better place to live. Particularly when it came to being allowed to express opinions that aren't officially approved.

If Running Away is Out - What's Left?

Use your head. We live in the Information Age: Exploit those (information) resources.

1. Realize that traditional, or "main stream," news outlets publish 'all the news we feel like printing.'
   • Their news isn't going to include anything that doesn't agree with their notion of what the world should be like.
2. Think when you read and listen.
3. Research topics that interest or concern you.
   • Services like Google are a great help, as long as you remember the difference between an assertion and a fact.
4. Use your brain, not your endocrine system, to make choices.
   • Emotions are great for motivating us, but lousy for making rational decisions.

And vote. But that's a topic for another post.

I've written about paradoxical peace protesters before: "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! More Violent Peace Lovers" (March 7, 2008)

Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! More Violent Peace Lovers

There's an interesting post, a sort of backgrounder for yesterday's Times Square bombing: "Make Incendiary Devices, Not War" Iraq War News (March 6, 2008).

What stands out in the post is the recounting of previous attacks by, ah, "anti-war" demonstrators. The ways of the peacenik are strange.

Since these events are related to the War on Terror, and aren't getting much attention, I've taking the liberty of making a list of events the Iraq War News blogger referred to. While I was at it, I added little extra information:

• Chicago, March 20, 2003:
  Molotov cocktails www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBvNdR-H7U
• Athens, Greece, March 21, 2003:
  Molotov cocktails at an anarchist rally www.ainfos.ca/03/mar/ainfos00474.html
• Athens, Greece, April 16, 2003:
  More Molotov cocktails at another anarchist rally findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030417/ai_n12683014
• San Francisco, March 21, 2003:
  12 Molotov cocktails, unused, found in a backpack while cleaning up debris from an anti-war demonstration www.ktvu.com/news/2056452/detail.html (Credit where credit is due: whoever dumped them didn't use them - although odds are that the bombs were dropped to avoid arson charges.)
• New York City area recruiting centers, 2005:
  • Smashed windows
  • A cracked door with anarchist symbols, a burning rag thrown into an Army recruiting station, and door locks glued shut¹
  • More, across America: including manure in Toledo, Ohio
  "For Recruiters, Antiwar Protests Raise Perils on the Home Front" The New York Times (February 21, 2005) is a rich source of information www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/21recruit.html
• Olympia, Washington, May 29, 2006:
  Attempting to pry open a fence. Gateway Pundit blog post, gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/after-fence-assault-anti-war-port-mob.html
• Ottawa, Canada, March, 2007:
  A soldier, back from Afghanistan, was introduced at a bar as a war hero. Then four men blindsided him, saying "What kind of hero are you now?"
  "Soldier calls nasty bar beating a 'sneak attack'" CTV (March 13 2007) www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070313/ottawa_soldier_070313/20070313?hub=TopStories

Each of these incidents might be written off as a fairly minor act of some overwrought person. Put together like this, they show a pattern of violence in "anti-war" circles that's disturbing.

I made it through the sixties: I'd just as soon not repeat the experience.

---

¹the 19-year old Manhattan College student who was arrested for making a third-rate Molotov cocktail and gluing a door shut had a handwritten note promising a "wave of violence" throughout the Northeast, aimed at the "military industrial complex." "Military industrial complex?" I haven't heard that phrase since the sixties and seventies. I suppose it's been cherished over the decades, by people who didn't want the spirit of the sixties to die out.

Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! Times Square Blast Linked to Peacenik(s)

Peace-loving bombers. Looks like they're back. One, anyway.

That explosion at a recruiting office in Times square this morning seems to be connected to the War on Terror: hardly a surprise, but other possibilities existed.

A handful of letters have been sent to Congresspersons. All of them Democrats, according to an unnamed police source.

"The letters sent to Capitol Hill contained at least one picture of the station, apparently before the attack, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told CNN.

"Police knew of fewer than 10 of the letters that had been received by members of Congress, a second law enforcement source said.

"The letters were all received by Democrats, another law enforcement source said.

"They contained a picture of a man standing in front of the recruiting station with the statement "We did it," according to an e-mail sent by the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and obtained by CNN"

There's more at the CNN article, " Letters after Times Square bombing claim: 'We did it'" CNN, (March 6, 2008): and more detail about the letters at "We Did It' Letters Eyed in NY Bombing" Washington Post (March 6, 2008).

A columnist (columnist, not communist) wrote, "... AP says manifesto was anti-Iraq war screed, 'Happy New Year, We did it;' Newsday: At least 10 got the package" - Michelle Malkin (March 6, 2008). The Washington Post's AP article was more restrained, calling what was enclosed with the picture, "approximately 10 sheets of paper that seemed to be a political manifesto railing against the Iraq war."

This sort of thing has happened before, in 2005:

• May, 2005: British Consulate
• October, 2005: Mexican Consulate (near there, anyway)

Those times, a cyclist was around shortly before the explosion. At almost exactly the same time of night - or morning - and the May, 2005, bomb was similar to the one that busted up the Times Square recruitment center.

There may not be a connection, but police have to consider the possibility that the incidents are connected.

I get the impression that it's not nice to remember the 'dark side' of the sixties. As someone pointed out (accurately enough), when the Army Math Research Center at the University of Wisconsin at Sterling Hall was bombed, only killed one person and injured four.

Besides, Dr. Robert Fassnacht was a physicist, probably in league with the military-industrial complex. Who knows, his superconductivity research might have been used to kill innocent Vietnamese babies, or something.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by what happened in Times Square today. For years, there hasn't been much more than a steady stream of vitriol from people who

• Hate war
  (a reasonable attitude)
• Hate America and/or the American military
  (exercising a right defended by the American military)
• Feel that it's the Yankees that who cause war
  (a debatable point at best)

With emotions whipped to a fever-pitch by the presidential election and the refusal of some American leaders to ignore deadly threats, I won't be surprised if there aren't more 'statements' like today's.

---

¹That may seem "obvious," but there were other possibilities. The explosion could have been:

• A mistake, where a dyslexic carrier delivered the device to the wrong address
• The last phase of a protection shakedown, directed at people living or working over the recruitment office
• A nefarious plot by the American military machine, to direct attention away from their demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 ²

Remember, I said "possibilities," not probabilities.

²I'm nowhere near 'intelligent' enough to believe that - but the odds are that this notion has already been serious posted.

On the Other Hand, This Isn't the Sixties

"UrbanConservative is on Wikipedia" Urban Conservative (March 4, 2008)

That's "Urban Conservative," not "Ultra Conservative." Earlier today ("Recruiting Center Blast ... Deja Vu All Over Again"), I wrote about how today seemed like a flashback from the sixties.

An "Urban Conservative" directory showing up in Wikipedia is something that just wouldn't have happened in the groovy decade. For starters, the Internet as we know it didn't exist then. More to the point, ordinary people didn't have easy access to any information source, other than the news.

The news, where daily body counts and the most horrific photos available were delivered in time for the evening meal, and where America learned that VFW members were all grossly obese, wore 26 inch belts under their guts, and could only be photographed in full-body profile.

The good old days? You can have them!

Recruiting Center Blast, Evacuation after Bomb Threat, Bomb Factory on Campus: Deja Vu All Over Again

Today may be more like the sixties than I thought.

• New York City:
  A bomb went off at a Marine recruiting center in Times Square at about 4:00 this morning
• Denver, Colorado:
  The Denver City and County building was evacuated this morning, after a bomb threat
• Davis, California:
  420 Students in 8 buildings at UC Davis spent the night in dining hall after someone noticed students making a pipe bomb

There's been an arrest at UC Davis, police are still looking for a bomb in Denver City, the FBI is now investigating the Times Square blast, and the New York mayor is asking anyone else who saw what happened to come forward. One witness saw a guy on a bicycle in Times Square before the blast: helpful, but not very.

It's early days: it's possible that the bombing of the USMC recruiting center in Times Square, a bomb threat in Colorado, and college kids making a pipe bomb in a dorm room have nothing to do with the War on Terror.

Possible, but not likely.

This reminds me of the sixties, when

• Relevance ruled
• The moon was in the Seventh House
• Love would steer the stars, and
• Terribly earnest, peace-loving students were setting fires and planting bombs

As Yogi Berra said, about something entirely different, "it's deja vu all over again."

I shouldn't be surprised: quite a few of those campus activists probably

• Got their degrees
• Got a job at a college
• Stayed in one place long enough to get tenure
• Are now dedicated to spreading the gospel according to Steinem, and teaching that there is no problem, real or imagined, that can't be blamed on (white, male, Christian) America

An over-simplification? You bet! Wanting to 'do your own thing,' while having others treat you according to the rules you won't follow - and blaming the government, your parents, or society when things go wrong - isn't an academic monopoly.

An important difference now is that I don't see the virulent hatred of the American military which I remember as a mark of the sixties. There's the occasional individual who makes cracks like 'Marines: the few, thankfully,' and a city council here and there that doesn't like big, rough soldiers on their turf: but that's the exception. In fact, that "the few" post isn't on the Web, now.

Why the difference? Here are some possibilities. Today:

• Americans get information from The New York Times, the alphabet soup networks¹ - and thousands of independent online sources
• Everyone under thirty, who was born in America
  • Has lived with fallout from the Woodstock generation - and kids aren't stupid
  • Wasn't raised by parents who, with the best of intentions, were raising their kids with "expert" advice while keeping up with the Joneses
• Authority isn't respected as much as it was in the early sixties: People are less likely to accept some crazy pronouncement, just because the person making it has a title, or is a college professor (Ironic, isn't it?)

All things considered, I'd rather be living now, than in the 'good old days' of either the fifties or the sixties.

---

¹"Alphabet soup networks" - my name for the venerable triumvirate of ABC, CBS, and NBC, together the people's network, PBS.

A Marine, A Puppy, and Serious Abuse: 'It Must be Real: I Saw it on YouTube!'

This must be a frustrating time for Berkeleyites and other anti-American atavisms.

Yearning for My Lai?

Back in the Golden Age of the sixties, the "My Lai massacre" was so well-known, and so many Americans had been properly conditioned, that "My Lai" generated an intense, visceral response almost everywhere. And maybe a sit-in, or even a protest march. Those were the days!

Abu Ghraib: a Forlorn Hope

Four years ago, Abu Ghraib showed real promise. In the first months of 2004, people around the world were being disgusted by more and more photos of disgusting things that were being done in a prison in Iraq. I got the impression that the Al Jazeera version, that "US commander 'allowed prison abuse' " was the default attitude. To be fair, Aljazeera did write that there was a US army inquiry into the mess.

In fact, American military officials realized that something was wrong, and had been investigating Abu Ghraib since August 11, 2003.

What Went So Wrong?!

Possibly because news today isn't controlled by the tight little quartet of The New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC, with PBS riding point, Americans just don't seem to be as well managed these days. Four years later, Abu Ghraib just doesn't have the traction of My Lai: and Abu Ghraib was a real scandal¹.

Back to Reality: A Marine, a Puppy(?), and a Video

Recently, someone put a video on YouTube. It showed someone in what looks like a Marine lance corporal's uniform, throwing what looks like a puppy (the puppy doesn't move) over a cliff. There's even an off-camera yelp.

Shocking! Deplorable!

Well, yes: it is. At least, the Marines think so.

" 'The video is shocking and deplorable and is contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine,' Major Chris Perrine, the public affairs director at the Marine Corps base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, said in a statement.

" 'This video came to our attention this morning, and we have initiated an investigation,' he said. 'We do not tolerate this type of behavior and will take appropriate action.' "

Posts I found in the blogosphere about this latest evidence of American atrocities was surprisingly low-key:

• "Marine throws puppy off of a cliff"
• "Oh crap - here we go again. US Military"
  ("...I guess this Marine wants to become the next Lynndie England. Sad.")
• "Marine abusing puppy on video"

In fact, at least one blogger brought up a reasonable question:

• "Marine Tosses Puppy Off Cliff Video, Fact or Fiction?"

The video isn't available any more: I checked at YouTube, and found that it's been pulled: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.."

That last blog ("Marine Tosses Puppy ....") observed that the video was of low quality to begin with, and that YouTube compression hadn't done it any favors. Also that the yelp didn't seem to exhibit a doppler effect (what happens with sound and motion that makes a passing truck sound like it's going "wheeee-oooo.")

I'd like to believe that the video is a fake, but it's possible that there is a Marine out there who threw a puppy down a cliff, and someone who videotaped the animal abuse. If that's so, I'm sincerely glad that I'm not that Marine.

This Isn't the Sixties

As for whether the puppy-pitching perpetrator will become a center of anti-American feelings in the tradition of My Lai, I doubt it. This isn't the sixties any more:

• A few news editors on the coasts don't decide what Americans hear and read.
  A fragmented assortment of news outlets, and hordes of bloggers, ensure that facts get out, no matter who doesn't like them
• American society isn't focused on an angst-filled generation, whose parents had followed 'expert' advice while chasing a dream of material success
• Remember those
  • 'I Was a Teenage...' movies
  • Teen-on-the-street interviews, where reporters asked teens for opinions about socioeconomic aspects of contemporary political issues?
    • And took the answers seriously?

I hope that, if in fact a puppy was treated that way, whoever killed it is provided with consequences.

---

More, at "Marines: Puppy Abuse YouTube Video 'Deplorable,' Investigation Launched" FOXNews (March 4, 2008)

After Word: My Lai and Abu Ghraib, Perception and Reality

¹The "My Lai massacre" doesn't seem to be quite the monstrous atrocity that Americans were led to believe. An alternative to the standard anti-American story:

• The My Lai attack took place in a free fire zone (by definition occupied only by Viet Cong)
• My Lai was be a supply depot for Viet Cong food and munitions
• After questioning My Lai villagers turned out to be Viet Cong and/or VC sympathizers
• My Lai villagers refused to expose spider/fighting holes, but U.S. soldiers found them anyway
• The U.S. soldiers were battle weary, and believed that the villagers were the same enemy which had recently engaged them with sniper fire a booby traps: which wasn't too far from the truth

This fairly routine, if violent, act of war became an example of how heartless, cruel, and barbaric the American military was, back in the sixties. As I said before, it must be frustrating that "Abu Ghraib," representing a real set of atrocities, failed to become a rallying cry.

(I got my information from: "an informal Q & A resource" and "Vietnam War My Lai Massacre Department of Defense Documents." In both cases, the sources of information are units of the U.S. military - 'and you know what they're like.')

All's Quiet on the Harvard Front: Jiggling Gymnast Segregation Continues

As I wrote in another post, Harvard, modest women, and a radical proposal do relate to the War on Terror.

News Media Keeping Mum

The traditional news media are maintaining a discreet silence, for the most part, about Harvard's radical experiment of

• Denying men their girl watching privileges while women exercise
• While allowing women to blatantly exhibit modest behavior

I haven't seen this sort of gross disregard for authority and tradition since the sixties: I can't blame editors for wanting to keep this case as low-profile as possible.

Bloggers Defending the Status Quo

Blogs and op-ed are another story. A few of the headlines show that this blatant disregard for the right of young men to mix it up with half-clothed women isn't going unnoticed.

• "Harvard Caves To Six Female Muslim Students"
  Hub Politics (March 2, 2008)
• "Sharia Law is Busting Out All Over"
  Yid with a Lid (March 3, 2008) (Don't blame me: That's the name of the blog.)
• "Harvard and Segregation"
  Lamplighter blog (March 2, 2008)
• "In Response to Muslim Demands, Harvard's Gym Now Has Women-Only Hours"
  Western Standard (March 2, 2008)
• "Harvard Launches Separate But Equal Workout Hours So Muslim Women Can Keep Their 'Modesty' "
  Mere Rhetoric (March 2, 2008)
• "Harvard to kowtow to Muslim women"
  City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies (March 2, 2008)
  (In case this post disappears as the page evolves, I'll quote the comment here: "Seriously. When will this stuff end? I have heard about creeping sharia, but this is getting ridiculous. It needs to stop NOW!!"
• "Islamists win segregation of women at Harvard"
  Christian Action Network (no clear date)

The Fate of a Culture Hangs in the Balance

A common theme seems to be emerging here:

• "Harvard Caves"
• "Sharia Law"
• "Segregation"
• "Muslim Demands"
• "Separate But Equal"
• "kowtow"
• "Islamists" and "Segregation" (again)

Harvard definitely struck a nerve here. The good old sixties slogans of "segregation," and "separate but equal," are just about guaranteed to elicit the (politically) correct emotional response.

The people who are so upset about this outbreak of modesty have a great deal to be concerned about. Harvard's accommodation of women who do not share the western cultural value that women are just like men, and should bounce their way through workouts in the company of men, is a flagrant violation of a politically correct standard which has stood for decades.

If this sort of defiance of the ideals which Gloria Steinem worked so hard to hammer into American culture spreads, who knows where it may end?

• Men may be forced to use separate locker rooms
  (I lost track: did the unisex locker room ever get accepted?)
• Women may get the peculiar idea that they aren't just like men, except for the ability to bear children
• Worse, women may rebel against the standards of display which have enjoyed societal support since the days of the burning bra and the topless bathing suit

This could be the end of American culture as we have known it for generations.

Personally, I can't say that I'm sorry.

Rights, Reason, and the Real World

One of the reasons I have respect for traditional Middle Eastern culture, and other 'less advanced' groups around the world, is that, for all their faults, they recognize that women aren't men, and that men aren't women.

Somewhere around Woodstock, American culture lost track of that fact.

It's only in the last decade or so in the west, that detailed studies of the human brain, and genetic studies, have forced an occasional and grudging acknowledgment that women can, on average, be distinguished from men. I knew that all along, but then I'm one of those people who developed an avid and enduring interest in women around the age of thirteen.

The War on Terror is, to a great extent, a conflict between two cultures.

On the one hand, there's western civilization, which places a great deal of importance on individual freedom. On the other, there's a segment of the Islamic world which doesn't seem to be able to tolerate anyone who doesn't do things exactly as their imams say they should.

I don't think there are many non-Muslim Americans who seriously doubt that some elements of traditional Islamic culture are going to have to be re-evaluated by Muslims.

I also think that western civilization must take a long, hard, and unemotional look at what is really important to personal freedom, what isn't, and what simply has no connection with the real world.

I wrote about Harvard and jiggling gymnasts earlier, in "Harvard Decision Threatens Collegiate Tradition: Girl Watching" (March 3, 2008).

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Harvard Decision Threatens Collegiate Tradition: Girl Watching

This actually does tie in with the War on Terror.

Responding to requests by female Muslim students, Harvard University made a decision that angered some students: and, I suspect, disappointed many more.

Harvard now has set aside 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays to women, and only women, at the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center.

I can't help but think that Harvard is caught in a four-way squeeze play.

1. Muslim students who are women don't want to put on a jiggle-and-bounce show for the guys, want gym time when they can work out without an audience
2. The Harvard College Women's Center, apparently deciding that promoting non-westerness and excluding men outweighed understandable concerns about seeming to support modesty and traditional values, agree with the muslimahs
3. Harvard men are, understandably, angry
   • Some, like Nicholas Wells, on the magnanimous grounds that the hours given are "useless to women" and "unjust to men"
   • Others, I suspect, because they feel that women-only gym time unjustly deprives them of their cultural right to watch young women gyrating around the gym
4. Harvard women, apart from the six Muslimahs who went to the Women's Center and the Women's Center power base, are likely to become split into supporters of the women-only gym time, and those who for one reason or another like the post-sixties customs of putting hot, sweaty young women and men together for vigorous physical activities

I'll admit that for me, this situation is mostly an opportunity to sit back and watch politically-correct academics tie themselves in knots, trying to simultaneously support a non-western value system and their own unisex assumptions about human nature.

The question of whether Harvard will decide to continue providing time and space for women who prefer to not be on display for men during at least a few hours each week does tie in with the War on Terror.

The request for a modest amount of exercise time came from Muslim women.

If the War on Terror is challenging many of the Islamic world's assumptions, particularly for Muslims living in America, the reverse is also true.

Muslims in America are beginning to force this country's cultural and academic leaders to take a close look at their own quaint assumptions.

Nicholas Wells may be right, that the current Harvard policy for women who want to be modest may be a "lose-lose" situation. At least for Harvard and some on the Crimson student body.

However, I think that for America as a whole, and possibly the entire western world, the focus which the War on Terror is putting on traditional values of a minority which cannot, by America's politically correct rules, be ignored, will be a win-win situation in the end.

---

More in "Harvard Sets Women-Only Hours for Gym, Complying With Muslim Students' Request" FOXNews (March 2, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

America: What an Awful, Nasty, Disgusting, Smelly, Bad Country

Or maybe it's not.

This blog is not political, but politics is hard to avoid: particularly in an election year.

America is getting ready for a presidential election in November of this year. It's more than usually important, since it's the first presidential election since 1928 without an incumbent running in the primaries for president, and the first since 1952 without an incumbent in the general election."

With politicos in both major parties trying to grab the White House, and smaller parties with wild hopes of making the big time, something weird was almost bound to happen.

Today, something did. The wife of one of the candidates hit national news today: full speed, no brakes. As reported on WRC / NBC4.com:

" 'People in this country are ready for change, and hungry for a different kind of politics,' Michelle Obama said. 'And let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.' " I put emphasis on the phrase that caught many people's attention.

She explained her remark at the time, as reported of FOXNews.com: " 'I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.' "

The Obama campaign is doing a professional job of clarifying her statement, or putting their spin on it, depending on how you want to put it. "The point is that of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth," a spokeswoman said. "What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." Again, the emphasis is mine.

I don't think that the "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" statement is particularly important by itself, outside the American presidential campaign. And I don't think it will be important in politics a week from now.

I do think that what a presidential candidate's wife said shows an all-too-common set of feelings and assumptions about America. Being born in 1964, she's lived her entire life in the sixties, and in a culture that's been steeped in the groovy decade. "Marinated" might be a better term.

In some circles, America is considered

• Imperialistic (an oldie but a goodie)
• Oppressive (Power to the people, man!)
• Hypocritical" (an inevitable accusation, where people or nations with ideals are involved)
• Polluting (This may fade, since China got on the radar recently)
• Materialistic (Sometimes confused with 'successful,' I think)
• And enough other pejoratives to fill a glossary

Further, unless things have changed since I rubbed elbows with the self-defined better classes ("tolerant" or "open minded" seem to be preferred terms now: I haven't heard "sophisticated" used that way for decades).

I'll admit to a bias: I like living in America.

Parts of that preference came from:

• Living in San Francisco, where an ESL program brought me in contact with people from east Asia. They had gone to a lot of trouble to get themselves, and their families, here: one of them got out of the worker's paradise he was born in by imitating a pile of anchor ropes for longer than most native-born Americans would be willing to sit in a bus.
• Studying history, which brought me in contact, vicariously, of what humanity's efforts at government have achieved - and committed - over the last four millennia or so. Although some cultures are attractive, like
  • Ancient Greece (provided you belonged to the right class)
  • Viking Scandinavia (my Nordic ancestors didn't spend all their time pillaging my Celtic ancestors)
  But, all things considered, contemporary America is the least unpleasant place I can think of to live: particularly if I wasn't given a choice of which group I belonged to.

Do I think America is perfect? Of course not. Not even close. We're a nation populated entirely by human beings: and that means trouble, no matter where or when you are.

It'll do as a homeland, though, until something better gets built. Meanwhile, given a choice between

1. Being miserable about how America doesn't live up to my dreams of an ideal nation
2. Enjoying the freedoms I have, and doing what I can to make those dreams real

I'll take option 2. A nation that can make "Irish need not apply" a thing of the past can, I think, do almost anything.

Toledo's Mayor, the U.S. Marines, Feelings, and Common Sense

United States Marines Invade Toledo!

Alert Mayor Saves the Day!

Toledo's Mayor Finkbeiner wouldn't let Marines get off a bus in his city earlier this month.

The Marines had planned to conduct a three-day urban patrol exercise downtown, as they had about two years ago. The Marines would have been working out of the Madison Building. Toledo owns the building, and it's mostly vacant.

A city employee, acting on instructions from Mayor Finkbeiner, told them they couldn't get off the buses.

I suppose that the mayor might have let the Marines know they weren't wanted earlier, but he says he was taken by surprise. Although some of Toledo's police officials had known about the Marines' plans for weeks, the mayor apparently didn't know about the exercise until he read about it in the "Toledo Blade."

That's plausible: the police wear uniforms, like soldiers do, and have a paramilitary organization. That could make them very hard for some people to communicate with. Graduates of the sixties who remember their lessons know that only squares hang with the fuzz.

Now Toledo businesses are paying for the mayor's decision. Organizations and businesses outside Toledo are having second thoughts about deals they had been considering.

Mayor Finkbeiner - Defender of Toledo's Feelings

Mayor Finkbeiner explained his reasons for refusing to let about 200 Marines practice urban warfare in Toledo.

Essentially, he seems to be afraid of soldiers, and assumes that everyone in Toledo is, too.

Mayor Finkbeiner told the "Toledo Blade:" "No matter how much I respect, love, and appreciate the military, there are better places to conduct military planning and staging sessions than the central business district," establishing a reasonable and conciliatory tone. "I think the military brass would understand and appreciate that."

Then, we get to Mayor Finkbeiner's reason for ordering the Marines out of town. He didn't want what the "Blade" called "a repeat of the last time the Marines' battalion trained downtown in May, 2006."

"I saw the military with guns drawn emulating warfare, and I observed the expressions of citizens who happened to just be coming down the sidewalk that particular Saturday noon in wonderment, asking, 'What have I found myself in the middle of?' " Mayor Finkenbeiner said. "There was a look of wonderment on some people's faces, and there was a look of fear on other people's faces."

Guns + uniforms = fear.

I understand that reaction all to well: I remember the sixties.

Fearful Feelings and Marines in Camouflage

Not everyone in the Toledo area share their mayor's feelings, though. According to the "Toledo Blade," A 55-year-old man from West Toledo, Douglas Finch, Sr., couldn't believe the mayors "concerns."

Mr. Finch was there, in May of 2006, when the Marines were downtown with their camouflage and rifles. The sight was grabbed his attention, but it wasn't scary. "We have enough empty buildings here, so why not let them train in one?" Mr. Finch said.

Good question.

I think the answer is that the Mayor of Toledo is one of a not-inconsiderable number of Americans who

• Don't like war (a reasonable attitude, shared by quite a number of soldiers, I've read)
• Think war is unnecessary (a much more debatable belief)
• Are frightened of soldiers - any soldiers (a regrettable and somewhat pathetic response)

There are some people - like the late U.S. Representative Tom Lantos, who survived the Holocaust, who might understandably be afraid of uniforms.

Most people, who grew up in America, have no practical reason for fearing the American military.

It's too bad that several generations have now grown up with a conditioned fear of the warriors who defend them. Particularly since these days, there are people out there that Americans really should be afraid of.

---

More:

News
"Finkbeiner taking flak over Marines - Mayor defends his decision to cancel urban war games" "Toledo Blade" (February 10, 2008)
(The source for the quotes and most facts in this post.)

Op Ed
"Don't Blame Us For Berkeley/Toledo Attacks Against Marines Say Businesses"
"NewsBusters" (February 16, 2008)
(The writer argues that Toledo businesses deserve to lose business, since Toledoans elected their gun-shy mayor. Unless Finkbeiner was elected by a landslide, there's a problem with the idea - but that's a topic for someone else's blog.)

Berkeley, the United States Marines, and Free Parking

Berkeley: You gotta love that city.

In some ways, it reminds me of Colonial Williamsburg, where a microcosm of a bygone era is carefully maintained: so "That the Future May Learn from the Past."

The problem is, few people seem to realize that Berkeley is more of an open-air museum of the Sixties than an early-Information-Age city.

The latest bit of weirdness happened last night. The CNN headline read, " Berkeley City Council moderates anti-Marine position"
CNN.com (February 13, 2008). Excerpts from the article:

• "The Berkeley City Council voted early Wednesday to rescind a previous vote that said Marine recruiters are "not welcome in this city," but held tight to its anti-war stance."
• "An American flag was set aflame outside the City Council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles, police said."
• "Inside, members of the anti-war group Code Pink lined up at the podium to speak. Their salmon-colored signs read, "Berkeley says No to War" and "City Council - We have your back.""
• "Protesters with Code Pink have been camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue for the last four months, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war."

Code Pink has a special status in Berkeley. That anti-war group, whose members seem to date from the wild and wacky Sixties, have their own special parking spot, right in front of the USMC recruiting office: provided by the city of Berkeley. Sweet!

The little matter of a taxpayer-supported protest parking place doesn't seem to show up in the national news: but the "San Francisco Chronicle's" SFGate.com reported it: "The [Berkeley] council voted late Tuesday to give Code Pink a designated parking space directly in front of the recruiting station, as well as a sound permit for once-a-week protests." "SFGate.com" (February 1, 2008)

Now that's what I call free speech, Berkeley style! A group on one side of a debate getting its very own designated parking space, courtesy of a city government. Somehow, though, I rather doubt that Berkeley will provide a group like the VFW with the same level of service and deference: unless the VFW has the correct opinion, of course.

---

I wrote about Berkeley and the Marines earlier: "What a Country! Flower Children vs. the U.S. Marines" (February 1, 2008).

"Objective" Study of Iraq: You Get What You Pay For?

'Everybody knows,' at least in the self-defined better circles, that the war in Iraq is an unqualified disaster. And, a study published last year in "The Lancet," a medical publication, proves it.

It should. George Soros, a 77-year-old billionaire who is as anti-war as any sixties campus activist, paid for about half of that study. And, just to make sure that the Lancet study came up with the right results, Columbia University's Les Roberts was in charge. Roberts seems to have been against the war from the get-go.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (home of the The MIT Anti-War Coalition) commissioned the study.

The Soros-Roberts study 'discovered' that 10 times as many people had died as a result of the Iraq war than "consensus estimates" of fatalities. Even "The New England Journal of Medicine" couldn't dig up more that 151,000 people killed in the war. That's less than the number that "The Lancet" study came up with.

Roberts says that his study wasn't at all affected by the anti-war billionaire's bankroll. I can't say that I blame him. Admitting that he was a researcher for hire would probably have a bad effect on his credibility - and career.

This could all be a coincidence: It's (barely) possible that a study that

• Just happened to come up with a wildly high estimate of war dead
• Just happened to have about half its expenses paid by an anti-war billionaire
• Just happened to be led by a researcher who didn't approve of the war
• Just happened to keep their sugar daddy under wraps until somebody found the money trail

There are too many "just happeneds" there for my comfort.

To be fair, there's nothing in the rules that says that MIT and all the rest have to tell us who pays for results like that.

"Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study," in the Sunday, January 13, 2008 "TimesOnline.com" (UK) has more details.

Muslims Chant Death to America! Death to Israel!" at Hajj Part 1

That headline is 'accurate,' but misleading. Very misleading, I hope. I'll save my ongoing rant about news and truth for the next post.

Muslims from all over the world are at Mecca, for Hajj. It's a very big deal for Muslims, one of the five pillars of Islam: "a pinnacle of worship in order that Muslims who gather to perform Hajj can praise their Lord and Master, be thankful for His blessings, and humbly pray to Him for the removal of their difficulties. Muslims living in various parts of the world get to know each other, lay the foundation of social culture, give advice to each other, and provide opportunity for collective struggle.

I'm a bit disquieted by that "collective struggle" business. It's too close to the 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains' philosophy I kept running into, back in the "good old days" of the sixties and seventies. (And yes, I know that a better translation is "Proletarians of all countries, Unite!")

However, Hajj predates Marx and Lennin by centuries, and is unquestionably one of the most important, and well-known, aspects of Islam.

It's also a wonderful opportunity for people and organizations to get attention.

For example, one group had "a brief rally held by several hundred Iranian pilgrims, calling on Muslims to unite against the U.S. and Israel, which they said 'dominate the Muslim world.' "

That rally is yearly affair, set up by the Iranian government. This year there were "several hundred Iranian pilgrims" calling the faithful to unite against America and Israel. In a crowd of "millions of Muslims," about 1/10,000 of the Muslims engaged in Hajj were at the Iranian rally

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei sent an envoy with a message, telling Muslims that "hajj requires them to show love for God and to 'expel, fight and stand up to Satan' -- lessons Muslims 'have to learn all over the world.' " Also that "They are hatching plots in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan and pitting one section of Muslims against the other," Supreme Leader's envoy Ayatollah Mohammadi Reyshahri read from the statement.

And, the rally had the usual "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" chants against two nations that Iran's leaders say are the enemies of Allah. But, being good Muslims, the Iranian rally didn't have the usual fist shaking. Hajj is, after all, a place where aggressiveness, arguments and disputes are left behind.

I'd like to think that "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" - and the assumption that America and Israel are enemies of Allah - are ideas that some Muslims question: but I could be wrong.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Is the War on Terror a War on Islam? Not Quite

Some people in western countries and some Islamists have common ground. They both think that the War on Terror is a war against Islam.

It's easy to see the war that way. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups claim to be defending Islam. Attacking these groups can be seen as attacking Islam.

At this point, I'm assuming that these terrorist organizations are related to Islam in about the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan are related to Christianity.

When all members of a religious group are also members of the same culture, it's easy to get confused over which values are part of the culture, and which are part of the religion. I think that's part of what's happening in parts of the Islamic world.

Events in Turkey may be an example of this confusion of religion and culture.

Last January an Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, was killed in Turkey. He was one of those people who say that massive die-off of Armenians toward the start of the 20th century was genocide. That didn't make him popular among what other journalists call "hardline nationalists" in Turkey. In April, three Christians were killed in Turkey. They were involved with the printing of Bibles.

Both times, there were allegations that Turkish police were involved in the killings. In the second case, at least, Turkey's national government is investingating ("Turkey investigates alleged ties between police and alleged killers of Christians").

That news article from The Canadian Press concludes:

""Many Turks are convinced that a so-called "deep state" - a network of state agents or ex-officials, possibly with links to organized crime - periodically targets reformists and other perceived enemies in the name of nationalism.

"Christian leaders have said they are worried that nationalists are stoking hostility against non-Turks and non-Muslims by exploiting uncertainty over Turkey's place in the world.

"The uncertainty - and growing suspicion against foreigners - has been driven by Turkey's faltering EU membership bid, a resilient Kurdish separatist movement and by increasingly vocal Islamists who see themselves - and Turkey - as locked in battle with a hostile Christian West."
(The Canadian Press)

Fatal collisions of religion, culture, and politics have happened before.

Northern European leaders in the 16th century had a very good reason for embracing Martin Luther's ideas. Powers in southern Europe had a head start in developing trade with the rest of the world. They were the rich, powerful, and influential countries: and the northern newcomers wanted a bigger piece of the action.

A stumbling block in the northern princes' path was the Roman Catholic Church. Emphasis on Roman, here. A German monk bent on reform was too good an opportunity to ignore. It's no wonder that Europe's northern states eagerly embraced a religion that was Christian, without politically inconvenient ties to an Italian city-state.

That's an oversimplification, of course. Great sea-changes in a subcontinent's culture and religion can't be detailed in 103 words. But I think that political expedience and economic motives go a long way toward explaining why Germany and the Scandinavian states jumped on the Lutheran bandwagon, and Henry VIII of England set up an independent church in his kingdom.

Half a millenium later, I see a very similar scenario playing out. Some people in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states are very rich. Some nations, like Kuwait, even have a generally high standard of living. However, many individuals in the Middle East are far from wealthy, and an end of the oil boom is on the horizon.

Investing in the Future

Some leaders in the Middle East are investing today's oil revenue in education and economic projects. An example is the United Arab Emirates' Dubai (or Dubayy). When oil was discovered in Dubai, in the sixties, the U.A.E. leader Sheik Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum built an up-to-date sea port and airport in Dubai.

Sheik Rashid was no fool. He knew that his land's oil was a source of great wealth that would last - a while. Looking at the few decades of prosperity that drilling for petroleum would yield, he said:

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
("Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum," Emiratweet)

The economic projects of Sheik Rashid and his sons, Sheik Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who died in January of 2006, and Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, are still putting the United Arab Emirates on the map: Particularly the tourism industry in Dubai.

An Alternative Response to the 21st Century

Other people in the Middle East see the outside world as a threat. Since their version of Islam seems to be a puree of Mohammed's teachings, ancient cultural traditions like honor killings, and ideas cooked up by their imams, a powerful civilization which values individual freedom and tolerance really is a threat to what they believe, and their way of life.

I think that "Islamists" who hate and fear the west, and believe that the War on Terror is a war of Christianity on Islam are telling the truth: as they see it.

I also think that allowing these religious fanatics and their politically-motivated friends to continue controlling territory and speaking for "Islam" will be a disaster for the world's free nations, and for Islam.

---

About Dubai: I admire what Dubai and the U.A.E. is doing, in general. That doesn't mean that I approve of everything that goes on there ("UAE, Censorship, Shari'a Law, Freedom: So What?" (August 14, 2007)). Even so, I'm impressed with leaders who have the vision to use a fleeting source of wealth for projects that may enrich their people for many generations.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

The War on Terror - What It's For, What It's Against

Western Plot Against Islam Thwarted!
Hatemongering British Teacher Flees to England!
Mohammed the Teddy Bear's Fate a Mystery!

British teacher Gillian Gibbons is back in England. I'd like to say "safe in England," but this year's bombings in London and Glasgow show that the United Kingdom has its share of religious nuts. As the news of Gibbons' attack on Islam filters through the Islamic community in England, someone's going to have a shot at carrying out their fellow-Muslims' demands for "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

Still, it's good that this teacher is out of Sudanese hands, and back in a country where sharia law isn't the law of the land.

Why those borderline-delusional headlines for this post?

I've read and heard that the people who targeted a London nightclub and drove a flaming Jeep Cherokee through the main entrance of Glasgow's Blackpool airport are upset at how western nations - including England - are oppressing Muslims.

Lord Nazir Ahmed and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, British peers who follow Islam, negotiated Gillian Gibbons' release earlier today. How elevating people whose immediate ancestors aren't anywhere near British to the peerage doesn't sound like oppression to me.

On the other hand, being more or less forced into national politics and international affairs isn't exactly a piece of cake. Maybe Lord Ahmed is oppressed, after all.

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir may have gained some diplomatic ground from this incident. Lord Ahmed said "the relations between our two countries will not be damaged by this incident." He also said that Britain respected Islam. He apparently didn't explain why.

Meanwhile, the British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, gave the Sudanese government a written statement to work with. Under the circumstances, I can hardly blame her. Some excerpts:

• "I have a great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone"
• She wrote that she was sorry if she caused any "distress."

These statements may be useful to President al-Bashir's regime. He's been using a "mix of anti-colonialism, religious fundamentalism and a sense that the West is besieging Islam."

I think this successful philosophy may help explain why Sudan's genocide in the Darfur region was a non-event that wasn't happening for so long.

Western leaders, at least the self-described best and brightest in America, have a rather clearly-defined model of how the world works:

• Western imperialism, particularly American Imperialism, is the root of the world's ills
• The western religion, Christianity, is also the root of the world's ills
  (never mind that Christianity is, arguably, an Oriental mystery religion)
• Blacks/Africans are victims of
  • Oppression by whites
  • Specifically, oppression by northern Europeans, and people whose ancestors were northern Europeans
  Oppression by Christians and Christianity
• Believers in non-Christian religions are oppressed by Christians

This is over-simplified, of course, but I think that this list of assumptions is a fairly accurate description of part of the mental model that those people who believe themselves to be the educated and open-minded segment of American society.

It's a model that works fairly well, at least when looking at parts of the Old South before the sixties.

Then, there's the Darfur region of Sudan. That's where an Arabic, Islamic regime is, at best, hampering efforts to stop a systematic killing of Africans: in a part of Sudan where the (African) locals are rather more likely to be Christian than in the Islamic north.

Christians being oppressed by non-Christians?

Africans being oppressed by people who, although technically Caucasian, most certainly don't come from northern Europe?

This most certainly does not fit the 'America and Christianity is to blame' model.

I may be unfair, writing this, but I think it's at least plausible that Darfur stayed off the radar so long because there wasn't an obvious way to blame either America or Christianity for the killings. At least, without blaming the victims of the genocide. And blame-the-victim isn't very popular right now - thankfully.

---

"Western Plot Against Islam" and all that:

I'm not making up that "western plot" stuff. Sudanese clerics said that "What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam." There's more: "It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam."

"Hatemongering?" That's not my opinion about what the British teacher did. It's what a Sudanese court, following sharia law, said she was doing. She was found guilty of "Inciting Religious Hatred."

As for the teddy bear, brought to school by one of Gillian Gibbons' students: Mohammed the teddy bear hasn't been heard of since this exercise in lunacy began.

---

Is Islam a Treatable Mental Illness?

Quite possibly not.

It's easy for non-Muslims to see Islam as a disorder similar to paranoid schizophrenia, based on

• Sudan's insane response to a teddy bear named Mohammed
• Saudi Arabia's sentencing of the "Girl from Qatif"
• The Taliban's execution of a teenage boy for teaching English and wearing pants

And that's just cases of Islamic jurisprudence that made international news in the last few weeks.

There seems to be more to Islam than that.

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, said that Gillian Gibbons should never have been arrested - and that the the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the pardon. "It will be wonderful to see her back in the U.K. I am sure she will be welcomed by both Muslims and non-Muslims after her quite terrible ordeal at the hands of the Sudanese authorities," he said.

On this side of the Atlantic, the American Islamic Congress has issued a series of press releases as the matter of the British teacher, the teddy bear named Mohammed, and sharia law played out:

1. "American Islamic Congress Slams Sudanese Government over Teddy Bear Case, Demands British Teacher Be Freed Immediately"
2. "American Islamic Congress Slams Sudan for Jailing Teacher, Launches FreeGillian.org Letter-Writing Drive"
3. "American Islamic Congress Calls for Continued Pressure on Sudan Following Teacher's Release"

This case of the British teacher and the teddy bear named Mohammed is not a major event. I doubt that it will be more than a footnote, at most, in any history of this period.

On the other hand, I think it's an excellent example of what the War on Terror is about. Apparently, the 'Arab on the street' shares the opinion of those Sudanese clerics, who believe that the west is out to get Islam.

I can understand how people who fear the end of treasured traditions like honor killings and flogging rape victims would see the War on Terror as an attack on their beliefs. It is.

But it's not an attack on Islam. At least, not according to the likes of the American Islamic Congress and Lord Ahmed.

As I see it, America and several other nations around the world are defending a two-hundred-year-plus-year-old tradition of freedom, self-determination, and a rule of law that doesn't involve draconian decisions based on tribal law.

Posts on "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

New Leadership in Australia: Kevin Rudd Wins with Old Ideas

Kevin Rudd won Australia's election last weekend. Soon, he'll be Australia's Prime Minister. The outgoing Australian, John Howard, was renowned, or notorious, depending on your point of view, for actively resisting terrorism, and not doing what environmentalists and civil rights supporters told him to.

Kevin Rudd will almost certainly change that. He's promised to

• "Apologize to indigenous Aborigines for past indignities"
• "Join world climate change negotiations"
  (sign the Kyoto Protocol, in other words)
• "Withdraw combat troops from Iraq"

He's already renewed his promise to apologize to indigenous Aborigines, and I suspect that he'll deliver on that, and other promises.

Traditional news outlets are already praising Rudd. "Doors open for Australia as Rudd era starts" is how the New Zealand Herald put it.

With my biases, I find the old-school journalistic line moderately amusing.

Being sensitive to thin-skinned minorities, saving the Earth from humanity, and being anti-war no matter what was, like, you know, the grooviest: in the sixties. Even though Robert Redford's "All the President's Men" is still available, on DVD, the world has changed since Watergate became a rallying cry.

Australia will, I think, eventually get back to fighting terrorism. Reality has a way of intruding into ideological flower gardens and crash pads.

Reading American Interests' post, "Australia went into reverse gear today," I learned that the better people in Australia aren't very different from their American counterparts. Apparently, the prosperity enjoyed by Australians happened because "... Howard ruled in an ere of serendipity". Apparently Rudd supporters believe that the Asian financial crisis, bird flu pandemic preparations, and Australians being blown up in Bali are good things for their country.

Here in America, I expect a similar situation in a year. Next November's presidential election has no candidate that I can think of who is likely to continue a tough-minded policy toward Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded terrorists.

It's been over six years since 9/11, and Americans in general have notoriously short attention spans.

You Have Got to be Kidding: Boy Scout Care Packages to US Troops Banned in Cambridge

"Cambridge votes down scouts' aid for Iraq GIs" sums up what happened. The Boston Herald reported that:

"Big-hearted Boy Scouts collecting donations for care packages for U.S. troops are still scratching their heads after being sent packing from polling stations when Cambridge officials ruled their generous effort 'political.'

" 'We just wanted to make a lot of troops happy,' said Scout Patrick O'Connor, 16. 'I was devastated that someone would think to take (the donation boxes) out,' he said."
(Boston Herald)

Collection boxes for the Scouts' project were at Cambridge polling places on election day. Someone said that the boxes were a "political statement," and out they went.

I sincerely hope that hate-the-military doesn't become fashionable again. I remember the Vietnam War period, and the virulent hatred of the 'baby killers,' as American GIs were sometimes called. That part of the 'good old days' I don't want to revisit.

In fact, I've been impressed at how those who oppose American efforts to use military force in dealing with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist entities have not descended to the standards set in the sixties and seventies.

Of course, this is Cambridge: home of Harvard and MIT.

I can understand why it's sometimes called the "People's Republic of Cambridge." Here's a little of what I found, on

• Urban Dictionary
• Wikipedia
• Boston Online

And, I found out a little about the city that's home to Harvard and MIT. From one point of view, it must be a wonderful place: It's the community

• That hired a full-time peace commissioner - a unique distinction in Massachusetts
• Where Nader seems to have outdistanced Bush in the 2000 election
• Where the average size of a family was 2.83 people in the 2000 census
• More million-dollar homes than any other in America
• A very diverse population
  • Almost a third of the people aren't white
  • Household median income is around $48,000
  • Working-class families and immigrants live there
  • Cambridge's City Hall received the first legal applications in America for same-sex marriage licenses

About being 'diverse' - those facts are part of the selection that Wikipedia used to show how diverse Cambridge was.

Living in a small town in central Minnesota, I'm not quite so excited about having working-class families and immigrants living nearby. We've got both, but I doubt that we're likely to be called 'diverse.'

Barbary Pirates, Tribute, and Tripoli

Why aren't the Barbary pirates, Tripoli, and Algeria being cited in discussions about the War on Terror?

Contemporary culture, in America at least, has what I'd call historical myopia. I get the impression that, for most people, anything that happened BB (Before Beatles) seems to be ancient history, and anything before James Dean is roughly contemporaneous with the last ice age.

Many people's "well of the past" is hardly more than a muddy puddle. That may explain why the Barbary pirates aren't part of the public debate on the war on terror.

The Barbary pirates had a good thing going for over two and a half centuries. Operating from seaports in present-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, they made piracy pay from about 1550 to 1816. At first, they were conventional pirates, simply attacking and robbing ships that passed through their territory. The Ottoman Empire claimed to hold those lands, but sea rovers or corsairs - classy pirates - actually controlled the Barbary Coast

European shipping in the Mediterranean suffered from this piracy, until 1662. That's when England revived the ancient custom of paying tribute. This application of practical diplomacy was an immediate success. England paid the corsairs gold, jewels, arms, and supplies: and the corsairs didn't hit English ships.

Paying tribute caught on, and it wasn't long before all countries trading in the Mediterranean were employing this diplomatic means of avoiding conflict.

England paid tribute for the North American British colonies until they became the United States of America. The Dey of Algiers seized an American ship in 1785: and jailed its crew for nonpayment of tribute.

The United States didn't pay tribute at first, but the Dey of Algiers seemed willing to wait for his money. He found that it was profitable - and fairly safe - to capture American ships, since the new country didn't have much of a navy. His forces plundered eleven American ships and held one hundred and nineteen survivors for ransom in the next nine years.

---

That situation reminds me of the sixties and early seventies, when terrorists routinely took hostages, made demands, and got what they wanted. That golden age of terrorism ended, in my opinion, when a particularly exuberant group murdered a number of young athletes in Munich.

That exercise left a very bad taste, and a little later, in 1973, America settled on a 'no concessions policy. The immediate trigger for that decision was the murder of two diplomats.

---

Back to the Barbary pirates.

President Washington tried to find a diplomatic solution, but the corsairs were happy with things as they were, and the European powers ridiculed America's efforts to free the captives.

That was the late 1700s: Not much has changed, has it?

When John Adams became president, he followed the wisdom of the older European powers, and paid tribute to Algiers.

Then, Tunis and Tripoli demanded tribute. And got it. Remember, the American policy was one of diplomatic engagement: finding out what the Barbary pirates wanted, and giving it to them.

By the time Thomas Jefferson became president, about a fifth of the American government's income was going to the Barbary states. America developed a new strategy: trying to stop the pirates by military force.

That was 1801. Although there had been some victories, including the one that inspired the "Shores of Tripoli" song. The job was far from over when the war between England and America (1812-1814) sidetracked anti-piracy efforts. Besides, after 1812, there wasn't much of an American navy.

In 1815, America formally declared hostilities against Algiers. Algiers fell. Tunis was next on the list. The Dey of Tunis, groomimg his beard with a diamond-encrusted comb, complained "Why do they send wild young men to treat for peace with the old powers?" He also paid $46,000 to the Americans, who went away. Remember: that's 46 grand in early-nineteenth-century money.

The "old powers" didn't get any more tribute from America. And, seeing what America had done, European nations decided that they didn't need to bankroll the Barbary states, either.

---

The War on Terror isn't a re-run of the conflict with the Barbary states, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't corsairs.

Just the same, there's something to be learned from the Barbary confrontation.

• Diplomacy and concession work, for a while
• Using military force doesn't always result in disaster
• Things take time

"Things take time" may be the most important lesson. Dealing with the Barbary pirates took about 14 years: 12, if you take out the War of 1812.

I'll be surprised if the War of Terror is over that soon: but I've been wrong before.

There's a pretty good recounting of the Barbary pirates in American history in "Terrorism In Early America The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism" - and there's a virtually identical article at history-world.org. Also, a pretty good timeline at (what else?) "Timeline of Piracy."

---

Last week I Said that I'd cut back to one post a week, on Monday, unless "something genuinely major happens." Well, I couldn't resist the temptation on Friday, or Sunday, or today. We'll see what happens this week.

Quagmire: Now and Forever, it Seems

I heard "quagmire" again, in reference to Iraq. This time, it was presidential candidate Bill Richardson. He's used the term before, and no doubt will again.

Mr. Richardson isn't alone, by any means.

Really, I try to stay away from politics in this blog, but with so many of America's leaders giving every indication of being obsessed with finding something, anything, wrong with American policies in the War on Terror, I can't avoid it.

The troop surge in Iraq was followed by, and apparently resulted in, a dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq. Faced with this success, I've been hearing about how terrible it is that the political situation in Iraq isn't quite what it should be: and how America should pull out now.

After all, Iraq is a quagmire.

"Everybody" knows it.

---

"Quagmire?" A country that's mostly desert?

The sixties were groovy, and protesting the Vietnam War was, like, relevant, but let's all wake up:
We're in the 21st century now.

See

• "Iran: Another Unilateral Quagmire?"
  (November 1, 2007)
• " "Quagmire," the Revolutionary Guard, and the News"
  (August 19, 2007)
• "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!"
  (August 9, 2007)
  • Quagmire
  • Unilateral

Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?

Granted, the Soviet Union is a hard act to follow. Now that it's Russia, the temptation to make people think it's the good old days must be enormous.

Just the same, I think but Russia's President Putin went straight over the top today, even by the notoriously flexible standards of accuracy enjoyed by politicians.

At a news conference, capping a European Union-Russian summit in Portugal Putin said that the American plan to put an anti-missile system in Europe is like the Cuban missile crisis. ("Caribbean crisis" is the Russian name for the event.) "Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, prompted the 'Caribbean crisis,'" he said.

I'll give Putin credit: He doesn't expect people to believe that the international situation is as tense now as it was back in the sixties. On the other hand, he says it's because he's in charge now, and able to make American leaders understand how serious things are.

In a way, this wacky statement is a sort of relief. In this pre-election season, at least American politicians aren't the only ones spouting nonsense.

On the other hand, Putin's disinclination to have a missile defense system in Europe is troubling. This could be a simple political issue: the Czech Republic and Poland used to be part of the Soviet Union. Putting a radar base and 10 interceptor missiles in those now-independent countries must rankle.

The anti-missile system, which is supposed to keep missiles from Iran from reaching America, wouldn't be ready until 2011, at best.

An argument against this system is that Iran doesn't have missiles, with nuclear warheads, yet. Since there's no threat, there's no reason for setting up a defense, yet.

Fair enough.

In a way, I could see the wisdom of waiting until Iran lobs a few nuclear bombs into this country. There aren't any high-value targets in my part of America, and nothing upwind for a thousand miles or so. New York, Washington, D.C., and Miami could be reduced to radioactive dust, and I wouldn't be directly affected.

Even so, I would prefer that such an attack be stopped, even if Putin doesn't like it.