Newsweek’s false story on alleged Koran desecration at Gitmo revealed several things. For one, when its editors said that Isikoff & Co. followed proper journalistic standards, then the logical conclusion is that Newsweek needs higher standards, especially when it comes to national security matters during a time of war. Taking the word of someone who saw a report (rather than getting a copy of the report itself) and then "confirming" the story with two non-confirmations may be good enough for Beltway politics or covering celebrities, but it’s nowhere near good enough when American lives could be put at risk. If Newsweek wants to play gotcha, whatever, but they goddam better get their facts straight.
This is not just a blow to Newsweek but to mainstream media. Why? Because it reinforces notions of adversarial liberal press bias. When you add the mountain of other obvious incidents of bias such as the Rather/CBS meltdown on Memogate, the distortions of Ken Starr’s quotes on judicial nominees, the hit pieces and a whole host of other examples, conservatives are practically handed the hammer in which to bop mainstream media heads. It once again reveals the divergence in worldviews between national media and the American public, and it displays the lack of ideological diversity which would serve as a check and balance to prevent bad stories from going out. As that Pew poll showed nearly a year ago, the national press is not the face of America, at least ideologically so. It’s too monolithic. Because of this, they will continue to misreport the news on a consistent basis because they don’t have that token conservative in the newsroom who will say, "Hey, maybe we should spend a little more time verifying the authenticity of those memos." They will continue to have a paranoid distrust of conservative Christians. Why? Because are so many non-Christians in newsrooms. They don’t get it and they’re not inquisitive or open-minded enough to get it, and that’s a problem. When only 1 out of 275 employees in the newsroom is an evangelical Christian, as John McCandlish Phillips experienced, that’s a problem.
The Flushgate incident (please, someone tell me a better, more descriptive name for this) is also telling about our enemies and our own soft bigotry of low expections. Or, as Andrew McCarthy called it, the smug delusion of base expectations:
Here’s an actual newsflash — and one, yet again, that should be news to no one: The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more.
Newsweek merely gave the crazies their excuse du jour. But they didn’t need a report of Koran desecration to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers, to blow up embassies, or to behead hostages taken for the great sin of being Americans or Jews. They didn’t need a report of Koran desecration to take to the streets and blame the United States while enthusiastically taking innocent lives. This is what they do.
The outpouring of righteous indignation against Newsweek glides past a far more important point. Yes, we’re all sick of media bias. But "Newsweek lied and people died" is about as worthy a slogan as the scurrilous "Bush lied and people died" that it parrots. And when we engage in this kind of mindless demagoguery, we become just another opportunistic plaintiff — no better than the people all too ready to blame the CIA because Mohammed Atta steered a hijacked civilian airliner into a big building, and to sue the Port Authority because the building had the audacity to collapse from the blow…
…There’s a problem here. But it’s not insensitivity, and it’s not media bias. Those things are condemnable, but manageable. The real problem here is a culture that either cannot or will not rein in a hate ideology that fuels killing. When we go after Newsweek, we’re giving it a pass. Again.
I’ll join Jonah and say that whatever McCarthy is drinking, I’ll have a double.
Finally, Flushgate is part of a malady that many are susceptible to. For lack of a better turn of the phrase, I’ll call it Across the Pond Syndrome. That is, if something is said or written that is intended for domestic consumption, beware, because the rest of the world is listening. I’m guessing that Natalie Maines was flabbergasted at the response after expressing her ashamedness of her president at a concert in London. Madeleine Albright reserved her harshest words for the Bush administration when she was in Paris. Eason Jordan was his most inflammatory when safely ensconced (so he might’ve thought) in Davos. As for Newsweek, the enemy was listening and Isikoff and the editors were unaware. While Albright may have preferred that what was said in Paris stayed in Paris, or that what Isikoff wrote in the US stayed in the US, or that what happens in Davos stays in Davos, the reality is that the Internet did not let it any of it stay local.
For those who think the Newsweek snafu is small potatoes, or that conservatives are making a mountain out of a molehill, consider this. I hate doing hypotheticals, but as someone said on Hugh Hewitt yesterday, what if Rush Limbaugh reported false information that resulted in race riots that killed at least seventeen? Would that be small potatoes? Hardly. The media circus would be tremendous. Michael Jackson would be pushed to A10. However, the flushed Newsweek story is worse. It didn’t just trigger riots resulting in deaths, but it put our country in an unjustly negative light and it endangered Americans abroad. It’s hard enough work as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. The last thing the Great Satan needs is more bad PR.
Looking beyond this, Flushgate should serve as a cautionary tale for the wannabe Woodward/Bernsteins out there. Time will tell if this is taken to heart.
(cross-posted at Redstate.org)
Update: Offering a wider perspective, Tom Friedman observes the loudness of toilet flushing and silence of the desecration of Muslim lives:
That said, though, in the same newspapers one can read the latest reports from Iraq, where Baathist and jihadist suicide bombers have killed 400 Iraqi Muslims in the past month – most of them Shiite and Kurdish civilians shopping in markets, walking in funerals, going to mosques or volunteering to join the police.
Yet these mass murders – this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims – have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.
The Muslim world’s silence about the real desecration of Iraqis, coupled with its outrage over the alleged desecration of a Koran, highlights what we are up against in trying to stabilize Iraq – as well as the only workable strategy going forward.
The challenge we face in Iraq is so steep precisely because the power shift the U.S. and its allies are trying to engineer there is so profound – in both religious and political terms.
Religiously, if you want to know how the Sunni Arab world views a Shiite’s being elected leader of Iraq, for the first time ever, think about how whites in Alabama would have felt about a black governor’s being installed there in 1920. Some Sunnis do not think Shiites are authentic Muslims, and are indifferent to their brutalization.
At the same time, politically speaking, some Arab regimes prefer to see the pot boiling in Iraq so the democratization process can never spread to their countries. That’s why their official newspapers rarely describe the murders of civilians in Iraq as a massacre or acts of terror. Such crimes are usually sanitized as "resistance" to occupation.
Friedman offers some reasonable food for thought.
Another update: Some folks in comments have made some statements, to paraphrase, "Aha! Charles post directly contradicts von’s earlier post about conservatives." This is a false charge. The damning sentence by Drum:
Short version: the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.
Yes, I did criticize Newsweek, but does criticizing Newsweek mean that the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers is a "continuing jihad"? Of course not. Does criticizing Newsweek mean that "all else is subordinate"? Not even. Note that, along with von, I cast blame on the enemies who caused the riots and used the false report for propaganda purposes. Do I think Newsweek is blameless for the riots and resulting deaths? No, but most of the blame goes to our enemies, the ones who fomented the riots and used Newsweek for anti-American propaganda purposes. A couple of other things. For the record, Newsweek explicitly retracted the Koran flushing story:
Editor’s Note: On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur’an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.
Also in the same Newsweek link:
The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible."
I agree with Anne Applebaum that the Koran flushing story is plausible, largely due to our own unfortunate actions. However, the only prior reports of Koran flushing have come detainees who are mostly likely terrorists and most likely our enemies. Some here may believe their stories, but I won’t, not until their stories are either corroborated or denied by credible investigative authorities. Last year, reports of female US personnel smearing fake menstrual blood and doing other unseemly acts were initially reported by detainees and were subsequently confirmed by the FBI. The difference between then and now is that there is no confirmation of Koran flushing in the investigative reports.
Last item. Some have referred General Myers and his denial that the Newsweek piece caused the riots. The truth is something different. But even if he did say it, does it mean it’s true? No. Not when the preponderance of press reports on the riots explicitly state that they were precipitated by the Periscope piece. Not when the Secretary of State contradicts Myers’ assessment. Also, according to the WA Post:
The protests were sparked by a May 9 report in Newsweek magazine that interrogators at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had placed copies of the Koran in bathrooms and flushed one text down a toilet.
Many of the detainees at Guantanamo are Afghans, and stories of American interrogators desecrating the Koran to extract confessions have circulated since at least early 2003, when some released prisoners returned to Afghanistan. But the Newsweek report has gained currency here since being fueled by broadcasts on Taliban radio and stoked by clerics who used Friday prayer sessions to call the demonstrations justified.
Some U.S. officials and analysts said the report, which appeared as a small item in Newsweek, was being manipulated as a way to inflame passions and undercut Karzai’s authority ahead of his U.S. trip.
At the Pentagon, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan could be related to domestic Afghan politics. A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the demonstrations in Pakistan were being manipulated by al Qaeda supporters in retaliation for the arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, identified as a senior al Qaeda leader, along with 10 other suspected terrorists.
That’s a far cry from him saying the Newsweek piece had nothing to do with riots. [Update: Eikenberry was more direct than Myers, disputing that the Newsweek piece did not spark rioting and death. The same logic applies: Just because he says it, don’t mean he’s right.]
Newsweek’s false story on alleged Koran desecration at Gitmo revealed several things.
**plonk**
Taking the word of someone who saw a report (rather than getting a copy of the report itself) and then “confirming” the story with two non-confirmations may be good enough for Beltway politics or covering celebrities, but it’s nowhere near good enough when American lives could be put at risk.
irony meter broke. need to go to the store to get a new one.
be back later.
Mr. Bird–
Your fellow-blogger, von, had some doubts about the accuracy of Kevin Drum’s statement:
“the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers [regarding the Koran-flushing story in Newsweek] is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.”
Thank you for clearing up any possible doubts.
When only 1 out of 275 employees in the newsroom is an evangelical Christian, as John McCandlish Phillips experienced, that’s a problem.
Why? Do we not live in a market-based economy where evangelical Christians are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers? Do evangelical Christians have some pathway to accurate reporting that non-evangelicals and/or non-Christians do not? What is an increased presence of evangelicals going to provide that Cafeteria Catholics or mainline Protestants do not?
I just read Goldberg’s column. It seems to be his standard blend of incoherent arguments and inane statements about liberals. Pretty much par for the NR course.
One thing I did get out of it is confirmation that my post on von’s thread is correct. Pejman is full of it when he says conservative bloggers are upset about Newsweek’s screwup. They are upset that Newsweek printed the story at all.
They will continue to have a paranoid distrust of conservative Christians. Why? Because are so many non-Christians in newsrooms. They don’t get it and they’re not inquisitive or open-minded enough to get it, and that’s a problem. When only 1 out of 275 employees in the newsroom is an evangelical Christian, as John McCandlish Phillips experienced, that’s a problem.
Somehow open-mindedness is not a trait I associate with evangelical Christians.
“Taking the word of someone who saw a report (rather than getting a copy of the report itself)”
1. Was the report publicly available? Was it newsworthy nonetheless?
2. Have government spokespeople cited classified reports in support of their position in the Koran abuse controversy? What sort of journalistic standard applies when the government has the ability to suppress unfavorable evidence, and cherry-pick what gets presented?
I don’t believe that conservative bloggers would have nearly the same pov if we were talking about a report that reflected poorly on decisions made by subordinates of President Kerry. This belief is strong enough that no further attention need be paid to conservative blogger complaints about Newsweek or the Media. Motes and splinters.
The slide between non-Christians and non-“conservative Christians” and non-“evangelical Christians” is interesting. Did Catholics and mainline Protestants get excommunicated while I wasn’t looking?
Newsweek’s false story….
You have taken word parsing to an entirely new level. As far as I understand Newsweek’s retraction, it only applies to the Koran flushing incident appearing in a report. Neither Newsweek nor the Administration has, as far as I can tell, denied that a Koran was desecrated at Gitmo. Clearly it is the latter that is important, not the former. So like many of your posts, you begin with a false premise rendering everything that follows feckless. Actually, upon further reflection, you do inadvertently validate Kevin Drum’s supposition.
You’ve confused the idea that the story cannot be substantiated as originally expected with “false”. That does harm to the criticism of what Newsweek did.
I have no idea what neuroses forced John McCandlish Phillips to keep a leather-bound Bible on his desk, but my understanding is that Jesus taught that we should not be making a big deal of how religiously zealous we are and then he compared those who were so publicly zealous to sepulchres. If you want to defend that kind of so-called Christianity, be my guest, but it will take more than a leather-bound Bible on a desk to persuade me that someone is Christian, evangelical or not.
So, just to recap…
Bush administration goes to war based on poorly-sourced and /fundamentally untrue/ allegations, gets 100,000+ people killed: freedom is messy! Look! Mass graves!
Newsweek runs a poorly-sourced but /fundamentally true/ story, setting off riots in which 17 people are killed: damn librul media! It’s all their fault!
When my irony and hypocrisy meter stops pegging, remind me to thank Charles and Pejman for validating Kevin Drum’s “shorter” formulation.
Edward_, I respect your desire to maintain dialogue, and I have genuine confidence in the goodwill of folks like von and Sebastian, but…this isn’t dialogue. This is a rant without opening for any sort of honest disagreement.
Please, I am begging you, do not add Gate to any other word in order describe a scandal. Can’t people at least unite behind that ?
The last thing the Great Satan needs is more bad PR.
No. This is not about bad PR. We have made ourselves the Great Satan because of our behavior, not because of PR. We will not get people to like us as long as we treat them badly, show total disrespect for their religion and culture, and otherwise act like a Great Satan.
Only when the United States shows over time that we will consistently behave properly toward other countries, whether European, Asian or African, rich or poor (and condescending to countries or entire cultures about democracy is not behaving properly), we may be able to get people to respect us again and show us the respect we threw away. We have a long history of behavior that has been remembered and that behavior will not be forgotten when we try to wow them with a few attempts at good PR. Not everyone is quite as easy to con as the American voter.
Newsweek merely gave the crazies their excuse du jour
vs.
from those liberals in the state department
Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.
Your assertion, and the assertion of the right wing pundits in this matter is contrary to the assessment of the military experts that were in the field at the time. How can you reconcile this? Are you suggesting that after the AAR was complete and it’s conclusions deemed politically unfortunate they took a “do over” to get it the way the administration wanted it or are you saying that the military disagrees with you assessment?
Funny how Isikoff used to be a favorite reporter of Republicans:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180001
Funny how versatile that no-WMD defense can be.
Does anyone else find it simply hilarious that C. Bird is essentially pushing a politically correct ideal where the newsroom is perfectly representative of “american” demographics? I mean, isn’t he just out and out advocating what amounts to affirmative action for evangelicals? I’m just rolling on the floor over this drum beat of insanity.
I doubt that C. Bird has any problems with corporate boards not being representative. I’m doubly sure that he doesn’t have a problem with the under represented minorities pretty much everywhere except the bottom rung of our society.
Still am laughing at the thought of Bird pushing for equal representation and how that’s a good thing. What a hoot!
“…but it put our country in an unjustly negative light.”
C’mon Charles, what sort of positive light do you think the US is going to appear in in Afghanistan? Ever? And, precisely what actions and/or policies do you imagine we are going to do (or even be able to do), as foreigners, infidels, and “occupiers” to put us into that rosy glow?
Maybe, rather than just regurgitating a laundry-list of the same few tired examples of supposed “liberal media bias” (“RatherGate”. oh puh-leeze!) and bloviating about
the attitudes of “the American public” (which might be less obsessively gung-ho for the Bush Administration and its Excellent Overseas Adventures than you so blithely imagine) you might turn your commentator’s skill to looking into the real “source” of the conservative Movement’s obsession with media-control (and its frothing resentment when it can’t get it).
This is no excuse for Newsweek’s failures in “Flushgate” – far from it – but to use this incident to flog the same-old, same-old line about “…reinforc[ing] notions of adversarial liberal press bias.” merely reinforces negative sterotypes about the “real” motiviations of conservative media-critics – namely, that their rants about “liberal bias” are NOT because they want a fair Press, but merely one dedicated to conservative bias: especially when it comes to any criticism of Dear Leader Dubya, God’s Own Party, or right-wing ideology in general.
When you publish a magazine you go in with the reporting you have, not the reporting you wish you had. The free press is untidy. Besides, reporting is hard work, we’re doing the hard of reporting, and we’ll continure to do the hard work of reporting. Which is hard. Why don’t you focus on the all the things Newsweek got right, instead of relentlessly harping on the few negative points? It is too soon to judge this episode anyway. Wait 50 years and then take another look.
As always, I enjoy the good head of steam that powers Charles’ outrage. I would, however, like to see him devote the same righteous anger that he devotes to the liberal bias in the media to other important issues of the day. Like the 36 deaths of people being interrogated by the American military.
Despite that fact that the Newsweek article in question is correct (there have been several reports of Koran desecration-during-interrogation available for months), and that the role of a free press is, by design, to monitor and make public facts like this, no matter how inconvenient to one’s political ideology and/or fantasy, and despite the fact that the US Army itself has stated the the article had little or no role in the riots and deaths, this incident has been valuable fodder for those with an axe to grind. As such, it makes good entertainment. Where else can you find such priceless pieces of irony like this:
How can anyone take this seriously?
Did Newsweek “spark” the riots when the story of desecration of Qu’rans had been out for over a year? Did people riot because suddenly there was a report that a government investigation had confirmed the story? Are all these rioters devout Newsweek subscribers?
Let’s remember, this is Afghanistan, where we were once welcomed by people, suddenly freed from the Taliban, playing music in the streets of Kabul.
The notion that the article caused the riots is absurd.
Three years after the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban we have anti-American riots. This does not indicate a problem at Newsweek.
Slartibartfast–
“You’ve confused the idea that the story cannot be substantiated as originally expected with “false”.
Funny how versatile that no-WMD defense can be.”
Is *this* your claim: critics of the administration have concluded that its claims about WMD’s were *false*, when in fact all they are entitled to conclude is that the claims cannot be substantiated as originally expected? Is that it?
Because if so, there is a *vast* difference between the cases, and there will continue to be a vast difference until
a) the administration creates several brigades worth of military whose sole purpose is to hunt for any evidence of Koran-desecration (who are given unlimited funds and taken off more pressing jobs like, say, capturing Bin Laden)
b) The leader of the first task for (let’s call him David Kay), after about a year of exhaustive searching, can find absolutely *no evidence* of Koran-desecration, despite political pressure to find it;
c) He is replaced by a new and more politically-commpliant chief-searcher (let’s call him Duelfer) who starts out by saying that the earlier exhaustive search really was not exhaustive enough, and is confident of finding the goods, but eventually has to admit that there is not a single trace of evidence of Koran-desecration.
Then we’ll get something like a parallel.
It has been *proven*, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there were not WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion. That shows the administration’s claims were *false*, not merely “unsubstantiated”. They were “unsubstantiated” before the invasion started; now they have been proven simply false.
Oh–maybe now you’ll claim you were *not* suggesting that, and accuse me of mind-reading? I know I have to be extra careful engaging with you. You learned your posting-style from John Wayne–“talk low, talk slow, and don’t say too much”, and then after you have said something cryptic and indecipherable, you blame the other readers for having difficulty deciphering it.
If you weren’t saying what I think you’re saying about the Koran/WMD parallel, could you just say what you *are* saying, clearly and in full?
“Taking the word of someone who saw a report (rather than getting a copy of the report itself) and then “confirming” the story with two non-confirmations may be good enough for Beltway politics or covering celebrities, but it’s nowhere near good enough when American lives could be put at risk.”
Perhaps you could point this out to Bush et al. Their poorly sourced, unconfirmed, ultimately simply untrue allegations about WMD in Iraq have led to the deaths of more than 1500 US-Americans so far.
Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the rioting was indeed caused by the story in Newsweek. Even then, the complaint that a false story and irresponsible reporting are to blame could only have merit if the riot was due to the fact that the Koran desacration was documented in an official government report. That is the only point that can seriously be under discussion.
Indeed, the fact that the Koran has been repeatedly desacrated in Guantanamo has been amply reported, for a selection of reports see e.g. Juan Cole
Since by all accounts the anger of the rioters was directed at the actual desacration of the Koran, and not at the fact that this appears in a government report, it is a joke to blame Newsweek for reporting this (already well-reported), instead of blaming the US government for engaging in such a practice in the first place.
Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the rioting was indeed caused by the story in Newsweek. Even then, the complaint that a false story and irresponsible reporting are to blame could only have merit if the riot was due to the fact that the Koran desacration was documented in an official government report. That is the only point that can seriously be under discussion.
Indeed, the fact that the Koran has been repeatedly desacrated in Guantanamo has been amply reported, for a selection of reports see e.g. Juan Cole
Since by all accounts the anger of the rioters was directed at the actual desacration of the Koran, and not at the fact that this appears in a government report, it is a joke to blame Newsweek for reporting this (already well-reported), instead of blaming the US government for engaging in such a practice in the first place.
“Taking the word of someone who saw a report (rather than getting a copy of the report itself) and then “confirming” the story with two non-confirmations may be good enough for Beltway politics or covering celebrities, but it’s nowhere near good enough when American lives could be put at risk. If Newsweek wants to play gotcha, whatever, but they goddam better get their facts straight.”
If only you would hold your governement to the same standards when they go to war. Hell, maybe you should hold yourself to that standard.
“When only 1 out of 275 employees in the newsroom is an evangelical Christian, as John McCandlish Phillips experienced, that’s a problem.”
What is the number of Evangelical Christians in this country? For all I know that 1 in 275 is representative of their population. Regardless I think it’s ironic that you are arguing for affirmative action.
“but it put our country in an unjustly negative light and it endangered Americans abroad.”
Funny, I thought those pictures of the guy with the electrodes attached to his balls did that. Silly me.
DaveC: “Please, I am begging you, do not add Gate to any other word in order describe a scandal. Can’t people at least unite behind that ?”
(Desperate for anything on which we can agree) Yes! Yes!
And about the liberal media bias: When a memo comes out in the British press claiming that the Bush administration had decided on war in the summer of 2002, before it had even gone to the UN, and while it was still earnestly assuring us that no such decision had been made, and also that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”, and when that memo is so widely available that I can link to it, and when it then takes about two weeks for the story to appear on (if memory serves) page A18 of the Washington Post, (and was not afaik covered by other US papers in the interim), I can’t imagine why anyone would say that the press has a liberal bias. Ditto, Judith Miller et al. Ditto the completely disparate treatment of Bush and Clinton in re their use of the Lincoln Bedroom for fundraising purposes. And I could go on.
Many people in the press are hacks, and they are sloppy. But I don’t think it’s been true that they have a liberal bias since
But remember, for Mr. Bird this is not about whether the desecration occurred, or not. That would be too much like an active interest in the truth. No, his bottom line is this:
“Flushgate should serve as a cautionary tale for the wannabe Woodward/Bernsteins out there.”
But remember, for Mr. Bird this is not about whether the desecration occurred, or not.
Nail. On. Head.
CB: Because it reinforces notions of adversarial liberal press bias.
The sun coming up in the morning reinforces notions of liberal press bias among true believers. Only in this monomaniacal context does an unnamed source backing off on one detail of the story confirm any sort of bias. And, as has been pointed out by others, that the story was reported at all confirmed liberal press bias for those waging war on the media, regardless of its veracity.
I hate doing hypotheticals, but as someone said on Hugh Hewitt yesterday, what if Rush Limbaugh reported false information that resulted in race riots that killed at least seventeen?
Race riots where? Surely you aren’t suggesting that, in the eyes of not just the media but also of the American public, where the riots occur and the nationality of the victims wouldn’t be far more important than the numbers killed? If we were talking about seventeen Americans killed as a consequence of a faulty Newsweek story, it would dominate the headlines just as easily as the Limbaugh hypothetical. It’s not right that this makes a difference, but that’s the way it is, and unless you are saying a Limbaugh-inspired race riot in Afghanistan would somehow knock Michael Jackson off the pages you are comparing apples to oranges. And never mind that when Limbaugh gets stuff wrong it’s typically because he’s factually-challenged, not because his source got confused on a detail or his good-faith fact-checking failed to raise any red flags.
The Flushgate incident (please, someone tell me a better, more descriptive name for this) is also telling about our enemies and our own soft bigotry of low expections.
“Newsweek Koran desecration story.” How hard is that? Does it have to involve “-gate”? I find that convention as annoying as the habit of attaching “-aholic” to any word to denote an addiction.
Given the last food fight, I would suggest that we (of the other faith as it were) go a little more slowly. Read slart‘s latest post as that has a lot more food for thought. I believe that (at the risk of sounding dismissive) the upwelling of ‘I can’t believe you wrote that’ which greets every BD post is sometimes taken as validation that his viewpoint is correct.
Somehow the final sentence of my 1:19 post didn’t get displayed (I must have made a mistake in posting).
It read something like: The point is to intimidate the press.
LJ is right. We can manage to argue with one another without getting personal about it. Counter the assertions. Provide evidence that speaks against what Charles said. But don’t attack him personally. If you feel you must attack him, go for a walk or water your plants and excoriate him in your head.
Trying to be — for me — a rare voice of reason, I would urge everyone not to get too distracted or off-point with the (admittedly satisfying) compare-and-contrast between Newsweek and the Bush administration’s war run-up. I think the larger point is Charles’ flat-out assertions that a) the story in Newsweek was false and b) that it caused the Afghani riots, neither of which appears to be actually true.
Be the ball, people.
I think it’s reasonable to take the position that a citizen ought not engage in behavior that harms his or her nation. I don’t hold that view, but I’m willing to respect those who do.
What is not reasonable, defensible, or even sane, is to hold this position only with regard to certain citizens and not others. I don’t recall seeing this level of outrage directed at Boykin’s attack on Islam, Bolton’s undermining of US policy towards North Korea, or a senior administration official blowing the cover of Valerie Plame.
The rioting was not a forseeable outcome of the Newsweek story (assuming it was a result of the story and not just a preplanned event using the story as an excuse), at least no more so than would be rioting based on the Abu Ghraib abuses, Bush’s use of the word ‘crusade,’ or various right wing personalities accusing Mohamed of being a child molester.
I believe that (at the risk of sounding dismissive) the upwelling of ‘I can’t believe you wrote that’ which greets every BD post is sometimes taken as validation that his viewpoint is correct.
When BD writes something with any value, it is noted and appreciated as such. Witness the AIDS thread.
When he continues to write hypocritical, unintentionally ironic, inflammatory, and factually-challenged tripe like this, he deserves to be pilloried.
Slart’s post is, while still seriously flawed, an example of how to write about a subject like this while still retaining credibility and giving people the impression that you are approaching this from a fair and critical standpoint. When set side by side with Charles’, it becomes clear that the problem is not those pesky reactionary libruls, but the complete bankruptcy of Charles’ writing on the matter.
Catsy: nonetheless, please don’t. The cumulative effect hurts.
Thank you for clearing up any possible doubts.
No, thank you for ignoring the rest of the post in order to come to your conclusion, Tad.
Do we not live in a market-based economy where evangelical Christians are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?
I can imagine some white Southerner back in the 1950s asking: “Do we not live in a market-based economy where blacks are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?” Does diversity at end at skin color and sexual orientation, Phil?
You have taken word parsing to an entirely new level. As far as I understand Newsweek’s retraction, it only applies to the Koran flushing incident appearing in a report.
If you want to criticize me for parsing, Spin, then you shouldn’t truncate my own words. The rest of the sentences reads “…on alleged Koran desecration at Gitmo…” If the story wasn’t false, there would have been no retraction.
Your assertion, and the assertion of the right wing pundits in this matter is contrary to the assessment of the military experts that were in the field at the time. How can you reconcile this?
Eikenberry was mistaken, and the military later backed off on that assessment, foo.
what sort of positive light do you think the US is going to appear in in Afghanistan? Ever?
How about freeing the Afghan people from the Taliban? How about elections in that godforsaken country for the first time ever? There are plenty of reasons why reasonable people in Afghanistan would see us positively, Jay.
Why don’t you focus on the all the things Newsweek got right, instead of relentlessly harping on the few negative points?
Why doesn’t Newsweek focus on all the things the US got right in Iraq, instead of relentlessly harping on the negative? Look, mas, I don’t have a particular bone to pick with Newsweek or Isikoff, and I’m not angry or incensed with their mistake. Mistakes happen, and this was a serious one. But in the larger context of the shellacking the MSM has taken on its coverage of the military and War on Terror, the last thing they need is more ammunition to give to its critics. In one sense, the Newsweek folks learned the lessons of Rathergate, but in another sense they didn’t. Like I wrote at the end, the episode should be a cautionary tale.
Despite that fact that the Newsweek article in question is correct (there have been several reports of Koran desecration-during-interrogation available for months)…
That is very much in dispute, d-p-u, unless you’re willing to accept at face value the words of a detainee who is most likely a terrorist and an enemy of the United States. The Newsweek report was the first account from a purportedly credible and accurate source. The Pentagon then went through 25,000 pages of investigatory materials and found no evidence that US personnel did such a thing, and no other investigatory arm such as the FBI could confirm such an allegation. I don’t think it’s wise for you to go down the “fake but accurate” road.
One last thing. I know many on the Left are going to make comparisons about WMDs in Iraq with desecrated Korans at Gitmo. There’re similarities and differences. With the Iraq War, the intelligence (flawed though it was) led the agencies to conclude that Saddam was developing WMDs and had large stockpiles. Other countries with decent intelligence services came to the same conclusion. Bill Clinton came to the same conclusion. But in the case of Newwsweek, all they had to do was verify whether the allegation was in the report or not. They weren’t dealing with flawed intelligence, but with intelligence that did not exist. The similarity: The lesson for the US from the WMD debacle in Iraq is that we better have good reliable intelligence before going to war. Newsweek should’ve had good reliable information, too.
Hilzoy writes:
Oh no! They have gotten to Hilzoy! I accuse Col. Mustard of doing it in the study!
I agree, incidentally, that the profusion of the “Gate” suffix is a scandal. Gategate, I call it.
“Counter the assertions. Provide evidence that speaks against what Charles said. But don’t attack him personally.”
I try to ask lots of questions to attempt to understand as clearly as I can what someone’s POV is so as to attempt as best I can to clearly understand if we actually have a disagreement, and if so, how much, and if some meeting-of-the-minds would be possible. Typically I then get criticized for going on too long, or for — by carefully addressing someone’s main point — “nitpicking.” I’m a big boy, though, and can live through that, but it’s most easy to engage in substantive to-the-point discussion when people respond, although, obviously, there is no obligation involved, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to respond to every response ($DEITY knows I won’t). Which is to say that I’m looking forward to Charles picking up the discussion on the “the No Party” thread, when he finds a moment, although I can’t complain much if he doesn’t (and, heck, I kinda wish Edward had, or still would, find time to explain whether he really still thinks it is vile to give accelerated citizenship to legal immigrants in the armed forces, and that should be stopped, just to pull on one loose thread).
Well, if I was Charles I probably wouldn’t have read this far…but just in case you have, Charles, could you answer a couple questions asked without snark or a desire to offend you?
1. You wrote once that you were aware that Bush didn’t explain his real reasons for the war but that you still supported the war. How can you explain your ire with Newsweek for inciting violence (assuming they did) with misinformation (assuming it was) while justifying the far greater violence caused by Bush, based on false information?
2. If this story seems harmful to American interests, aren’t the facts of Abu Graib, the nonexistant WMD’s, the death of civilians at road blocks etc. in Iraq, and so on even more harmful and therefore even worthy of your ire?
I had another question, but the bell rang so off I go. Please do believe me about the absence of snark. I was offended by your post but I want to understand your thinking. There are so many things about this war and associated situations to be angry about–why pick this one?
First of all, that the Koran was flushed down the toilet by US interrogators is not false. This has surfaced several times in the last year or so. Several detainees have been tortured to death and we have all seen the Abu Ghraib and GITMO photos (kneeling on a hard surface with a hood over your head in the sun for hours constitutes torture – try it, you won’t be able to walk afterward). Do we suppose that desecrating the Koran is beyond the pale?
Second, Newsweek ran the story past the Pentagon BEFORE they published it, and the Pentagon made no mention of the Koran business. Incidentally, this was extremely generous to the Pentagon and suggests a close relationship between state and business interests in regard to news coverage and public opinion. Could it really have been the case that the editors at Newsweek, while going over such an obviously hot topic as this, just said, “Ah, we’ve got the facts close enough. Fuck it – send it to the presses”?
Third, Lt. Gen. Eikenberry, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, himself stated that the demonstrations in that country had nothing to do with the Newsweek article.
One of the side effects of this business is how it reveals the level of white man’s burden associated with this war. I don’t know about you all, but I have heard several pundits on TV talk about how those backward Arabs are not capable of making the distinction between what appears in the media and the position of the US government.
In all the media coverage of this controversy, what is most fascinating to me is that none of the discussion has been about the actual event in question. There has been no talk of what might actually have happened, with every newsperson accepting the Pentagon’s version. All that is debated is the dynamics of the reporting. In other words, the media’s story is about itself.
Finally, and this relates directly to the incidents at GITMO, is “The real problem here … a culture that either cannot or will not rein in a hate ideology that fuels killing” because “This is what they do”? The hate is a symptom, as it is for fundamentalists anywhere. What is the motivation for and genesis of that hate? When we stop our inquiry into Jihad and conclude that the cause of this phenomenon does not go beyond hatred, we create a Manechean, us-versus-them relationship that posits an evil, subhuman “other” thus worthy of killing. Such an ordering and dehumanizing of our enemy is precisely what the Bush administration endeavors to convey to the rest of us with the “evil-doers” and the “they hate freedom” rhetoric. This is a dangerous and simplistic understanding of an enemy we are supposed to be very concerned about figuring out.
I am not suggesting here some naive, unqualified, “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along” appreciation. What I am suggesting is that if we really want to solve the problem of Jihad and terrorism, then we need to get at its root causes, and a final assessment that concludes that these folks are just simply evil in no way gets us closer to a resolution. Unless of course the resolution is their complete extermination; an expensive, impractical, and historically unsupportable approach.
Mas, great paraphrase of Rumsfeld!
“I can imagine some white Southerner back in the 1950s asking: “Do we not live in a market-based economy where blacks are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?” Does diversity at end at skin color and sexual orientation, Phil?”
Wow. What an apt comparison. We all recall how evangelical Christians have historically been denied the vote, how male evangelical Christians have a history of being lynched if they were seen touching a female non-Christian, the tragedy of Christian evangelical slavery, the forced sale of Christian evangelical children, the dire poverty for so many decades of evangelical Christians, due to the Jim Crow laws against them, and the psychological trauma evangelical Christians in America have often suffered at having to ride at the back of the bus, and attend separate, inferior, swimming pools, schools, and facilities of all types.
Yes, the situations are simply remarkably easy to analogize, they’re just so uncannily similar.
Then this: “Does diversity at end at skin color and sexual orientation, Phil?”
What are you calling for, Charles? Affirmative action laws and legal judgments for evangelical Christians? What exactly is your point and goal with this question?
I can imagine some white Southerner back in the 1950s asking: “Do we not live in a market-based economy where blacks are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?”
Um. I’m not even sure how to respond to this. In a universe in which evangelical Christians had been enslaved by nonchristians for two-and-a-half centuries, then spent another century deprived — by force of law — from access to all of society’s institutions, I could see the point of this . . . I guess it’s an analogy, since you “don’t do hypotheticals.” Yes, we’ll leave it at “analogy.” However, we do not live in that universe, so I recommend you try this one again, only answer it for real. What is holding back evangelical Christians from reaching out on their own and competing for eyes and ears?
Does diversity at end at skin color and sexual orientation, Phil?
No, it doesn’t. Now, would you like to actually answer any of my questions? For ease, I’ll post them again, with space for you to fill in the answers:
1. Do we not live in a market-based economy where evangelical Christians are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?
2. Do evangelical Christians have some pathway to accurate reporting that non-evangelicals and/or non-Christians do not?
3.What is an increased presence of evangelicals going to provide that Cafeteria Catholics or mainline Protestants do not?
If the story wasn’t false, there would have been no retraction.
Oh, brother.
I’m trying to improve my outlook on things or at least ignore stuff that stirs the bile, lest I end up like Emma Bovary.
I want to say something nice. In answer to “what if Rush Limbaugh reported false information that resulted in race riots that killed at least seventeen?”, I would like to thank all of those who have not rioted and murdered through the last two decades of Rush Limbaugh reporting false information. Our country is very lucky that the population has shown such civilized restraint.
In response to Phil, who calls me on a few things sometimes, too, Charles wrote: “I can imagine some white Southerner back in the 1950s asking: ‘Do we not live in a market-based economy where blacks are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?'”.
A question. WHAT?
Because if things are that getting that bad for Christians, then let the rioting begin.
I believe that (at the risk of sounding dismissive) the upwelling of ‘I can’t believe you wrote that’ which greets every BD post is sometimes taken as validation that his viewpoint is correct.
You may be right, and what a sad, pathetic world-view that is.
That is very much in dispute, d-p-u, unless you’re willing to accept at face value the words of a detainee who is most likely a terrorist and an enemy of the United States.
Charles, there have been multiple accounts of this happening from detainees, some held in isolation and not able to collaberate on making stuff up. Including one account of the Koran being urinated on. If they were going to be making stuff up to try to implicate their handlers in scandal, I can think of a few things that would sound more outrageous to a US court that peeing on a book that most of us don’t find sacred.
What are you calling for, Charles? Affirmative action laws and legal judgments for evangelical Christians?
Stop persecuting the Lutherans, for starters.
“false story”?
Yeah I’m sure you know the real story so fill us in on how you’ve proven the story false.
So far it seems to have been mentioned for a few years by more than one source. That’s better than the one sourcing by our government of proven liar Chalabi.
Everybody, don’t demonize Charles why he demonizes others. It’s unnecessarily distracting and causes spelling errors. And find it in your hearts to forgive him, for he is merely a cog in a great machine.
But remember, for Mr. Bird this is not about whether the desecration occurred, or not.
It does matter whether or not the desecration occurred. It does matter whether it is accurately reported. It does matter that the standards for collecting and confirming information by the national press is substandard. It does matter that the world is listening. It does matter that our enemies are willing to use even small incidents such as flushing a Koran down a toilet against us. All those things matter. Please don’t distort.
Stop persecuting the Lutherans, for starters.
In fairness, DaveC, anyone using WMD (Whitefish of Mucal Deliquescence) against civilians deserves all the persecution we can throw on them.
otto, I’ll point you to the posting rules and advise you to watch your language.
In re CB’s recent comments:
-“If the story wasn’t false, there would have been no retraction.”
Is this really the only conclusion one could reach? Do we assume there is absolutely no state-media relationship here? If pressure could be put on Newsweek, could it not also be put on Eikenberry? He has a boss, you know.
-“How about freeing the Afghan people from the Taliban? How about elections in that godforsaken country for the first time ever? There are plenty of reasons why reasonable people in Afghanistan would see us positively, Jay.”
Telling use of the word “godforsaken” and “reasonable.” We helped give the Taliban to Afghanistan. Does no one remember the Mujahiddin “Freedom Fighters” (it is amazing how they have been so completely purged from our memory and the current problems in Afghanistan)? Karzai is a puppet with very little popular support. As an indication of how well things are going in Afghanistan, Doctors Without Borders left that nation last year after concluding it was too dangerous for their people, while they had been there throughout the Soviet invasion.
-“That is very much in dispute, d-p-u, unless you’re willing to accept at face value the words of a detainee who is most likely a terrorist and an enemy of the United States.”
You could also accept the words of the International Red Cross as well as some US interrogators on this matter. Or we can all ask ourselves, “If the US is willing to create an extra-legal catagory for detainees in the GWOT so that they will not be protected under any international or domestic law; if the Pentagon, under the approval and guidance of Rumsfeld, is willing to permit Category IV torture methods for said detainees; if several detainees have died in our custody, and possibly at the hands of interrogators; if the US military is willing to reopen Abu Ghraib and put it to the same use for which it was operated under Saddam without even changing the name . . . really, what’s a little Koran flushing?”
hey, can we pretty please have a nuclear option open thread?
Please don’t distort.
Speaking of which, have any Korans been flushed down toilets at U.S. run detention facilities? Yes or no? You said the story was false, therefore it must be no.
It does matter that our enemies are willing to use even small incidents such as flushing a Koran down a toilet against us.
It does matter, as has now been linked at least three times in the last two threads, that General Myers disputes this connection. It does matter that, as is your wont, you haven’t addressed this fact. It does matter that, in fact, the important thing here seems to not be ascertaining the truth but rather pursuing an agenda irrespective of its basis in fact.
Or maybe it doesn’t matter at all. WTF knows any more?
Slartibartfast,
My apologies.
praktike,
Are you looking for a nuclear option thread (in which case I suggest Going Nuclear)? Or do you want an open thread?
Otto, no apologies necessary. Just stay within the posting rules and all will be well.
Thanks,
Slartibartfast
Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Rules Defense
Oh, and thanks for being a good sport. People seem to be a more testy of late, and less good-sport-y.
“Are you looking for a nuclear option thread”
that other one is too long now.
How is it possible to flush a Koran, which is a pretty big book, down a toilet anyway? It seems like it would get stuck or at least cause the toilet to overflow. If it could be conclusively demonstrated that guards at Gitmo desecrated the Koran but not in that manner, would the right wingers be angry with the guards for doing it or at Newsweek for mis-reporting the type of desecration? (No, these questions have no point. I’ve been up since 5 am and my mind is wandering a bit.)
“How is it possible to flush a Koran, which is a pretty big book, down a toilet anyway?”
I think “dropping in the container prisoners relieve themselves in” is a reasonable equivalent, without detailing the precise plumbing (or lack thereof).
George Galloway, and various critics, were interviewed on the Charlie Rose show in the U.S. (PBS) last night, by the way, and I’ve been catching the local afternoon rerun for the past 33 minutes, as I otherwise read and write.
That is very much in dispute, d-p-u, unless you’re willing to accept at face value the words of a detainee who is most likely a terrorist and an enemy of the United States.
It is a fact that a number detainees died these camps. In addition to this there is: beatings, near-drownings, the use of temperature extremes, and sexually abusive behavior by female interrogators. But yeah, sure, they drew the line at throwing the Koran in the toilet.
Have to agree. Another embarrassing piece by CB. Just nothing worthwhile about it at all.
“I think “dropping in the container prisoners relieve themselves in” is a reasonable equivalent, without detailing the precise plumbing (or lack thereof).”
Oh, duh. Of course they don’t have flush toilets. Suddenly I feel a bit like Marie Antoinette wondering why the peasants don’t eat cake if they have no bread. Thank you for enlightening me.
“I can imagine some white Southerner back in the 1950s asking: “Do we not live in a market-based economy where blacks are free to start their own media outlets and compete for viewers and readers?”
That is simply a jaw dropping comparison. Charles I am going to assume yuo did not know that many American States still had and enforced Jim Crow laws right up into the 1960s when you wrote this.
“Charles I am going to assume yuo did not know that many American States still had and enforced Jim Crow laws right up into the 1960s when you wrote this.”
I’d hate to assume that was true of anyone over the age of 12 in America today, but I’m sure it is for at least a few. But I can’t assume it’s true of Charles, because I can’t assume anyone of whom it were true would have the gumption to put themselves forth as a worthwhile political commentator of any sort. My counter-assumption is that it’s just another example of Charles’ being utterly tone-deaf to the implications of his analogies (and their accuracy or lack thereof; see “democrasunami”).
This one was extra-special crispy astonishing, to be sure. I can’t even begin to guess at what was going on inside his mind to come up with it. But I hope he’ll explain. I have popcorn.
It’s especially astonishing given that an evangelical (or, at any rate, fundamentalist) Christian, is President of the United States of America. Blacks in 1950 would have dreamed of suffering that much.
Yawn. Another CB post that has all the integrity of a Republican infommercial. I remember CB’s post about talk shows in which he faulted Hannity for this characteristic — seems he has morphed into that now.
Its been said above, but I’ll repeat it.
The story is not “false” — its been reported many times elsewhere and has all the earmarks of being true. It was Newsweek’s attribution to a Pentagon report that had to be retracted because the anonymous source retracted his position.
The story did not cause riots — the Pentagon itself made this clear before political crap from the White House changed the tune on this story.
If this minor error by the media is such grounds for concern, why is the endless lying crap from the Bush administration not?
What conservatives call “liberal media bias” consists largely of the media not parroting right wing talking points. That’s “bias,” and BD adheres to this phony formula.
Funny, how this thread turned out to be and indictment of Bush and Bird. And Newsweek is pretty much not an issue.
This site is falling hard on it’s left. As a long time reader, I have seen that it’s been going that way ever since Moe left. For me this is the final straw.
Because Newsweek isn’t an issue, TommyC. You want nice, raw, bleeding agitprop, go to Redstate.
“As a long time reader, I have seen that it’s been going that way ever since Moe left. For me this is the final straw.”
You’re as free as anyone to write as many comments (that don’t violate the posting rules) as you like, and convince us all of the correctness of your views, whatever they may be, by your use of your writing skills and devastating reasoning, you know.
Funny, how this thread turned out to be and indictment of Bush and Bird. And Newsweek is pretty much not an issue.
Funny, isn’t it? A thoughtful person might wonder if this was due to Bird making his usual poor arguments, and the Bush administration lying in order to deflect attention away from the factual basis of the Newsweek story.
IOW, BirdDog sucks, and is ruining this site? Well, here’s what I have to say about that: going away isn’t going to make any positive difference, unless you see yourself as a hindrance to discussion.
….going away isn’t going to make any positive difference….
It will certainly make a positive difference to TommyC. Can’t fault him for valuing that.
There’s actually a broader discussion to be had here on the theological position of the Koran within Islam, and the need to purposefully disrespect that position, especially with regard to subjecting it to academic analysis and not making foolish public statements about its sanctity.
That discussion will clearly take place elsewhere.
Oddly, Charles update just goes to prove how insignificant the Newsweek article really was in the scheme of things. People didn’t die because of Newsweek. The sparks are flying right and left because they are coming off a fire…not starting one.
The fire has been flamed by hoods and electrodes and dogsand etc…
Newsweek reported in one line something that has still not been denied by the very same people who don’t want black-eye information to come out. And they are also the ones also charged with investigating.
Halliburton also does a smashing good job when asked to investigate their own improprieties. Maybe when Charlie finally gets the one branch government he seems to dream of we can finally get all investigations to go the same way.
Nowhere. And unacknowledged in the press.
sorry for the typos above.
Phone call in the midst of posting/writing.
There’s actually a broader discussion to be had here on the theological position of the Koran within Islam, and the need to purposefully disrespect that position, especially with regard to subjecting it to academic analysis and not making foolish public statements about its sanctity.
Sure. Shall we purposefully disrespect the position of the Bible while we’re at it too?
It would be like two birds with one stone.
Perhaps, but that depends entirely on what he was here for in the first place.
If at all. And hopefully by those equipped to do so, which I am certainly not.
Sure. Shall we purposefully disrespect the position of the Bible while we’re at it too?
Predicted response: “When we’re at war with militant Christians who hold outrageous beliefs in the physical divinity of the Bible, you let me know,” followed by either “Chief” or “Sport” and something else condescending.
Odds: 2-1
Surely Tacitus is entitled to explain his views on this here, and to unpack his reasoning as to why this “needs” to be done regarding the Koran, and not in regard to either Torah or the Word of God in the Holy Bible?
“The real problem here is a culture that either cannot or will not rein in a hate ideology that fuels killing.”
Which culture was that again? The one that has influential religious radicals pushing to eliminate hate crimes, is practicing unprovoked invasions, is attempting to instill a minority religious outlook over the founding document of their country? Or the one that was invaded by another country hell bent on “crusade”?
Tacitus points out the need for historical/textual criticism of the Koran. He’s right of course, and also right that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The liberal Protestants (mostly, though it started with Spinoza) who deconstructed the Bible didn’t start out by torturing fundamentalist Christians and then flushing the Bible down the toilet.
Nice catch on the lutefisk.
That discussion will clearly take place elsewhere.
Why not make it here? It hasn’t been tried thus far and I, for one, think it could lead to interesting and fruitful discussion. It could also turn into a horrible trainwreck which possibility exists in equal magnitude on pretty much any venue. YMMV, natch.
Why not make it here?
One look at the title of the post would suggest why it ain’t going to happen.
I should add, having posted in snarky haste, that I don’t at all disagree with Tacitus; in fact, such discussion should take place regarding all religions’ claimed holy writings. I’m not so sure that, as regards the Koran, doing so is a useful tool in the “War On Terror” if we don’t want it to be seen as a “War On Islam,” but if we do, then by all means, let’s do it.
Surely Tacitus is entitled to explain his views on this here
What’s that smell? Smells like…Armageddon.
Isn’t it obvious? They disrespected us, and for that we need to beat them physically, make them admit they were wrong to ever oppose us in the first place, and expose their religion as mumbojumbo.
Just remember though, it’s not a Crusade.
Tacitus,
That’s why I am reading ObWi less and less. There is very little real discussion that takes place here. This thread is riddled with people who hate/dislike Bush to a point beyond reason.
So many commentors here have posted statements that have turned out to be false. I know this can’t be avoided by either side. We work with limited information. It has just happened with the Newsweek report.
Is it fair to call those who believed the report and then made comments about the report liars because the report later turned out to be false? I personally don’t hold one to that high of a standard and am growing tired of those people who do.
Many here will claim that Bush knew the reports about WMD were false. But, the fact is no one truly knew what was going on in Hussein’s Iraq. Not even Hussien himself knew. But the same mantra gets repeated over and over. Bush lied. Yawn!
There’s just no reason to continue debating with so many who start from that point. Very few people know exactly what Bush knew. Intelligence officials still disagree about what was known.
The posters on the left here are just living in the past. I find the site boring because of that. The fact is Sebastian seems to have fallen of the radar also. That says alot about the direction of the site to me.
I don’t care that Hussein didn’t have WMD. I’m glad he’s gone. To me the situation was like the cop facing a robber who “looks” like he is holding a gun. Hussein wasn’t worth the risk. And all those jihadi’s that we are creating. That’ just not true. They already existed and Iraq is just an outlet for them. This latest Newsweek tragedy validates that for me. It takes nothing to incite a riot against the U.S.
It seems so obvious to me that the Muslim world needs a a serious reformation that they weren’t willing to undertake but now are being forced to atleast see the underbelly of their ugly beast. The rioting and killing in the last couple of weeks again only helps crystalize that thought for me.
I can accept that others think there were better paths to take in the WOT. But, there is no real discussion here because the majority of the posters are Bush haters.
And now I am gone from Obsidian Wings.
Shall we purposefully disrespect the position of the Bible while we’re at it too?
If you wish: it would, for you, have the virtue of consistency. However, it’s worth pointing out that the role of the Bible in Christianity and the role of the Koran in Islan are not at all the same. The Koran is the preexistent, immutable, and wholly divinely-created word of Allah. The Bible, from the earliest time of the Church, has been seen as an inspired yet man-created Scripture; hence the historical debates over canon, translation, and later textual criticism.
Tossing a Bible down a latrine will offend Christians, including this one, but it does not constitute in itself a direct attack on a created thing of God, nor a strike at the very substance of the faith. Tossing a Koran into a latrine does constitute those things for the Muslim.
Look, sometime, into the rather dangerous lives and livelihoods of those who attempt to make an academic study of the Koran. It’s a pathetic commentary on the essential barbarism of the orthodoxy of that faith.
On Tacitus’s comment:
being one of the resident athiests, i’m hardly in a position to judge the merits of one holy book against another. but there’s something very weird about christians telling muslims that their view of their own holy book is wrong.
its one thing for an US-sponsored arab-language radio station to offer a debate between two muslim scholars on the “theological position” of the Koran. it’s quite another for a politically-active republican christian american to state that a particular religious view held by certain muslims should be “disrespected”.
last i checked, Bush was no longer using the word “crusade”. Is that about to change? Is Tacitus finally admitting that what he really wants is holy war?
TommyC, you’re quite right about the hard-left turn of ObWi. Godspeed.
So. Moe, TommyC, most others on the right: whom else will the community drive away? And when will that community acknowledge itself for what it has become?
And now I am gone from Obsidian Wings.
Door. Posterior. I’ve spent far too much time on newsgroups and message boards to have any respect for dramatic, petulant “I’m leaving and taking my toys with me!” parting messages. If you’re going to stay, stay and engage those of us who are actually making cogent arguments. If you’re going to leave, do it and spare the rest of us the melodrama.
It’s a bit scary how far apart the intellectual framework of liberals and conservatives have come, as exemplified in the respective starting points with which they grapple with this story. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “a pox on both their houses.” Although I’ve seen some incidents of sloppy reasoning and overreaching on the left, that’s what happens on comment boards, nothing out of the ordinary. But from my point of view it looks like the farther corners of the right are starting from points totally alien to me, if not completely insane, and it unnerves me. When even Von can say that the ideas of “his favorite liberal blogger” are “idiotic” (a statement which, in that context, I regard as in itself being idiotic), it sort of takes my breath away. When Dean Esmay can say that Newsweek are “enemy propagandists,” well, I’m not asking for a repudiation of Godwin, but David Niewart and his favorite F-word are looking a lot better these days. When people argue that of course no Koran could have been desecrated because a book can’t fit through a pipe (this seems to be a popular argument; I’ve seen it several times and I don’t read a lot of conservative blogs) it seems to go beyond stupidity into militant myopia. It scares me on its face, it scares me because I love blogs, but I think narrowcasting is leading us down this Manichean road, and most of all it scares me because it seems to be getting worse every day.
Sigh.
….there’s something very weird about christians telling muslims that their view of their own holy book is wrong.
You’re getting it wrong. Orthodox Muslims have their view of the Koran, yes? And indeed, they are welcome to it. What I advocate is those of us who are not orthodox Muslims be not bound to behave toward that Koran as if we were. This does not ipso facto constitute proclaiming to Muslims that they are “wrong” — surely in itself as unproveable as the contrary contention.
it’s quite another for a politically-active republican christian american to state that a particular religious view held by certain muslims should be “disrespected”.
Surely you do not maintain that all things of all faiths must be respected on the terms of those faiths? Mormon polygamy and Hindu ritual murders come to mind. Muslim jihad, too. Forgive those of us who disrespect these things.
Is Tacitus finally admitting that what he really wants is holy war?
“Holy war,” if you haven’t been paying attention, is long since upon us. Alas that it is purely theirs.
Tacitus
Are you claiming that they were turned away by the hatred of the liberals?
You certainly are a joker.
Maybe they couldn’t win an argument when their viewpoints were backed up by arguments where holes could clearly be seen.
You, by the way, seem to be the only one allowed to break the rules on civility established by this blog. Why is that?
If you’re going to stay, stay and engage those of us who are actually making cogent arguments.
Catsy, I think the problem is that he must also engage you.
Are you claiming that they were turned away by the hatred of the liberals?
No, carsick. They couldn’t handle the love.
You, by the way, seem to be the only one allowed to break the rules on civility established by this blog.>
Someone isn’t paying attention.
“Tossing a Bible down a latrine will offend Christians, including this one, but it does not constitute in itself a direct attack on a created thing of God, nor a strike at the very substance of the faith. Tossing a Koran into a latrine does constitute those things for the Muslim.”
What would you suggest would be the reaction to your striding into an Orthdox shul, and throwing the Torah scrolls into a latrine? What do you see as the key theological differences between Orthodox Judaism and Islam here?
I offer this post and link for your consideration. Can you explain, perhaps, why either this is or is not “a pathetic commentary on the essential barbarism of the orthodoxy of that faith”?
Would you say that there is or is not “the need to purposefully disrespect that position, especially with regard to subjecting it to academic analysis and not making foolish public statements about its sanctity”? If not, why not?
“”Holy war,” if you haven’t been paying attention, is long since upon us. Alas that it is purely theirs.”
And Saddam Hussein was involved in this holy war how?
And don’t try to jerk off about some clandestine meeting here or there. Cut the BS and explain how Iraq was involved in your damn Holy War.
Your answer willmake it much clearer how you intend to ‘fix’ the rest of us who don’t share your particular interpretation of both the bible and the constitution.
So. Moe, TommyC, most others on the right: whom else will the community drive away?
With luck, anyone else who only seems to come around to drop rhetorical napalm, and whose presence only seems to send threads into a death spiral.
And when will that community acknowledge itself for what it has become?
A weblog with, judging by the volume of comments, an ever-increasing readership of diverse ideologies, and with a conservative-leaning ideological makeup in its front-page posters.
Anyone’s free to participate here. If there’s a preponderance of anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiment in the comments, you might want to consider whether it’s because the Bush administration and the GOP are getting increasingly difficult to defend. If there’s a lack of pro-Bush or pro-GOP front page stories, it’s certainly not due to a lack of conservative posters.
In other words, your argument is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
“The Koran is the preexistent, immutable, and wholly divinely-created word of Allah. The Bible, from the earliest time of the Church, has been seen as an inspired yet man-created Scripture;” -Tacitus
Isn’t that really all subjective Tac? How many Americans refer to the Bible as the irrefutable divine word of God? I have heard a lot that claim they view the bible as exactly that.
What would you suggest would be the reaction to your striding into an Orthdox shul, and throwing the Torah scrolls into a latrine?
Quite obviously outrage. That being said, I know little of the Jewish theology of the Torah, and cannot say fully what the deeper rationales for the outrage would be.
What do you see as the key theological differences between Orthodox Judaism and Islam here?
Theologically, the absence on the Jewish side of divine sanction of anything resembling jihad or dhimmitude. This translates into some meaningful pragmatic differences, most notably the successful participation of nearly all Jews on the planet in modern Western civilization.
Tac, the direction of the commenters does lean left, no doubt. But the balance of the posters is definitely to the right. That might tell you something. The commenters who come here are looking to engage different political perspectives, but yes, you have to have a good game to be taken well. Some of Charles’ posts have been fantastic, and received as such. Some have been tripe, and received as such. Some conservative commenters have been engaged on their arguments (sure, there are some people who are just jerks, but that obviously happens across the political spectrum, we’re talking in aggregate), and some are just laughed out of here, such as “wouldn’t it be nice to kill me some judges” Fitz. But recently the person who has caught the most (deserved) flack has been Don Quijote, a lefty. You are free to leave ObWI and never come back, do wahtever you want, but the way you state your view doesn’t reflect well on you. Physician, heal thyself.
The Bible, from the earliest time of the Church, has been seen as an inspired yet man-created Scripture; hence the historical debates over canon, translation, and later textual criticism.
That depends entirely on who you talk to, doesn’t it? Some Christians believe the world is literally 6000 years old. Some don’t.
Tossing a Bible down a latrine will offend Christians, including this one, but it does not constitute in itself a direct attack on a created thing of God, nor a strike at the very substance of the faith.
Which is why there weren’t any boycotts of, say, “The Last Temptation of Christ” and whatnot. Again, I think it really depends on who you talk to. Seems there weren’t universal “Newsweek Riots” across the Muslim world, now, was there?
Tossing a Koran into a latrine does constitute those things for the Muslim.
Some Muslims.
I’d ask if surely you do not maintain that things of another faith should never be respected, but I’m not at all sure of that in the least.
Yes, I agree that not all things of all faiths must be respected on the terms of those faiths. But I’m unfamiliar with the argument, other than the strict atheistic one (which you’re welcome to make) that absent specific cause about specific practice, it is a necessity for one’s default position to be disrespect. What would that argument be?
Carsick, I think this thing you’re on is called a “tangent.”
A weblog with, judging by the volume of comments, an ever-increasing readership of diverse ideologies….
Heh. Diverse, eh?
How many Americans refer to the Bible as the irrefutable divine word of God?
An apt point; but one, I would point out, unsupported by the history and orthodoxy of the very faith in which those persons participate. There is certainly no need to adapt to their preferences either; that being said, I an unfamiliar with any case in which Protestant fundamentalists have advocated the physical sanctity of individual copies of the Bible.
“The real problem here is a culture that either cannot or will not rein in a hate ideology that fuels killing.”
Which culture was that again? The one that has influential religious radicals pushing to eliminate hate crimes, is practicing unprovoked invasions, is attempting to instill a minority religious outlook over the founding document of their country? Or the one that was invaded by another country hell bent on “crusade”?
2shoes, you’re having some problems differentiating between holy texts, theological precepts, and founders of faiths, here. Also, if you think there is a meaningfully large community of Muslims who do not believe in the created status of the Koran, do present them to us.
But I’m unfamiliar with the argument, other than the strict atheistic one (which you’re welcome to make) that absent specific cause about specific practice, it is a necessity for one’s default position to be disrespect.
Okay. Whom are you arguing with here?
“Are you claiming that they were turned away by the hatred of the liberals?”
On this point, TommyC was quite explicit: he is turning away because he thinks that people who disagree with him (“the majority of posters”) do so out of hate for the President.
This strikes me as similar to reaction by many in the ME to treatment of the Koran. Disrespect of — or disagreement with — the President is apparently a form of torture to some people.
It’s easier than trying to address the substance of the arguments, I guess.
A guy who says that “so many commentors here have posted statements that have turned out to be false,” without elaboration, citation, or other explanation can hardly be taken seriously in complaining that others don’t want a “real” discussion.
“And all those jihadi’s that we are creating. That’ just not true. They already existed and Iraq is just an outlet for them. This latest Newsweek tragedy validates that for me. It takes nothing to incite a riot against the U.S.”
If this is true, then surely the current WOT strategy is deeply flawed.
2shoes, you’re having some problems differentiating between holy texts, theological precepts, and founders of faiths, here.
Naturally.
The point, whether Christians and Muslims consider their books as touched by God or not is, to me, actually quite irrelevant. In this particular case of a riot in Afghanistan, it would seem that it may (or may not) have the kindling for said riot. It could have been a soccer game too. It was merely the excuse to let loose with inner frustrations and feelings of powerlessness.
Also, if you think there is a meaningfully large community of Muslims who do not believe in the created status of the Koran, do present them to us.
Sure. They’re called “lax Muslims”, “agnostics”, “atheists” and the hundreds of millions of other Muslims who have better things to do in their day than get upset over a Koran being flushed down a toilet.
I expect you didn’t actually mean to imply that Moe was such a person, Catsy?
Tacitus says:
Earlier, you started off in this thread with :
I took this to implicitly be stating that it is your view that Islam is unique in this, and that there are no such “needs” that apply to other religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and on down the list, although this is, to be sure, a logical leap on my part, since you explicitly have only distinguished Islam and Christianity here. Could you clarify, are you making a case for Islam being exceptional, Christianity being exceptional, a general case against religion (I doubt that one, but perhaps I’m wrong), or what?
You followed at 06:12 PM with:
So I take it you feel you’re not in a position to explain how Orthodox Judaism may or may not be similar to Islam in regard to the issue of the sanctity of the physical rendition of the Word of God?
In that case, might I ask what grounds I should have for considering your views as reasonably knowledgeable on the subject of how Islam should be treated differently than Judaism? (Perhaps you think this is unimportant, and only distinguishing Christianity from Islam is relevant to discussion of Islam? No? I’m sure you can clarify that.)
“Theologically, the absence on the Jewish side of divine sanction of anything resembling jihad….”
Respectfully, I take it you actually have read an English version of the Torah, the “Old Testament,” but you can say that with a straight face? Or are you saying that Jewish adherence to the Torah, and the spiritual correctness of the many slaughters God commanded in it, is irrelevant, and only Jewish behavior in the last, say, few centuries is relevant? Belief and teaching don’t matter?
“This translates into some meaningful pragmatic differences, most notably the successful participation of nearly all Jews on the planet in modern Western civilization.”
Never been to Brooklyn, I take it, or known any, say, Satmars, or Belz’e, or Viznitz, just for starters. I gather you’re saying that if a Jew isn’t Mitnagdim, she or he isn’t a Jew?
Maybe it’s the “on the planet” part, although that seems a tad more far-fetched.
Well at least this is turning into a decent discussion about something.
I can inform you as a Jew that the Torah is explcitiy viewed as a holy object. You will notice if you ever see a serice or go to a Bar-Mitzvah that nobody touches the Torah with their hands, they use a metal pointer, becuase the book is indeed a holy object. When the Rabbi’s carry the Torah through the aisles people reach out to touch it, but it is covered in a sack with fringes. Mortal hands are not allowed to touch the devine object.
In fact, an Orthodox Jew will not write the name of God down on paper, because to do so introduces the possibility that someone might disrespect the word of God by mutilating the paper. Interestingly, this rule does not apply to the internet, becuase the electronic/digital text is not seen as a permanent medium, or some such reasoning. It’s been a while since I was heavily into this stuff. Oi vey!
I bring this up to address your point here.
“Theologically, the absence on the Jewish side of divine sanction of anything resembling jihad or dhimmitude. This translates into some meaningful pragmatic differences, most notably the successful participation of nearly all Jews on the planet in modern Western civilization.” – Tacitis.
I would have to disagree, the Jewish religion certainly has the concept of Devine sanction, and the Torah is viewed as a holy object, just as the Koran is. Might I also add that the first five books of the Bible are the Torah.
The reason you won’t see Jews rioting in the streets if you flush a Torah down the toilet is actually simple. There are 613 mitzot (commandments) a jew is supposed to live by, and the love your neighboor/preservation of life mitzvot such as not taking revenge are very high on the list. It is quite simply a religion of extreme tolerance.
Tacitus: The Bible, from the earliest time of the Church, has been seen as an inspired yet man-created Scripture; hence the historical debates over canon, translation, and later textual criticism.
This is false, or at least imprecisely phrased. It would be correct to say that the artifact of the Bible in Christianity — that is, the physical printed page — is distinct from the artifact of the Quran in Islam, the latter acquiring something of “holy relic-tude” upon the imprinting of the words of the prophet. I freely confess that I don’t understand how that works, but then I don’t understand the kosher rules either, or transubstantiation, or any of a myriad of other impacts of the spiritual on the material.
If one talks about the words themselves then no, you’re quite wrong there. There are thousands of people in this country alone who believe that the Bible is the literal Word Of God. [There’s even an entire doctrine in some sects explaining it’s actually the original Aramaic/Greek/Latin bibles are all in error, and that the Bible only attained perfection upon its translation into English. As I found to personal cost during a late-night conversation once.] There are millions more who believe some variant of a literal Word Of God transcribed by man. There are millions more who believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the Bible but didn’t actually tell them what to say, leaving the words to the imperfections of the flesh.
And that’s only in modern America. Give me a few centuries, let alone the entire scope of the Christian religion, and I ought to be able to rustle up a few million more examples of every subtle shading or nuanced parsing of the basic idea. I’m fairly sure, though I can’t say for certain, that there are even examples during the early colonial era of retributive strikes by Christians against the natives for the desecration of Bibles (and more generally of churches), contrary to your claims above.
I certainly agree that nowadays most Christians are far less likely to regard the desecration of a Bible with the same religious horror of most Muslims; indeed, that may even be true over the extent of both religions. To argue that Christians are somehow exempt from this trait entirely is, however, false.
Tacitus,
When the sun comes up in the morning you may realize that that warm blanket that is ensconsing you is actually, in the light of day, a steaming pile of manure.
Of course, then again, you may feel perfectly comfortable thinking the folks in Kansas who want to put “The Gospel” in science classes of high schools wouldn’t be completely freaked out if you peed on their bibles.
Haven’t run into anyone who shares all my opinions, but that’s just me.
But I’m back again on “how ’bout dem Jews?” Of course, you’re, apparently, not in a position to explain the distinction. (If that’s wrong, I’m sure you will so explain.)
You stated at 5:24 that:
Are you saying that there is a “need to purposefully disrespect” “the theological position of the Koran within Islam,” but for other religions, specifically Judaism as an example, there is no such need, but that you “know little of the Jewish theology of the Torah, and cannot say fully what the differences or similarities might be”? All right, perhaps that doesn’t require a default assumption that everything in Islam must be disrespected, but either you can explain what the relevant differences between how Judaism and Islam, based upon their theology is, or you can’t. Which are you picking?
I’m also a bit annoyed about the default disrespect for Mormon polygamy, but Gary’s is the more useful argument, so Tacitus should answer that one first.
When the sun comes up in the morning you may realize that that warm blanket that is ensconsing you is actually, in the light of day, a steaming pile of manure.
Exhibit A
Take it to Ace of Spades, and make it into a haiku, really.
I generally just put the quote up that I disagree with, and then take it from there, rather than call folks out by name. (Except Edward_, Anarch, lj, and some others who don’t actually realize I’m their mortal enemy)
I’m off on a tangent?
Yep. Although I must say I appreciate your faith in the essentially benign nature of Islamic society.
Gary, you’re working this way too hard, viz.:
….although this is, to be sure, a logical leap on my part….
It sure is. As you elsewhere, it’s the practical effect that makes all the difference in my mind. If you think my admitted lack of knowledge of a third party’s (in this case, Judaism) view of its holy texts is grounds for dismissing my views, you are of course free.
Respectfully, I take it you actually have read an English version of the Torah, the “Old Testament,” but you can say that with a straight face?
Certainly. Are you aware of some salient differences between jihad and divinely-sanctioned warfare as conceived in both Judaism and Christianity? Astonishing that after 9/11, this still needs elaboration.
Never been to Brooklyn, I take it….
To the contrary: I lived there for quite some time. Been to Israel, too. What’s your point beyond pedantry, here? If you mean to say that the various colonies of varyingly anti-modernist, anti-secularist Jews qualify as unsuccessful participants in modern Western civilization, I disagree. They have certainly tried to wall themselves off to an extent from popular culture: but they do not impeded that civilization’s function, and even contribute a great deal to it. I would argue the same for monastic communities, the Amish, et al.
Anarch:
This is false, or at least imprecisely phrased. It would be correct to say that the artifact of the Bible in Christianity — that is, the physical printed page — is distinct from the artifact of the Quran in Islam, the latter acquiring something of “holy relic-tude” upon the imprinting of the words of the prophet.
It’s not false — and neither is your much-needed elaboration here. As I’ve noted above, there are Christians who adhere to a Muslim-style reverence for the preexisting createdness of Scripture (ie, no one is arguing that Christians are “somehow exempt from this trait entirely”). Unlike in Islam, however, there is in Christianity ample historical and theological evidence from the beginnings of the faith to set against this view. This is not some minority thesis: it is pretty much accepted within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and most mainline Protestantism.
“It is quite simply a religion of extreme tolerance.”
Y’know, like any other religion, it actually depends upon which practitioners and teachers you talk to. For instance, these guys? Not so tolerant.
And they’re hardly the only example of intolerant Jews I could pull just from today’s newspaper, let alone yesterday’s, let alone the day before’s. Let’s not break our arms exaggeratedly patting ourselves on the back, shall we?
I’m also a bit annoyed about the default disrespect for Mormon polygamy….
We can definitely take that one on.
….but Gary’s is the more useful argument….
Well, no. Been answered.
On second thought, I even see a decent arguement that Judaism does support the concept of holy war. Of the 613 commandments I mentioned above, at least two are specific commandments to hunt down and kill any member of the seven Canaanite nations. If that’s not a Jihad what is?
In other words, your declaration of Holy War was dead on to your apparent view and the rest is making-it-up-along-the-way. We can always find reasons to fight. It takes faith – for a Christian, you may remember a guy named Christ and a book compiled about him called the New Testament – it takes Faith to find the reasons not to fight. You seem to be struggling to justify fighting so I doubt very much that you would really care what somebody did with your bible as long as it didn’t forward your political view.
Sorry to interrupt, but DaveC wrote:
(Except Edward_, Anarch, lj, and some others who don’t actually realize I’m their mortal enemy)
Thanks, I’m glad that comes thru. I have to ask, what is the ‘ace of spades’ thing? Is it this page (which looks defunct) Also, and I’m not calling you out here, but what was the deal with that post in another thread, well, you know. I thought it was someone faking your handle and I tried to write the kitty, but couldn’t find the address. I would write directly, but I don’t think your email connects. Apologies, but I’m really curious.
So… wait. Charles is advocating hiring quotas for Evangelical Christians? Let me scribble the date down.
Um….okay, carsick.
If that’s not a Jihad….
It’s certainly appalling, but it’s not a jihad, which is a thing directed against all non-Muslims who fail to submit in the proper manner.
Judaism, to my knowledge, does not possess the same universalist directive to conquer and convert.
If you’re going to stay, stay and engage those of us who are actually making cogent arguments.
Catsy, I think the problem is that he must also engage you.
Posted by: Tacitus | May 18, 2005 06:06 PM
Since the only purpose for this post seems to be hurling an insult to catsy it seems a clear violation of the posting rules.
“Y’know, like any other religion, it actually depends upon which practitioners and teachers you talk to”
Well, you can find nutbags and jerksin any Religion.
Read the actual Torah, or better yet read the talmud, which is a compilation of Judaic scholar’s writings on the Torah and widely accepted as orthodox. At the root of the Religion is the belief that all Human life sprung from a single source, and that all human life is sacred. Of the 613 mitzvot, you are allowed to break all but 4 in order to save a human life (the four exclusions are idol worship, murder, incest and adultry if I remember correctly.)
I have read teh Bible, the Torah and the Koran, and all three can be used to justifiy both good and bad. My thinking is that Islam is not better or worse than Christianity or Judaism, but a minority of extremists have indeed kidnapped the Religion of Islam. Sadly I also think our actions in Iraq have done nothing but convince the rational Muslims that perhaps the extremists that have kidnapped their religion are correct.
I also fear that Christianity in this country is undergoing the same process of takover by an extremist group that badly represents the causes they claim to hold dear.
Nah. It’s not a “third party” to some of us. Either you’re addressing me and other Jews, or you’re not. If you can’t explain why your critique applies to Islam and not Judaism, of course, you can’t. So, yes, I’ll tend to dismiss a critique that is admittedly inexplicable. Consider me idiosyncratic in that, if you like.
At 6:12 p.m.:
At 7:02 p.m.:
That quite possibly significantly large chunks of the Jewish people, hundreds of thousands of them, are, contrary to your assertion of 6:12 p.m., actually Jews, actually on the planet, but don’t actually “successfully participate” in “modern Western civilization, but in fact specifically deny it, ranging from rejecting science that “contradicts” their view of Torah to denying the legitimacy of the Israeli State. Perhaps you regard all this as somehow trivial; I dunno. I think it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that your statement, which I quote here, of 6:12 p.m. is incorrect, but YMMV.
Warfare as frequently commanded by God in the Torah? Educate me.
Your critique, to go back just an hour or so, started with this:
But it does for Orthodox Jews. Yes, or no? (Why I should care about “the earliest days of the Church” instead, I’m unaware, although you’re free to explain that you weren’t addressing me and other Jews, and why, as you wish; is that the case?)
Finally, at 7:02 p.m., you state, regarding the large Jewish sects I mentioned:
This is an interesting, and new to me, interpretation of the meaning of “participate.” Probably we should all congratulate the Amish and the Satmars on their successful “participation” in modern civilization. I’m not sure if we should start with adopting Amish designs for huge new electricity plans, congratulating Satmars for their immensely kewl tv programs, or agreeing that the best way to participate in the modern civilization of Israel is to denounce it as ungodly and refuse to recognize any Jewish government until the Messiah comes; do you have any suggestions? What would be a falsifiable example of a group of people not participating in modern civilization. Oh, right, Muslims. Did I get that wrong?
“Of the 613 mitzvot, you are allowed to break all but 4 in order to save a human life (the four exclusions are idol worship, murder, incest and adultry if I remember correctly.)”
Digressing, and not getting into a discussion of the pros and cons of Judaism, although I do have some small knowledge and opinion on that, I’m trying to imagine how one might commit adultery to save a human life. Perhaps if someone threatened to kill themselves or another if one didn’t commit adultery with them? Generally speaking, one might think other alternatives wouldn’t be immensely rarely available.
Those are the 4 that you should NOT break Gary. Though I now wonder why you do seem to see how incest can be used to save a life…
:^)
“Judaism, to my knowledge, does not possess the same universalist directive to conquer and convert.”
That is correct.
I would like to take this from a different, perhaps more crude angle. As everyone here at Obwi knows I am comfortable with crude. 😉 I hope the moderators will forgive my language.
There are many parts of the United States that, if I were to travel to these locations, sit in the public square and wipe my ass with pages from the Bible I would at a minimum get my ass kicked.
Now I will grant you that an ass kicking is light years away from killing, but it is still a savage, barbaric reponse.
What I will not grant you is that the “quality” of the respective relgions guides the practicioners response. IMO without the rule of Law and more importantly the Seperation of Church and State I would indeed get not just an ass kicking but killed by American’s who were outraged that I mutilated their holy book.
IMO that is the real difference, the Seperation of Church and State.
“Those are the 4 that you should NOT break Gary.”
No kidding. But it doesn’t make sense to forbid something that isn’t a possibility.
I take your point on incest, and return that it’s also not entirely clear how one might worship an idol in order to save a life (although it’s much clearer that some might think they need to worship an idol in order to save a life, which I suppose is all that matters). (One of the little matters one won’t tend to find exponents of “Judeo-Christian values” expounding upon is the relatively common Jewish view of idol worship and the cross.)
I take your point on incest, and return that it’s also not entirely clear how one might worship an idol in order to save a life
mammon? But healthcare was another thread :^)
Unlike in Islam, however, there is in Christianity ample historical and theological evidence from the beginnings of the faith to set against this view.
Ah, I’d missed your implicit existential quantifier there, misreading it as a universal. You’re quite correct that Christianity has had myriad views on this subject since its inception; my apologies.
“No kidding. But it doesn’t make sense to forbid something that isn’t a possibility.”
You’ve made me dust off my copy of the Talmud, I hope your happy now. My memory is better than I expected, the four exclusions are indeed murder, idolatry, incest and adultery.
Gary: …and return that it’s also not entirely clear how one might worship an idol in order to save a life (although it’s much clearer that some might think they need to worship an idol in order to save a life, which I suppose is all that matters).
Back in the days of the Torah, I’d imagine that was commonplace. “Worship my god or I’ll kill your wife!” doesn’t strike me as particularly unusual in 1200 BC – 500 BC Mesopotomia.
On which note, if we continue to talk about religions since their [co/i]nception, please remember that the early years of Judaism were filled with some of the most righteous ass-kicking we know about today. It’s small scale compared to some of the mightier empires (e.g. Middle or Late Assyria) but there’s a serious amount of annihilation going on in the Judaean area c. 1100 BC. [Nothing outré for the region, of course, but from a modern perspective? Yeesh.] I’d quote from Peter Shaffer’s Yonadab* here but I don’t have the source at hand and the internets aren’t playing nice today; I’ll rustle it up if there’s enough interest, though.
* I just found out that Anthony Head, of Buffy fame, was the original Absalom. I’m utterly flabbergasted, albeit in a good way.
“”Worship my god or I’ll kill your wife!” doesn’t strike me as particularly unusual in 1200 BC – 500 BC Mesopotomia.”
No, not at all.
“On which note, if we continue to talk about religions since their [co/i]nception, please remember that the early years of Judaism were filled with some of the most righteous ass-kicking we know about today.”
This was my point in response to Tacitus’s “the absence on the Jewish side of divine sanction of anything resembling jihad….” Insofar as he has any point there, it would be that, yes, perhaps God never commanded the Jews to either kill or convert everyone on the planet, but this seems a trivial point in light of the fact that God, reportedly, did command about eleventy-seven hundred mere specific slaughterings of specific peoples/tribes to the last women, child, and animal. I suspect those killed wouldn’t be impressed by the moral distinction. God knows, I’m not. (And Tacitus can either choose to respect Orthodox Jewish belief in the righteousness of God and His People in those practices, or not; whichever.)
lj,
Also, and I’m not calling you out here, but what was the deal with that post in another thread, well, you know
Sorry hilzoy, for messing up what should have been a pleasant poetry post. (Yes, that was me.) I must have been having a bad day at work, and angry about something on an obviously unrelated thread as well.
Really, I was embarrassed as soon as I hit the Post button. I should have apologized much earlier.
I won’t apologize if I appeared to be a Gandhi-hater or JimmyCarter-hater. I was trying to make plausible cases for the Powerline posts that y’all thought were wingnuttery.
just to jump back in the conversation here, I see a big difference between how a religion interprets its obligations — dietary restriction ok; ritual murder not; abortion apparently unresolved — and how a religion venerates its artifacts.
I also think that if the US were under occupation by a Muslim country that it’s far more likely that a firebrand evangelical could whip up a riot and target just about anybody — jews, catholics, athiests, etc.
In my view, it’s simply not the case that one religion is better than others. Christians, after all, do have to explain the Spanish Inquisition. It is the case that some individuals continue to use religion to condone conduct that a lot of other people find reprehensible, from murder to banning reproductive privacy.
A pedantic tangent. How important is printing vs. handwriting here?
Protestantism was made possible by print: Luther and Calvin wanted as many bibles out circulating as possible. Earlier Catholicism may not have made the hand-copied texts sacred per se (though if you flushed the Book of Kells, you’d probably still have rioting on your hands, and from some atheists as well), but the hand-copying process certainly would have made the product at least more precious.
To my knowledge, hand-copying the sacred texts remains an important practice both in Islam and in Judaism. What I don’t know, and would probably be relevant here, is when the practice of machine-printing copies of the sacred texts became common in the two traditions. My initial guess would be that Islamic sacred texts haven’t been widely available in machine-printed editions for all that long. Even a hundred years of availability for disposable media would be a short period of time for any movement on a religious attachment to the thing of the text.
I’m kinda arguing by analogy out of the Christian history here, so if anyone actually has any knowledge, well…
No kidding. But it doesn’t make sense to forbid something that isn’t a possibility.
I think it does. It is plausible, at least, that the idea is to prevent someone from using the need to save a life as an excuse for committing these sins. I’m not sure how that would apply to idol worship, since it does seem plausible that one could save a life – one’s own – by worshipping an idol, but in the case of incest and adultery it works pretty well.
” It is the case that some individuals continue to use religion to condone conduct that a lot of other people find reprehensible, from murder to banning reproductive privacy.”
Nicely put. The obverse is also worth noting: the use of religion to *forbid* conduct that isn’t objectionable to people who aren’t members of that (or any) religion. Like dancing, wearing makeup, homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular, and birth control.
What I don’t know, and would probably be relevant here, is when the practice of machine-printing copies of the sacred texts became common in the two traditions.
Jackmormon,
The Torah is never machine-printed. It is always done by hand. Further, the scribes follow a rule of copying one letter at a time, then checking the next letter. No memory work.
“The Torah is never machine-printed. It is always done by hand.”
Of the actual Torah, as read from at a service, this is true of pretty much all brands of Judaism that make Torah central to their existence, which is to say all but relatively small, fringy, groups. But it’s worth adding that Reform and many Conservative shuls do provide printed read-along versions for their congregants, although they’re not considered, of course, even by the most Reform of Reform, as the equivalent of an actual Torah scroll. (And most Reform, and some Conservative, shuls include both English and Hebrew versions in the printed book.)
The Torah is never machine-printed. It is always done by hand.
I worked “undercover” in a Jewish bookstore for a little while–first gentile they’d ever hired. My first exposure to this idea that printed books could be themselves sacred objects was when I was unpacking a shipment of Hebrew Torahs (don’t know the correct plural), and my boss arrived to insist that I at least put tissue paper between the books and the floor. I was permitted to handle the books, but not to place them on the ground. These were nice editions, leather-bound, but they were definitely machine-printed.
So maybe I’ve misunderstood this episode, maybe there is a distinction between hand-produced Torahs and machine-produced Torahs, maybe the Torahs produced under surveilled conditions in yeshivas are more Torah-like than others. I am more than willing to admit ignorance on this subject. Would observant Jewish people be equally offended by the descration of a machine-produced and a hand-produced Torah?
“Would observant Jewish people be equally offended by the descration of a machine-produced and a hand-produced Torah?”
I don’t know any learned citations to quote, but behaviorally, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a case of someone running into a burning building to rescue a printed Torah, whereas cases of people doing that to rescue an actual Torah scroll are legion. So I think the answer for most Jews (whom in the United States, are overwhelmingly Reform, Conservative [or unobservant], not Orthodox, which Orthodox Jews sometimes have an unfortunate conversational tendency to “forget”) is “no.” This might be slightly helpful, or this.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a case of someone running into a burning building to rescue a printed Torah, whereas cases of people doing that to rescue an actual Torah scroll are legion.
Of the legion, how many have been confirmed to not be apocryphal?*
* That’s a split infinitive in your honor, Gary.
Jim Henley, in his recent post on this whole mess, pointed to a Chapati Mystery post that says that regard for the Koran as a sacred physical object is not universal in Islam, but more of a local South Asian thing:
http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/book_rage.html
This would explain, as Jim points out, why the riots occurred only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not in the rest (i.e. not in the vast majority) of the Muslim world. It would also throw doubt on Tacitus’s contention that this particular sort of lunacy is integral to Islamic orthodoxy in general.
“Of the legion, how many have been confirmed to not be apocryphal?”
Well, you know, quite a few. What makes you think otherwise?
Jackmormon,
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the scrolls, rather than bound volumes. I do think people would take offense at the destruction of a bound volume, but a hand-copied scroll is more highly valued.
It is the scroll, not a book, that is read on the pulpit as part of religious services.
Well, you know, quite a few. What makes you think otherwise?
Utter ignorance of the matter at hand, coupled with a general skepticism regarding tales of the value of sacred objects. [Born of too many tales of what various people did for saintly relics, I guess, although I can’t recall a single one offhand.] Thanks for the cites, though; nice to see that kind of seriousness is still around nowadays.
Thanks to the useful links from Gary Farber, I’m starting to figure out my way through this. It’s still not clear to me how much of my boss’s injunction not to let the machine-printed Torah touch the ground represented respect for any version of the scripture or transfered and perhaps mitigated respect from hand-copied versions. Anyone have any idea what the prevailing norms in Islamic cultures might be?
Since the only purpose for this post seems to be hurling an insult to catsy it seems a clear violation of the posting rules.
Guilty!
….a minority of extremists have indeed kidnapped the Religion of Islam.
Would that they were either a minority or particularly extreme.
Gary continues to work things way too hard:
Nah. It’s not a “third party” to some of us.
Yes, in an argument in which examples A and B are invoked, example C can fairly be described as a “third party.”
Either you’re addressing me and other Jews, or you’re not.
How deeply tedious.
If you can’t explain why your critique applies to Islam and not Judaism, of course, you can’t.
Well, I did, actually, and you’ve managed to fly right by it. I’ll let you re-read.
Perhaps you regard all this as somehow trivial….
Quite so, and I’ve already stated why. If you wish to delve into this further, we may, but suffice it to say that I do not, as a rule, find that communities like this — and the Jewish examples aren’t the only ones — exist in a vacuum, nor even outside the societies they purport to reject. And there is rejection and rejection, after all.
Educate me.
No, Gary. Something as stupefyingly simple as the differentiation between jihad and Judeo-Christian warfare in theory and history is something one really must find out for oneself.
This is an interesting, and new to me, interpretation of the meaning of “participate.”
Evidently so.
Did I get that wrong?
Where does one begin answering that?
Gary, I’m happy that you’re deeply concerned to redirect things into a specifically Jewish context here. No dount there is profound value in this. My suggestion is to find someone who cares. As Jews are not, to my knowledge, intent en masse on killing or converting me to their faith, I do not.
Moving on to BSR: What I will not grant you is that the “quality” of the respective relgions guides the practicioners response.
I disagree. We see in plenty of contexts wherein the “quality” of a person’s faith impels or dissuades violence. As per your specific hypothetical, I can certainly imagine certain Methodists I know refraining from harming you based upon that. I can also imagine certain Baptists leaving you for dead.
Returning to Gary: ….perhaps God never commanded the Jews to either kill or convert everyone on the planet, but this seems a trivial point….
As per your penchant for self-centric argumentation, it’s not trivial to those of us falling under “everyone [else] on the planet.”
Two words for Nicholas: wrong and wrong. Don’t get your news from Henley. Nice guy, but….
I got through Otto’s 2:08 comment without anyone having posted this, maybe someone did in the many intervening comments and I really should have read all of them to check. But, I just want to note that Charles’ claim that, “distortions of Ken Starr’s quotes on judicial nominees” happened is a story which was invented by Rush Limbaugh and debunked by that crazed contrarian, Mickey Kaus. Read down, then scroll up.
Every newsroom needs one:
“Hey Bill! You’re the Evangelical Christian, come over here and tell us whether this story is adequately sourced.”
Genius.
“Thanks for the cites, though; nice to see that kind of seriousness is still around nowadays.”
For whatever it’s worth, while I have absolutely no statistics to either cite or pull out of any areas of my body, I’ve read what seems like at least a dozen, and probably several more, such stories over the years, and I don’t mean in a “I heard from my brother-in-law” kind of way, but in a “I read Tuesday’s account in the Reputable Daily Newspaper” way.
I wasn’t raised Orthodox, and have never given serious thought to taking it up, but while there are as many hypocritical Orthodox Jews, in one fashion or another, as most other groups of people, one thing being Orthodox tends to require is being pretty darn serious. Hardly a few minutes will go by when you don’t have to figure out, or recall, what’s the proper blessing that must be recited, mentally or otherwise, for the moment’s events, and very little possible decisions escape Talmudic commentary. (It’s all a bit much for me, but different strokes for different folks, and I have numerous observant friends, some of whom are Orthodox, not to mention former neighbors in Midwood, not to mention yet others.)
“…and very little possible decisions escape Talmudic commentary.”
Ugh. My brain wrote “and very few,” but my fingers, contrary buggers that they constantly are, wrote otherwise.
No, Gary. Something as stupefyingly simple as the differentiation between jihad and Judeo-Christian warfare in theory and history is something one really must find out for oneself.
Not if you include Muscular Christianity and all its variants, which arguably go back as far as the Crusades. One can draw distinctions, yes, but I’m not at all convinced it’s “stupefyingly simple” to find meaningful (i.e. fundamental) differences in their respective practices of evangelism.
Which isn’t to say that one can’t differentiate between the two, only that — IMO, because of the superficial differences and the geographic spread of the respective religions — it’s much harder than I think you’re giving it credit for.
Tacitus: I just want to say, and this has nothing to do with content or taking sides on the subject at hand, that your most recent comment on this thread is the most exquisite and devastating dismissal in the history of the English language, on or off the Internet.
It’s like that scene in “Network”, in which the character played by Ned Beatty speaks down a long boardroom table to visionary Howard Beal and tells him precisely how the world works. Really, the only thing left for all of us is to show up for work tomorrow in our pajama bottoms and a raincoat and hope someone in the audience stands up and shoots us through the heart.
What we have become .. what we must become are the utterly silent, because our expression is nothing as compared to the truth I have read here tonight.
John Thullen, I just want to say (and this has nothing to do with content or taking sides on the subject at hand) that your most recent comment on this thread is the most exquisite and devastating dismissal in the history of the English language, on or off the Internet.
“I disagree. We see in plenty of contexts wherein the “quality” of a person’s faith impels or dissuades violence. As per your specific hypothetical, I can certainly imagine certain Methodists I know refraining from harming you based upon that. I can also imagine certain Baptists leaving you for dead.”
Your making my point for me. As you stated you can “certainly imagine” one fringe group of American Christians (Baptists) as not restraining themselves to the rule of law in a comparible situation. How than is Islam any more or less prone to violence when their holy books are defiled?
I think most Muslims would turn the other cheek but a Wahabist would probably also resort to violence, exactly as your Baptist. In both cases you have a majority following the true calling of thier faith (peace), and a minority resorting to violence. How then can you claim that either religion is more prone to violence?
I believe your origional point was that Islam is more prone to riots and such in these cases because their Koran is regarded as the direct world of God. Your point just doesn’t stand if you look at the facts. It is a minority of Muslims resorting to violence, and by your own admission a minority of Christians would also resort to violence if you defiled thier bible.
It’s the interpretation of the religions that is bad in the case of the Wahabist and the Baptist in this case, not the entire Islamic or Christian religions.
The WaTimes doing its part to improve our image in the Muslim world.
Well this thread no longer seems to be about what it started to be about… but I would like some clarification to some (apparently false) things said upthread
However, the only prior reports of Koran flushing have come detainees who are mostly likely terrorists and most likely our enemiesis simply not true.
The New York Times reported that
“Mr. al-Mutairi (a detainee) said there were three major hunger strikes in his more than three years of imprisonment at Guantanamo. He said that after one of them, a protest of guards’ handling of copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stepped on, a senior officer delivered an apology over the camp’s loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer’s apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with The Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans.“ from here
You can dispute the validity of this claim but you can not credibly deny its existence.
Eikenberry was mistaken, and the military later backed off on that assessment, foo.
Specifically the military leadership at the pentagon has backed away from this position, but to my knowledge Eikenberry has not (at least publicly) done so. It is unclear to me under what theory the military leadership would have better insight into the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan than the commander tasked with overseeing operations in that theater. Please direct to me to some retraction by Eikenberry or provide some credible theory under which he could be less well informed than the politicians.
TACITUS: Would that they were either a minority or particularly extreme.
Sweet! Saddleup!
Shall we sack Byzantium on the way there or on the way back?
Care to state directly what you’re trying to get at, 2shoes?
How than is Islam any more or less prone to violence when their holy books are defiled?
Certainly you’ve seen it in the past week, no? It is more prone to violence because of its tenets. Ideas have consequences, and if you promote the idea that violence is an acceptable means of defending the faith — and if you define “defending the faith” distressingly expansively — the present consequences result.
Ah, Tacitus, this takes me back.
Certainly you’ve seen it in the past week, no? It is more prone to violence because of its tenets. IMO Islam is around 1400 years old, if you consider where Christianity was at that age (hint: in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition) than the contrast between the two is much less stark.
Sweet. I guess the Mormons, frex, get a great deal of license to put the sword to Islam, then? Beware the Utah National Guard.
Seriously, this is not an invalid observation, but you have to consider that the world today is not the same as the environs of Christianity in the 13th century. I’ve made that same observation myself, and I’ve come to see that its utility is rather limited.
Jesurgislac, please don’t drag that into this discussion. It’s a distraction that doesn’t actually contribute anything. I, too, am a distraction that doesn’t contribute anything, which is why I’ve been largely absent from this thread.
That out of the way, I’d like to commend all of you for keeping it…well, if not civil, then less incivil than an extrapolation of historical performance might have predicted. There were a couple of instances where I thought warnings might be in order, but those seemed to take care of themselves.
Someone upthread mentioned Don Q, and on reviewing the list of banned IPs, I noticed that Don Q had been banned almost exactly a year ago, and had been posting under a new IP since October. I’m extremely reluctant to reban, even though I vehemently disagree with practically everything that drops from his/her keyboard, but am inclined to cut the entity in question rather less slack from now on. Any opinions on the matter may be taken into consideration. Opinions uttered by the Senior Management will be given rather more (~1) weight.
Jesurgislac, please don’t drag that into this discussion.
Actually, I was trying to drag that out into another discussion somewhere else. Hence the link to my journal.
I’m extremely reluctant to reban, even though I vehemently disagree with practically everything that drops from his/her keyboard, but am inclined to cut the entity in question rather less slack from now on.
FWIW, I agree with you on this one.
Ideas have consequences
Which is why 100,000 Iraqis are dead, 1600 Americans are dead and over 15000 have been wounded! These are the consequences of your Ideas, so when will you live up to them and go to Iraq to attempt to mitigate the damage the ideas you have propagated, Joshua?
But Slarti, it seems to me that every religion that has moved to being a state religion (which Mormonism has not really gotten to, except in perhaps Salt Lake City ;^)) has always had a spasm around the 1000 year mark (bear in mind that Christianity didn’t become a state religion until 300 CE) I think this is true for each country where Buddhism was introduced as a state religion at about the same point in time (perhaps Anarch’s dad might correct me, but I think if you give or take a couple of 100 years, it works out) as well as for Hinduism and Judaism. The problem is precisely that the world is not same and Islam is going through this at a time when destructive power is so much greater. I view it as more as a result of basic human nature, which I view as relatively immutable.
Also, slightly related is an interesting book about the shift from hand written to printed books (drawing the analogy to our own era of moving from single source to digital resources) is _Avatars of the Word_ by James O’Donnell.
I look at it differently. I view human predisposition to certain behaviors as something that changes very, very slowly over time, while the rules and consequences for breaking them move very quickly.
Can you give me an example? I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not.
“relatively immutable” means “less mutable than something else” which seems to be exactly what Slartibartfast thinks human nature is (where “something else” = “rules and consequences for breaking them”.
OT:
I need a fourth for the Nationals/Brewers game tonight. Send me an email.
Um,
Sincere apologies to everyone, but in deleting some rather vile spambot comments on another thread, I accidentally also deleted a comment from carsick that began “I’m off on a tangent…” (I couldn’t tell whether that was a quote starting the comment or carsick’s actual comment [and carsick, I’m really very sorry…I’ll be more careful moving forward, it’s just that the spambot comments were flanking yours in the list and there’s no way to undo the deletes]).
Please return to your disagreements already in progress, and again sorry for the accidental deletion.
I guess what I’m alluding to is the rule of law, and international agreement as to what constitutes acceptable behavior between nations. So, while human nature probably hasn’t changed much over the last couple of hundred years, the rules of engagement in warfare have changed quite a lot. Ditto the (currently) unenforceable expectation for treatment of a nation’s people by the government, or by political factions. Ditto quite a lot of other laws, treaties, and customs.
So, no I’m not disagreeing with you; more saying that although human inclination to misbehave (hell, even the concept of what defines misbehavior has changed a lot) stays fairly constant, societal limits on tolerance of misbehavior have changed rapidly. In short, although Christiandom, for instance, developed in a world of relative barbarity and permissiveness, Islam has no such…luxury, for want of a better word. And I’m not even getting into the added influence of public opinion as expressed with greater speed and force by a more and more highly informed (or news-ed, if informed implies something you disagree with) public.
If Islam as a whole is experiencing some sort of growing pains, so to speak, they’re still going to have to deal with the rest of the world as it is, not as it was a dozen centuries ago.
Ah, Jeremy has encapsulated the idea much more succinctly.
Someone upthread mentioned Don Q, and on reviewing the list of banned IPs, I noticed that Don Q had been banned almost exactly a year ago, and had been posting under a new IP since October.
I have very limited say into what my IP address is or wil be in the future.
I’m extremely reluctant to reban, even though I vehemently disagree with practically everything that drops from his/her keyboard, but am inclined to cut the entity in question rather less slack from now on.
Thats quite ok, since I vehemently disagree with practically everything that drops from your keyboard.
As for banning me, I hope that when you do, you’ll have the decency of letting me know what it is that I may have said that you will have found so offensive, unlike moe.
Oh, and Don Q, your question to Tac has already been addressed repeatedly by him. If you have a specific issue with him, I believe he can be contacted by email. Take it to email, or keep it to yourself. Not only is this a fallacious point, it’s factually deficient. Bankrupt, even.
Tacitus, your links don’t show what you think they show. They report peaceful protests and condemnations elsewhere in the Islamic world. Not violent rioting as was seen in Afghanistan. There’s a difference, and the difference is telling.
Lily, some responses to your questions:
1. You wrote once that you were aware that Bush didn’t explain his real reasons for the war but that you still supported the war. How can you explain your ire with Newsweek for inciting violence (assuming they did) with misinformation (assuming it was) while justifying the far greater violence caused by Bush, based on false information?
I don’t recall ever writing that I was aware that Bush didn’t explain his “real reasons”. I do recall writing that it was a mistake to emphasize WMDs. I do recall writing that the administration set forth multiple reasons for removing Saddam. One media study found 23 reasons, and I’ve linked to that study many a time. We’ve now had the 9/11 commission, Senate Intelligence Committee and the Iraq WMD report all conclude that the WMD intelligence was flawed, not that it didn’t exist. In the Newsweek story, the “intelligence” was non-existent.
Let’s clarify something else. Because I write about something does not mean there is ire and anger in my heart. I respect Isikoff, he has a decent reputation, he has handled the aftermath reasonably well and I will read his work again. If anything, his work will be more solid after this incident because he’ll be thinking twice or thrice about anonymous sources.
2. If this story seems harmful to American interests, aren’t the facts of Abu Graib, the nonexistant WMD’s, the death of civilians at road blocks etc. in Iraq, and so on even more harmful and therefore even worthy of your ire?
Abu Ghraib and the WMD debacle were harmful to American interests and I have written about them. Were they more harmful than the Newsweek mistake? Yes. FTR, I’ve written critically about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and of the smearing of fake menstrual blood, and I’ve also said not very nice things about the WMD clusterf***.
As long as military personnel follow the proper rules of engagement–which are designed to minimize civilian casualties–I don’t believe deaths of civilians at road blocks are harmful to our interests. Regrettable and tragic? Yes. Harmful to the US? No. I believe most Iraqis understand this as well. The unreasonable ones will believe what they choose to.
Out, damned italics!
LJ, a while back I might have agreed with you on the immutable human nature bit, but lately I’ve been reading on a topic that makes me look at it differently.
Their thesis, as I understand it, is that people are naturally drawn to both aggression and cooperation as ways of acting. But that at some point of our history, aggression became institutionalized. At every level of society, behavior that supports the domination of the many by the few is rewarded, while behavior that challenges this is marginalized.
So it is that religion, which usually starts out as cooperative, like Jesus’ teachings of love, once adopted by rulers of society, become co-opted as a means of maintaining what they call “dominator” heirarchies — and we get the Crusades and the Inquisition and everything else.
What are you calling for, Charles? Affirmative action laws and legal judgments for evangelical Christians? What exactly is your point and goal with this question?
No, I’m not saying that evangelicals received the same treatment as pre civil rights blacks, Gary. The point is that, if diversity is a sound idea and solid concept and should be encouraged, then it would be that much better if diversity were applied more broadly. If diversity of skin color is a good thing, then why is diversity of thinking not? We’ve heard all too much about the pack mentality that happens with reporters. Is it unreasonable to suggest that it would be better to have some people who won’t jump into the same old pack? The Newsweek mistake was not only bad reporting, it was bad for business. If they become perceived as a liberal publication, they’re sacrificing potential revenues to roughly half its possible subscriber base. If having blacks and hispanics on staff brings in new perspectives and insights, why wouldn’t having more Christians and conservatives accomplish that same objective? Readership and circulation levels in these periodicals have been in decline, and polls have showed that there are huge gaps between the views of reporters and their purported target audience, the general public. It’s only common sense. Do I want quotas or laws? No. I’m confident that our free market system will sort it out. Consider this just good advice.
Speaking of which, have any Korans been flushed down toilets at U.S. run detention facilities? Yes or no? You said the story was false, therefore it must be no.
The Newsweek story was indeed false, shoes. The retraction should be treated as if the story did not exist. So what is left? Statements from detainees who are most likely terrorists and most likely our enemies, and the Pentagon’s denial of any reference to Koran flushing in the 25,000 pages of investigative reports. Believe what you wish.
Jay Rosen
Jay Rosen, maximal leftie journalism critic, whom I trust implicitly, tears Newsweek a new one. Shame.
ht Majikthise
That’s by far the most detailed treatment of the issue I’ve seen, bob. Thanks for the link.
As you stated you can “certainly imagine” one fringe group of American Christians (Baptists) as not restraining themselves to the rule of law in a comparible situation.
Fringe group? Presidents Carter and Clinton somehow put one over on US voters, by not exposing their links to the scary fundamentalist Baptists.
I think most Muslims would turn the other cheek but a Wahabist would probably also resort to violence, exactly as your Baptist. In both cases you have a majority following the true calling of thier faith (peace), and a minority resorting to violence. How then can you claim that either religion is more prone to violence?
Somehow I has not informed when the Baptists instituted the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy. Maybe Slart could fill us in on the details.
OT again, and a little frantic: due to cancellations (including my own) I’ve now got 4 tickets for the Nationals game, that will sit empty if someone doesn’t step up. Right behind the plate, a few rows back. Game’s at 1 — send me an email now.
The only thing I have in common with Baptists is we’re all Protestants, sort of. But as far as I’ve heard, there are no Baptist death-fatwas. If there were, Holy War would have broken out between Baptists and Lutherans long ago, because there are some rather strong points of disagreement.
Thank you, Charles.
Seriously, this is not an invalid observation, but you have to consider that the world today is not the same as the environs of Christianity in the 13th century. I’ve made that same observation myself, and I’ve come to see that its utility is rather limited.
Devoid of context your assessment is spot on. However, this was in response to the assertion that “[Islam] is more prone to violence because of its tenets” which I don’t think is fair if you look at the history of Christianity. Certainly I’m not suggesting that they should get a pass on violence now or in the future, but if we are considering whether Islam is inferior to Christianity or not (which was in essence what the quoted poster was doing) than historical context is key.
Bush really can’t do anything right.
He starts a war for oil. And look at the price of oil? It’s skyrocketed.
His administartion says torture is okay. And out of all the prisoners taken since the WOT has started less than 1% have actually been tortured. What a pathetic record. With a wink and a grin given to torture you would think our troops could do better than less than 1%.
He starts a crusade against Islam. And yet his weak policy is saving the lives and giving freedoms to Muslims all over the world.
Can this man not even implement his own policies correctly?
But, I just want to note that Charles’ claim that, “distortions of Ken Starr’s quotes on judicial nominees” happened is a story which was invented by Rush Limbaugh and debunked by that crazed contrarian, Mickey Kaus.
Well, Ken Starr in his own words disputed the clip and the reference to “radical departure” pertaining to filibusters:
Seems clear to me that Starr’s words were taken out of context.
Care to state directly what you’re trying to get at, 2shoes?
Isn’t it obvious?
The idea that one of the geo-political concerns of the United States of America in the 21st century can be addressed physically and “intellectually” destroying one of the largest faiths on the planet, and the expectation that actually has a snowball’s chance in hell of working as expected without said planet being irradiated…is more than foolish.
By all means, expend “intellectual” energy exposing the foibles and internal contradictions of the Muslim faith. Like all religion, it’s full of them, so should be easy. And oh, yes, the differences b/w “judeo-christian” ideas of warfare and “jihad” and why one is more of a threat to Middle America than the other. Perhaps while we’re at it we can also determine how many angels can fit on the head of pin. It’s ridiculous. Religion will mean what people will want it to mean, will change when circumstances and societies dictate, as has been the case throughout history. No equivalent concept of “jihad” in Judaism today? So what. All it will take is some ambitious Settler leader in the West Bank to “receive a message from God” and create one.
Today it’s “militant Islam”. Yesterday it was the “Soviet Liberation Model”. Tomorrow it will be “SUV owners for Jeebus”. These are just the figleafs that cover the underlying problem: people with perceptions of powerlessness embracing ideas, that they think will give them a higher degree of control in their lives.
And the idea you, a Christian, can “purposely disrespect” Islam without “purposely disrespecting” Christianity…and indeed all faiths, at the same time, and that it will somehow all work out, is the kind of idea that launched the Crusades. And we all know how well that worked out.
Like I said, shall we sack Byzantium on the way there, or on the way back?
Charles, it is true that the media is not as free and representative as it can be. But the reason is because of the corporate consolidation that is happening — five big corporations own it all. The only exception is PBS, which is under siege. We have a corporate media in this country. It should be an anti-trust issue.
This is a serious issue and you should be concerned about it.
In re TommyC’s comments (if he has indeed left, that’s unfortunate, since what is attractive about this blogsite is the multiplicity of opinions – I don’t know about you all, but the blogs that consist of nothing but name calling and “our-side-is-right-and-your-side-is-wrong” advocacy (either from left or right) are not conducive to thinking or learning):
-“I don’t care that Hussein didn’t have WMD. I’m glad he’s gone. To me the situation was like the cop facing a robber who “looks” like he is holding a gun. Hussein wasn’t worth the risk. And all those jihadi’s that we are creating. That’ just not true. They already existed and Iraq is just an outlet for them. This latest Newsweek tragedy validates that for me. It takes nothing to incite a riot against the U.S.”
-“But, there is no real discussion here because the majority of the posters are Bush haters.”
Why does it take nothing to incite a riot against the US? The only conclusion under this line of thinking is that the rioters are evil people – end of discussion. Not a profitable understanding, I think.
How, at least under Saddam, was Iraq an outlet for Jihadis? Why would a head of state, particularly one from a secular party, be interested in suffering a religious terrorist within the borders of his state when his goal is the control and stability of that state? The goals of the two principals in this case are at odds. So why the tacit implication of Iraq-Saddam with Muslims terrorists? It has nothing to do with secret meetings. It has everything to do with our opinion leaders telling us so. The speeches one heard from Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. (check out transcripts at the websites of WH, State Dept., etc.) went like this: They begin with 9/11, Osama bin Laden, terrorists, Jihad, 9/11, Osama bin Laden, . . ., then, inserted in the middle, we hear, “Meanwhile, in Iraq . . .,” then it’s back to 9/11, Osama, etc. When this conflation of terrorists and Iraq is repeated ad nauseum, is it any wonder that an association between the two is created in our minds?
Bush haters: For my money, Bush, either as an individual or head of state, is largely irrelevant. More significant factors are the continuation of domestic and international Cold War policies, the Military Industrial Complex, corporate interests within a capitalist, consumer economy, the behavior of an empire, American exceptionalism, control of markets and resources, international competition from other empires, the schizophrenia-inducing culture of fear we have been living in over the last 50 years, blah, blah, blah. Tom Engelhardt has a great essay on the hyper-reality of the office of president at his website (www.tomdispatch.com) called, “Tomgram: Politics in an Age of Fiction,” from 11 May 2005. And so we don’t single out Bush for criticism as a managed, political and media creation, we might remember that this approach goes back to the advent of television when Eisenhower was the first president to add PR folks to his campaign to work on his public image (see, for example http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ebind/view.pl/ua/2620120/50/6/fire/fire ).
Tacitus at 11:14 p.m.:
On the other hand, in a conversation/argument where one party, A (Tacitus), a Christian, is addressing the subject of Islam, and its (alleged apparent) uniqueness in some regard, and he attempts to demonstrate said alleged uniqueness to his audience, party B (which consists of Christians, Jews, and what have you) by simply explaining that Islam is different (in a given regard) than Christianity, and that this demonstrates Islam is, in fact, unique in this aspect (“The Koran is the preexistent, immutable, and wholly divinely-created word of Allah. The Bible, from the earliest time of the Church, has been seen as an inspired yet man-created Scripture […] Tossing a Bible down a latrine will offend Christians, including this one, but it does not constitute in itself a direct attack on a created thing of God, nor a strike at the very substance of the faith. Tossing a Koran into a latrine does constitute those things for the Muslim”), this fails to actually demonstrate to the entire audience, the second party, that Islam is, in fact, unique, given that your cited distinction is, in fact, also part of the traditional Jewish faith.
You haven’t, in fact, demonstrated that Islam is unique in its attitude toward its holy book. You’re free to do so, if you are capable and correct.
This is a posture, not an answer. It holds no substance. Is it your experience that this often convinces someone of your correctness?
If you’re simply uninterested in dialogue, but merely wish to make pronouncements, you might as well just say so, and have the courtesy to not implicitly invite others to response to your comments as if you were actually interested in responding, rather than simply announcing your Superior Personal Insight, which you feel isn’t worth explaining to us poor lesser minds.
Okay, you’ve rapidly proceeded from claiming at 6:12 p.m. yesterday that Judaism is different from Islam because of “the successful participation of nearly all Jews on the planet in modern Western civilization,” to, when faced with the point that noticiable chunks of Jewry reject modern Western civilization, saying at 7:02 that they are so successful participants because “They have certainly tried to wall themselves off to an extent from popular culture: but they do not impeded that civilization’s function, and even contribute a great deal to it. I would argue the same for monastic communities, the Amish, et al.”
Now you’ve backed up to the point of defining “successful participation” as being merely not “exist[ing] in a vacuum, nor even outside the societies they purport to reject.” Apparently no one, save the wicked Muslims, by this standard, does not “successfully participate […] in modern Western civilization.” How are Muslims — all Muslims, apparently, mind — different? What’s the distinction by which Amish and Satmars, say, “participate,” but Muslims do not?
At 11:14 p.m., sarcasm and dismissal.
Very substantive. Very convincing. Who isn’t bowled over by your command of facts, logic, and argument? Why not just say “neener, neener, so’s your mother?” A tad less arch, but precisely as meaningful.
Lastly:
However, your point I was responding to wasn’t that you had reason to believe that every Moslem, everywhere, wants to either kill you or convert you, but your historical claim of “some salient differences between jihad and divinely-sanctioned warfare as conceived in both Judaism and Christianity.” Conceived.
“Conceived,” Mr. Tacitus. I thought we were discussing history, theology, and morality. I realize now that you are, rather, discussing your present fears, dressed up with historical, theological, and moral, claims. My mistake.
Y’know (but probably you don’t), despite my having had you on my blogroll for more or less a couple of years, I’ve actually read relativity little of your writing and thinking (basically, I don’t like blogs full of “diaries” and formatting that makes it difficult for me to tell who is posting, or sort out personalities, so this applies exactly as much to dKos as you, and that’s all), so I come to your POV with a relatively open mind, ready to read what you have to say, and be convinced.
Unfortunately, if your goal is to convince people that you’re more interested in posturing and indicating your disdain for explaining yourself, than in substantive, respectful, dialogue, you’re on your way to a successful completion with me. Congratulations.
Charles Bird writes: “Seems clear to me that Starr’s words were taken out of context.”
Did you actually read what Kaus posted? The context is complete. If you challenge that, feel free to provide the “larger context.” Subsequent backpedaling is simply irrelevant to the simple fact of whether he was quoted in context.
Charles, it is true that the media is not as free and representative as it can be. But the reason is because of the corporate consolidation that is happening — five big corporations own it all.
This, by the way, is untrue. In fact, there have been more new dailies launched in major American cities in the last year than probably in three decades. Matt Welch deals with this consolidation issue regularly; here’s a post from yesterday.
“it seems to me that every religion that has moved to being a state religion (which Mormonism has not really gotten to, except in perhaps Salt Lake City ;^)) has always had a spasm around the 1000 year mark”
The Mormans are another example of what can happen when you have a state religion and the Seperation of Church and State is ignored. Some chapters in mormon history are extremely bloody, the most infamous episode being known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
The more I think about it the more absolutely I am convinced that the violent reaction has little to do with the respecitve holy books, as those books can be interpretted in almost any way. The real difference is the Seperation of Church and State.
“So what is left? Statements from detainees who are most likely terrorists and most likely our enemies….”
Charles, have you noticed the various detainees who have been released from Gitmo? Are you saying that the U.S. is releasing terrorists? What makes you think, other than wishfulness, that all the detainees at Gitmo are, in fact, terrorists, as opposed to a mix of mildly significant al Qaeda, and insignificant Taliban grunts who were swept up? (By its own admission, U.S. policy is to not ship the truly serious terrorists to Gitmo, but to “undisclosed locations,” right?)
Charles, it is true that the media is not as free and representative as it can be. But the reason is because of the corporate consolidation that is happening — five big corporations own it all.
This, by the way, is untrue. In fact, there have been more new dailies launched in major American cities in the last year than probably in three decades. Matt Welch deals with this consolidation issue regularly; here’s a post from yesterday.
Much to my surprise, I find I can agree with nearly everything that David Brooks says about the Newsweek story.
In re Charles Bird’s comments:
-“I do recall writing that it was a mistake to emphasize WMDs. I do recall writing that the administration set forth multiple reasons for removing Saddam.”
Charles, you may be interested in checking out the American Enterprise Institute’s “Winning Iraq: A Briefing on the Anniversary of the End of Major Combat Operations” from 4 May 2004. This presentation, with keynote speaker Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, is available at AEI’s website (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.811,filter.all/event_detail.asp). One of the presenters, Steven Metz (an intelligent and honest academic in the neo-con ranks), had the following to say in regard to a question on the reason for the US going to war against Iraq:
QUESTION: Will Englund from the Baltimore Sun.
“All three of you have talked about the need to keep American public opinion in favor of the American engagement in Iraq, but I wonder, if the war had been portrayed from the start, or before the start, as a war to remake the Middle East, rebuild the Middle East, and establish democracy there, would American public opinion have supported that war. And as it becomes clear what the ultimate objective is, can American public opinion be kept in favor of it?”
[Thomas Donnelly’s response]
MR. METZ: “I certainly agree with what Tom said. And another problem with making that the bedrock of your public argument is that that places a whole lot of public support on the activity of Iraqis. In other words, if the basis for American engagement is the liberation argument, then the fact that we see lots of Iraqis saying Americans out and not lots of Iraqis demonstrating saying Americans stay in, then the American public is going to say, okay, they don’t want us there anymore; if the whole justification was to liberate them and they don’t want us there, then let’s get out. So that, you know, kind of becomes problematic in terms of sustaining engagement until the job is done, as well.”
Indeed, we must be careful in our public rationale lest democracy get in the way of spreading democracy. What was it that Wolfowitz said a couple of years ago? Something about WMDs being the one rationale on which they could all agree? I suppose this is as close as we are likely to come to a member of the administration admitting that the primary emphasis for the public justification of the war was made up (the recently reported memo from our main ally may support this assessment).
-“As long as military personnel follow the proper rules of engagement–which are designed to minimize civilian casualties–I don’t believe deaths of civilians at road blocks are harmful to our interests. Regrettable and tragic? Yes. Harmful to the US? No. I believe most Iraqis understand this as well. The unreasonable ones will believe what they choose to.”
The notion that US forces endeavor to minimize civilian casualties, at least strategically, is nonsense. The very nature of modern warfare in the industrial age demands attack on the civilian population and the agricultural and industrial infrastructure they support, for such is the basis of military power. Attack on this center of gravity is the reason for Sherman’s tactics on his march to the sea and the reason for the fire bombing of worker’s housing in Tokyo. In order to politically and militarily defeat an enemy and afterward dictate terms to their nation, it is imperative to physically and psychologically crush the population (see strategic bombing theory on this point). This is not meant to be a denunciation of American behavior, but simply a description of the way modern war gets waged. In a sense, “the proper rules of engagement,” require civilian deaths. There is a reason that power grids and water treatment facilities were bombed in Iraq, and why medicine, such as insulin, was part of the sanctions imposed on that nation. That between 1 and 2 million Iraqis have died in the last 14 years (depending upon what sources one references) was neither an accident nor an unintended, unforeseen consequence. I suspect that Iraqis understand this very well (a far more plausible cause of the continued resistance than Saddam hold-outs or foreign terrorists), a dynamic that we Americans do not, or will not, see, as it goes so fundamentally against our self image as good guys and saviors.
In re Charles Bird’s comments:
-“I do recall writing that it was a mistake to emphasize WMDs. I do recall writing that the administration set forth multiple reasons for removing Saddam.”
Charles, you may be interested in checking out the American Enterprise Institute’s “Winning Iraq: A Briefing on the Anniversary of the End of Major Combat Operations” from 4 May 2004. This presentation, with keynote speaker Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, is available at AEI’s website (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.811,filter.all/event_detail.asp). One of the presenters, Steven Metz (an intelligent and honest academic in the neo-con ranks), had the following to say in regard to a question on the reason for the US going to war against Iraq:
QUESTION: Will Englund from the Baltimore Sun.
“All three of you have talked about the need to keep American public opinion in favor of the American engagement in Iraq, but I wonder, if the war had been portrayed from the start, or before the start, as a war to remake the Middle East, rebuild the Middle East, and establish democracy there, would American public opinion have supported that war. And as it becomes clear what the ultimate objective is, can American public opinion be kept in favor of it?”
[Thomas Donnelly’s response]
MR. METZ: “I certainly agree with what Tom said. And another problem with making that the bedrock of your public argument is that that places a whole lot of public support on the activity of Iraqis. In other words, if the basis for American engagement is the liberation argument, then the fact that we see lots of Iraqis saying Americans out and not lots of Iraqis demonstrating saying Americans stay in, then the American public is going to say, okay, they don’t want us there anymore; if the whole justification was to liberate them and they don’t want us there, then let’s get out. So that, you know, kind of becomes problematic in terms of sustaining engagement until the job is done, as well.”
Indeed, we must be careful in our public rationale lest democracy get in the way of spreading democracy. What was it that Wolfowitz said a couple of years ago? Something about WMDs being the one rationale on which they could all agree? I suppose this is as close as we are likely to come to a member of the administration admitting that the primary emphasis for the public justification of the war was made up (the recently reported memo from our main ally may support this assessment).
-“As long as military personnel follow the proper rules of engagement–which are designed to minimize civilian casualties–I don’t believe deaths of civilians at road blocks are harmful to our interests. Regrettable and tragic? Yes. Harmful to the US? No. I believe most Iraqis understand this as well. The unreasonable ones will believe what they choose to.”
The notion that US forces endeavor to minimize civilian casualties, at least strategically, is nonsense. The very nature of modern warfare in the industrial age demands attack on the civilian population and the agricultural and industrial infrastructure they support, for such is the basis of military power. Attack on this center of gravity is the reason for Sherman’s tactics on his march to the sea and the reason for the fire bombing of worker’s housing in Tokyo. In order to politically and militarily defeat an enemy and afterward dictate terms to their nation, it is imperative to physically and psychologically crush the population (see strategic bombing theory on this point). This is not meant to be a denunciation of American behavior, but simply a description of the way modern war gets waged. In a sense, “the proper rules of engagement,” require civilian deaths. There is a reason that power grids and water treatment facilities were bombed in Iraq, and why medicine, such as insulin, was part of the sanctions imposed on that nation. That between 1 and 2 million Iraqis have died in the last 14 years (depending upon what sources one references) was neither an accident nor an unintended, unforeseen consequence. I suspect that Iraqis understand this very well (a far more plausible cause of the continued resistance than Saddam hold-outs or foreign terrorists), a dynamic that we Americans do not, or will not, see, as it goes so fundamentally against our self image as good guys and saviors.
He starts a war for oil. And look at the price of oil? It’s skyrocketed.
know what else has skyrocketed ? do ya?
Re: the debate about the innate dangerousness of various religions. Karen Armstrong has some ideas about this in The History of God. ( Yes, I know book titles are supposed to be underlined, but I don’t know how). She writes that religions that are committed to making converts are probably more inclined to aggressive behavior than those that aren’t. Also religions that can be converted into egotism (the personal God) are more likely to have violent episodes either by individuals or by a government using the religion as cover. Both tendencies give the individual or the group the opportunity to demonize outsiders and assign Godlike powers to people. I really don’t know how one could argue that Islam is inately any worse or any better than Christianity since both include these tendencies. However, a multiplicity of factors can encourage the worst or the best in a religion at a certain point in history. One of factors that encourages violence is the sense of being under threat from internal reformers and disbelievers or from the outside.
This, by the way, is untrue.
*blink*
If you say so. I guess ABC and UPN and CBS and Disney and WB and NBC and MSNBC and Fox are all independent companies, and people go to the newspapers for news anyway so who cares what the tv news broadcasts.
I guess ABC and UPN and CBS and Disney and WB and NBC and MSNBC and Fox are all independent companies
That’s not what I said.
Actually, I was responding to what I thought was a suggestion that any predisposition Islam might have toward violence can be dismissed because of where they are, maturity-wise, relative to where Christianity was at that same age after inception. If that’s not what you’re suggesting, I have no disagreement.
Do you really not understand how that works, or do you need an explanation from someone who’s practically allergic to economics?
“(Yes, I know book titles are supposed to be underlined, but I don’t know how)”
Does this help? (The Internet is, I find, useful for looking things up.)
What you said was: “But the reason is because of the corporate consolidation that is happening — five big corporations own it all.”
No, that’s not true. I don’t know where Phil would or is going from there, but it’s flatly untrue. A less sweeping and flat statement on the topic, if you’d care to rephrase, might be true, and might make your point without getting into ludicrous claims like “five big corporations own it all.” A smaller point about the dangerous of media consolidation, perhaps.
Secondarily, I read the article you linked to, and I can’t find a word in it that even suggests that “people go to the newspapers for news anyway so who cares what the tv news broadcasts.”
In point of fact, “tv” doesn’t appear once in the article, and the sole mention of “television” is this: “US newspaper circulation has been falling since 1984, and has been particularly hit in recent year as other forms of media compete for the attention of readers, including cable television and the Internet.”
How your link demonstrates that more people get news from newspapers than tv is quite beyond me. Can you explain? (For actual facts, this flatly refutes the incorrect claim that more people get their news from newspapers than tv. HTH.)
(Maybe I should use “It drives me crazy when people say things that simply aren’t true” as a .sig here.)
Do you really not understand how that works, or do you need an explanation from someone who’s practically allergic to economics?
go ahead, give it a shot.
Am I the only one who read this:
But the reason is because of the corporate consolidation that is happening — five big corporations own it all.
as rhetorical hyperbole, and this:
people go to the newspapers for news anyway so who cares what the tv news broadcasts.
as irony?
“…as rhetorical hyperbole….”
Surely a possible read, just as reading it as ridiculously sloppy over-statement is another. But one certainly can’t complain when one uses rhetorical hyperbole and someone else points out that it’s rhetorical hyperbole, and not true.
“…irony….” Was the link ironic, too?
But the story was NOT a lie…there is ample confirmation of this event happening since 2004 in numerous publications, including the WaPo, the NYT, the LAT, and other papers. This story has been out there for quite a while. Why Isikoff did not simply question the sources of that story for confirmation is completely nonsensical to me.
Ok, this is how it works:
You’re in a reselling business. You buy something, process it, and sell it. You mark the item up based on cost to produce (including material cost and taxes), and tack on some relatively fixed overhead expense. Based on this formula, if the cost of material doubles, your markup doubles, approximately. Which in turn drives your profit up, assuming that your other costs are fairly constant, and that demand isn’t yet affected by the cost increase. Without changing anything at all in the way you do business, you’ve just gouged your customers in much the same way that Exxon and other oil companies do. The larger the percentage material cost is of total cost, the more profits are a function of material cost. In the case of Exxon and other oil companies, material cost is about half of total cost. It’s even more than that, because Exxon pays taxes on the materials that are accounted for separately, and those taxes and duties are, themselves, a function of material cost. For Exxon, material direct cost and taxes on materials comes to eighty percent of total cost. For a constant profit margin, then, a doubling of material cost is going to do what to profit:
A) Keep it the same, as it ought to be be.
B) Make it smaller, because they’re already gouging us.
C) Nearly double profits.
In the case of Exxon, material cost rose by 40%, which increased operating income by 30%, which increased profit by about 20%.
Slarti,
There’s a small additional aspect to that analysis. Oil companies are not entirely re-sellers. They drill a singificant fraction of the oil they sell themselves. Since their cost to extract the oil changes very little as the sale price goes up, there is substantial increased profit to be made on the oil which is drilled by the Exxon’s of the world.
a “significant” fraction, as well.
“You mark the item up based on cost to produce (including material cost and taxes), and tack on some relatively fixed overhead expense. Based on this formula, if the cost of material doubles, your markup doubles, approximately.”
I’m missing something that is likely perfectly obvious, but that I don’t see here, so I’m wondering if it’s simply some assumption you find not worth stating, but that ignorant folk such as myself aren’t fully aware of.
That is, where is it written in law, economic or otherwise, that markup has to double? Why not, say, quadruple it, or up it by 50 percent, or 120, rather than double it? Surely it’s not purely arbitrary, but when you say “based on this formula,” where is it written that anyone needs to follow that formula?
It’s not written anywhere, Gary, but you must agree that any given markup percentage on cost will result on a doubled markup, if cost doubles. Must, unless you’ve got a different set of mathematical rules that you and pretty much you alone operate by.
Slartibartfast–
I think I follow the economics. Let me make sure I’m following the original exchange, too.
Someone named “123concrete” tried to support Bush, or answer the critics of Bush, by ironically pretending agreement with the critics’ assessment of Bush’s motives and goals (war for oil, torture’s okay, crusade against islam), and then ironically decrying Bush’s lack of success in attaining those goals (oil went up, not that much torture, freedom for Muslims).
123concrete’s point seemed to be that if Bush has done such a bad job at attaining the goals ascribed to him, the critics should rethink the ascription of those goals. Maybe, since it is freedom and democracy that he has brought rather than a crusade, Bush’s critics are just wrong that he ever wanted a crusade at all.
And so too with torture and oil; if the actual consequences are at such variance with posited goals, is it really credible that those were Bush’s goals all along?
So much for 123concrete–I hope I have their position roughly right.
Then someone named “cleek” pointed out that oil profits have skyrocketed, along with the price of oil.
Cleek’s point, I believe, was this: the fact that oil prices have gone up only undermines the critics’ proposal that Bush launched a “war for oil”, if we assume that a “war for oil” must have cheaper oil as its goal.
But in fact, (cleek was arguing, if I’m following), one need not think that a “war for oil” is aimed at getting low *prices*. Or high prices, either–it’s not the price that matters. The accusation is that Bush et co. wanted to benefit their friends in the oil industry, by *increasing oil profits*. That’s a “war for oil”; a war intended to benefit the oil companies. And they have been benefited, massively.
So (says cleek), this is a case in which the actual consequences *confirm*, rather than undermining, the critics’ account of Bush’s real motivations.
So much for cleek–and again, I hope I have their position roughly right.
Then you said “Do you really not understand how that works…?”
Your point seemed to be that if cleek properly understood how profits rise, then cleek would not have made the response to 123concrete that cleek did, i.e. that cleek’s response betrayed some lack of economic understanding.
And so you provided a nice account of how profits rise in a reselling business in response to rises in materials cost. It seemed like a good explanation to me.
But in what sense does it provide a rebuttal to cleek? Cleek’s point was that the rise in profits confirms, rather than undermining, the charge that Bush launched a “war for oil”, i.e. a war designed to maximize the profits of his oil-industry friends. Details of *how* oil profits rise are interesting, but incidental to that point, I should think (they had to rise through *some* mechanism or other).
Or is there some way that the details you provided show, contra cleek, that 123concrete was right all along, and the skyrocketing oil profits show that it is just ludicrous to suppose that Bush launched a ‘war for oil’?
(Which allegation, by the way, I personally find implausible for *other* reasons. I don’t think that helping his friends in the oil industry was even among Bush’s top five reasons for invading Iraq).
Have I followed the exchanges here, or am I missing something?
So, is it your contention that they ought to pay themselves less than market price for product?
Point taken, though. Exxon makes about ten bucks a barrel in profit for oil they drill themselves. So, roughly two-thirds of their profit, last year, came from oil they extracted. Hard to see, though, how this is not a different case of the rising tide lifting all boats.
I have no reason for thinking that cleek had any point in mind. Given that, my response was much the same as if someone had linked the sudden rise in lake levels as a surprise result of torrential spring rains. So, not a rebuttal. Just pointing out that there’s a certain amount of cause-and-effect, here.
Still, when doing the war-for-oil shuffle, it’s important to keep one’s story straight. Therefore, when arguing that we invaded Iraq for its oil, pointing out that oil prices are up and profits are up (ostensibly enriching Bush’s oil buddies, which are ostensibly patrons, which he ostensibly can tap for lucrative jobs after leaving office, etc) doesn’t support that. Now, if one had argued that we invaded Iraq precisely to prevent its oil from flowing, ostensibly to enrich Bush’s oil-crony friends for the purposes (or something similar) related above, I’d think that was at least consistent. Unevidenced, but self-consistent.
The notion that US forces endeavor to minimize civilian casualties, at least strategically, is nonsense. The very nature of modern warfare in the industrial age demands attack on the civilian population and the agricultural and industrial infrastructure they support, for such is the basis of military power.
Then you shouldn’t be using Sherman and “modern warfare” in the same breath, otto. Or Tokyo for that matter. The whole point of the Geneva Conventions–which we agreed to abide by in Iraq–is to minimize civilian casualties. When those conventions get violated from time to time, the US does not hear the end of it.
The difference (which is not a great one, as noted before), is that Exxon’s profit increased by more than just the increase in the price of oil would suggest a re-seller would get. They also get the profits of a primary extracter whose costs are not significantly increasing as the market price does.
“It’s not written anywhere, Gary, but you must agree that any given markup percentage on cost will result on a doubled markup, if cost doubles”
Not in the sense that it’s human beings who choose how to markup. You seemed to be suggesting that it was simply mathematically inevitable that profits will sharply rise when material costs rise, but it seems to simply be a matter of choice. Corporations are perfectly free (not considering their obligations to shareholders, of course) to simply choose to choose a lesser percentage of markup when costs rise, if they like, and if they don’t, it’s unsurprising if some think of their decision as benefiting from “windfall profits,” as the common term goes.
I was wondering if something else was going on that I didn’t understand about this, but apparently not. (The implied questions of desert, and what default presumptions about profit, capitalism, and economics, people should hold, I’m not going to get further into.)
Slarti,
A different analysis:
You buy something and resell it. You set your price so as to maximize gross profit – that being your revenue minus (whatever it cost you to buy the stuff plus the variable costs of selling: shipping, sales commissions, etc.). Overhead, or more precisely, fixed cost, does not enter into the calculation except that if your maximized gross profit doesn’t cover it you should seek other opportunities.
Now suppose your cost of materials (or any variable cost) rises. You recalculate your price, bearing in mind that raising it will reduce the physical quantity you sell. Your gross profit must drop. If it doesn’t, your first calculation was incorrect. (Suppose a widget cost you $10 and you maximized by selling a thousand at $15, making $5000. Now your cost goes to $12. All else equal, you can’t sell a thousand at $17. So you sell fewer than a thousand, at some price between $15 and $17, making less than $5000. If the new profit-maximizing price is outside the $15-17 range then you should have been charging that all along and your original $15 price was a mistake.)
Does my analysis seem wrong? Think about this. By your logic a company makes more money when its costs go up. That can’t be right.
Why have oil company profits risen? I can’t find the link, but likely it’s because they are drillers of oil as well as holding large inventories. Their drilling costs have not gone up, so the price increases have been gravy.
They also get the profits of a primary extracter whose costs are not significantly increasing as the market price does.
I’m hardly a friend of the oil industry or its associated ills, but this is not true. As the oil reserves in a given area are depleted, the cost of extracting what is left most certainly does go up.
How does Bush rectify helping out his oil buddies by waging war in Iraq, knowing that higher oil prices probably hurt the businesses of all his other wealthy friends?
Wait, I got this one already by myself. He gives tax cuts to the rich.
I guess the only questions left to answer:
Are the tax breaks Bush gives to the rich enough to make up for the decline in revenue they experience due to higher oil prices? (I guess they have to be. I know Rove wouldn’t make a mistake like that.)
And how does he keep them from being jealous of one another?
While it’s obvious that Bush is a moron and controlled by the puppet master Rove, when not being easily manipulated by Cheney his social skills truly are exceptional given that his fat, rich cronies seem happy with him. I’m sure his days in the frat house are really paying off.
I guess its also safe to say that he must really be tight with his oil buddies. Not only do they benefit from higher oil revenues, but they also get the same tax break that he had to give to his other wealthy buddies to keep them happy.
I can see clearly now how his evil mind works:
“I’ve got to buy beer for the frat party. I always go to the Circle K because they don’t card. But they are closed. The ABC sells beer, but they card. What to do?
I’ve gotta get some buddies to distract the clerk at the ABC while I steal the beer. Now, they will want to be paid with some of the beer I steal. But I need to make sure I have enough beer for the party. I can only carry so much beer out of the store. What would my Daddy do?
I know. I’ll call Dick and ask him to help me steal some beer.”
When I was in the business (1975-81, local, family owned business, mostly fuel oil, a little gasoline), our default response to price changes (which were large and frequent back then, too) was to maintain a constant cents-per-gallon markup. As the price went up, we would occasionally tack on something to that markup, to cover non-product costs that also went up with the price.
But in reality, price is always based on what the market will bear. If one of us (a handful of local companies in competition in the same market) broke the pattern on the downside, the rest would usually follow. On the upside, less likely. I loved to undercut those guys. Didn’t get much chance.
I don’t know how Exxon-Mobil makes their decisions, but I am confident that maintaining a constant percentage markup is not their policy. It would be too easy for someone else to undercut them while still making good money.
Another source of profit from rising prices is holding inventory. It’s priced to market, both on the way up and the way down. The oil companies won’t do as well if and when the price goes down.
Catsy,
“I’m hardly a friend of the oil industry or its associated ills, but this is not true. As the oil reserves in a given area are depleted, the cost of extracting what is left most certainly does go up.”
True, but given the speed with which oil prices have risen not particularly relevant to the discussion.
It’s not human beings who choose how much to mark up, when a stated condition of the example at hand is “constant markup”. Note that nowhere did I claim that Exxon or any other oil company is applying a constant markup. Evidence that oil companies will decrease their markup to accommodate price increases is a little hard to come by, though, so I assumed a constant. Still, they’d have to cut their markups in half to keep profits constant, and I can’t see that happening. It’d drive the profit margin down, which is one of those things that reflects poorly on a company when the quarterly reports go out.
Yeah, that seems wrong to me, too. But that’s not what I’m saying; I’m saying that a company’s profits increase as a function of sales, and that in this case, profits are probably related to sales in some way that doesn’t cancel itself.
“It’s not written anywhere, Gary, but you must agree that any given markup percentage on cost will result on a doubled markup, if cost doubles.”
Not in the real world. In the real world you mark up your profit to whatever you think the market will bear. As an example when I helped run my Father’s truckstop we certainly would not get to double our profits if our supply prices doubled, if anything you would have to eat some of that in order to still be able to compete with the guy across the street.
This is the same fallacy as the widely held belief that any tax increase/regulation cost will be automatically passed on to the consummer, it just isn’t so. Whatever the market will bear will be shifted, the rest will be eaten from profit as the cost of doing business.
You will never find a real world example of what you are claiming is an economic rule. I would love to see an actual example of markup doubling in response to supply costs doubling. I think you will find in all cases (excepting a monopoly, which can do whatever it wants), a percentage of the supply cost increase is passed on, but far from all and far from doubling profit margins.
I’m saying that a company’s profits increase as a function of sales,
Not sure I understand here, slarti. Profits do increase with sales, usually, but only if costs don’t change. And remember that sales andpriceare two different things. Raise your price and quantity sold (as opposed to dollar volume) will drop.
The accusation is that Bush et co. wanted to benefit their friends in the oil industry, by *increasing oil profits*. That’s a “war for oil”; a war intended to benefit the oil companies. And they have been benefited, massively.
Tad is basically correct. the fact that our prices haven’t gone down doesn’t disprove the fact that this is, to some extent, a “war for oil”.
if oil companies had been content to keep their profits lower than record levels (for example, if they kept them at last year’s levels), consumer prices would not have gone up as much as they did. but, instead, they opted for profits. whatever the circumstances were on the producer side of the euqation, the oil companies decided that they would prefer to make more in profits by charging consumers more than they did last year. simply: this year’s profits – last year’s profits = some amount that could have been used to lower consumer prices.
please note: this doesn’t mean i carry a “No Blood For Oil” sign around. it just means high consumer fuel prices don’t prove the war wasn’t about oil.
Bush is obviuously a moron. It would have been so much easier to just hook his fat-cat oil friends up with the U.N. oil for food program. I think the profit margins there would have been signficanly better than what they are currently getting having to actually do the work.
One would think Rove or Cheney would have told him to do that instead.
I still am hoping that someone can answer atleast one of my questions.
Are the tax breaks Bush gives to the rich enough to make up for the decline in revenue they experience due to higher oil prices?
How does he keep all of his rich friends from being envious of his rich oil friends?
Slarti: It’s not human beings who choose how much to mark up, when a stated condition of the example at hand is “constant markup”.
Would you mind setting forth your exact hypotheses? At the moment I’m not sure whether your claim is trivial, meaningful or false — or, if you’re truly gifted, all three.
You will never find a real world example of what you are claiming is an economic rule. I would love to see an actual example of markup doubling in response to supply costs doubling.
There are two cases to consider here, one is where the firm (I’ll use an anonymous example firm rather than Exxon, as I know nothing about that company) is a price taker. In that event, the firm would sell it’s finished product on the market at the market price, and make production decisions based on whether it could make a profit. There is no “markup” in that case – the firm has a cost of production, if this cost is less than the market price, it produces, if it isn’t it stops. That’s the only decision to make.
The other case is where the firm has some pricing power. In this case, the firm would make a decision on how much to produce and at what price to sell it in order to make a profit. What the markup will be will depend on the elasticity of demand for that product, in the classroom case, and will also depend on whether the firm might consciously set a non-profit maximizing price to prevent competition from entering the marketplace, in the real world case. In that case, you might see markup doubling in response to supply costs doubling if that happened to correspond to what the company thought would keep out competition, but that’s a pretty special case.
With oil companies, I am pretty sure you will find that much of the increase in profits is due to them extracting oil at a cost that is nearly fixed in the short term, and turning around and processing it and then selling it at a price that has double or tripled in a short period of time.
To get back to the “the war was about oil” meme, there are a few things that could be meant by that. One would be that the US invaded Iraq in part because it wanted to ensure access to Iraqi oil in the future, and also to have the option of denying access to that oil to its enemies in the event of a larger conflict. I can’t believe anyone would doubt that. Another meaning might be that the war was undertaken to keep oil prices low. I don’t believe that to be true, nor do I believe most people who think “the war was about oil” believe that to be true. The third meaning would be that the war was undertaken to drive up profits for US energy companies. I would expect that at the least, the US expected the war to be good for profits for the reasons discussed above, and that the US had (or thought it had) the Saudis to help moderate any price increases that proved to be politically inconvenient.
The last point is actually the most interesting, from my point of view. Is the current price the price that the US thinks is a survivable one politically, or are the Saudis unwilling to live up to their earlier promises to keep oil prices much lower, or are the Saudis unable to do so? The last one is the nightmare scenario.
I think that if this is a “war for oil” in some sense, then it still would have little to do with immediate oil prices or profits.
My notion is that what is sought is a military presence in the ME which will assure that oil supplies will not be disrupted. This disruption could have come from some action by Saddam, or by a radical takeover in Saudi Arabia, or….
While I would not characterize this as a war for oil, I would be astonished to learn that the Administration, or soem of its officials, did not at least consider this angle. Events are complicated; just because people agree on a course of action doesn’t mean their motives are the same.
“Events are complicated; just because people agree on a course of action doesn’t mean their motives are the same.”
Nor does it mean that any one has singular motives.
Felix is quite correct that the issue of setting a profit-maximizing price does not arise in the case of a price-taker, that is, a firm operating in a competitive market where it has no control over market prices. It sells at the market price or not at all.
I for one am firm in my admiration of 123concrete. It takes a valiant heart to venture into the den of the enemy armed only with a cudgel of ham-handed sarcasm and armored only in willful ignorance, to confront and slay so many strawmen.
Catsy,
Are you saying that my questions aren’t valid?
I mean, was Iraq not a useless war? You don’t actually think there was any purpose to the war do you? Is it not a fact that Iraq is a distraction from the WOT?
Are you claiming that Bush may have had other reasons to rid the world of Hussein that weren’t related to Iraq’s oil? What could those reasons be?
It is a proven fact that WMD was just a trumped up issue. Given the undeniable fact that Bush lied about WMD what other logical explanation for the war could there be than oil and enriching Halliburton?
Please feel free to enlighten me to what Bush might have been thinking by invading Iraq if it wasn’t for Halliburton and the oil.
As long as military personnel follow the proper rules of engagement–which are designed to minimize civilian casualties–I don’t believe deaths of civilians at road blocks are harmful to our interests. Regrettable and tragic? Yes. Harmful to the US? No. I believe most Iraqis understand this as well. The unreasonable ones will believe what they choose to.
Pretty damn obvious that those civilians are not related to you, I bet that if they were you would be lot less cavalier about their lives.
If I was an Iraqi, and you killed one of my kids during your illegal invasion of my country, I would kill every and any American I could get my hands on, but that just me, I am the kind of a**hole who never forgives and rarely forgets!
unreasonable, ROTFLMAO.
The average american has a hard time remembering what happened last year, I seriously doubt that the average iraqi has that short of an historical memory.
Don,
“The average american has a hard time remembering what happened last year”
I’m assuming you are including yourself. You are an average American aren’t you? Or are you something better and smarter like so many other posters here?
123, it’s plenty amusing, but if you think that in commenting here you’re actually addressing people who sincerely believe that the only reasons for the Iraq war were (a) to enrich Haliburton and (b) to gain control over oil, I think you’ve got the wrong blog. I’m not sure there is a right blog for that, but this one is not it.
Not to say that no one who passes this way believes this, but I’d be surprised if it’s anything but a tiny minority. By tiny, I mean smaller than the percentage of people who voted for the president’s re-election who believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that most of what scientists think they know of physics and geology are completely wrong.
As for whether “it’s a proven fact that WMD is just a trumped up issue,” it seems to me that there are some terms that can stand definition. When I hear “trumped up,” I think of charges that are factually true, and yet unimportant. Like getting arrested for jaywalking on the way to cast a vote, where the arresting officer intends to prevent the act of voting. Hey, you might have actually been jaywalking, but that’s not the purpose.
Even if you go with the other definition — complete fabrication — one still has to talk about time periods. For example, obviously the CIA’s state of knowledge of what was going on in Iraq changed materially and dramatically from July 1, 2002 to March 1, 2003. You can pretend that the understanding of July 1 is the only one that matters, and that actions taken on the basis of that understanding on March 18, 2003 are completely justified. It seems to me, though, that the concept of “justification” really requires one to look at the state of knowledge at the time of the act, rather than at some earlier point. What was known about Iraqi WMD on March 1, 2003? It seems to me that the key fact known then, and not on July 1, 2002, was that a great deal of the intelligence upon which policy makers had been relying was false. If nothing else, the UN inspections showed that information about what was going on in Iraq was incorrect. Does this make declarations in March 2003 based on July 2002 understandings, despite March 2003 evidence,”trumped up”? Well, I’m not sure what you think the word means. That is, I’m not sure what you are trying to put into the mouth of the cartoon character you would debate.
Charley,
“123, it’s plenty amusing, but if you think that in commenting here you’re actually addressing people who sincerely believe that the only reasons for the Iraq war were (a) to enrich Haliburton and (b) to gain control over oil, I think you’ve got the wrong blog.”
I’ve been reading this blog along time. There are many long time posters here who express that belief over and over again.
Please feel free to give me some other reasons for the Iraq war that you think represent those on the left side of the aisle here.
“Please feel free to give me some other reasons for the Iraq war that you think represent those on the left side of the aisle here.”
Sure thing, guy. HTH.
123, it’d be a lot easier if you’d name names. Who do you think believes these are the only reasons?
I’m assuming you are including yourself. You are an average American aren’t you? Or are you something better and smarter like so many other posters here?
I am not nor have I ever been an average American, nor will I ever be. Better And smarter probably not, but definitly different.
The thing which worries me in all of this, as a Brit, is that posters here can’t even seem to agree on some sort of basic moral standards to which people and institutions should be held, nor is there agreement on the any of the core facts of the debate over Iraq. Everything is viewed through a partisan lens.
Why am I worried about this? I fear it will infect UK politics. The partisan spin has already taken over Labour party communications. There were even people trying to make abortion an election issue, although they seem to have been widely ignored.
Peter
since you are here, what was the British reaction to Galloway’s Congressional appearance? And is “maverick” a positive or a negative term?
thanx
In re Charles Bird’s comments:
-“Then you shouldn’t be using Sherman and “modern warfare” in the same breath, otto. Or Tokyo for that matter.”
Why not? I am using “modern warfare” in the sense of warfare since the Industrial Revolution, when the military power of nations came to rely more and more on their industrial base as weapons were mass produced and other logistical concerns became ever more dependent upon civilians and supported infrastructure. The American Civil War is often referred to as the first modern war (although the Crimean War a decade earlier is sometimes used) because of its industrial and civilian (and media) aspects. By using the term “modern warfare” I did not mean today or the last few decades, I meant an historical period that saw a significant change in the ways wars are fought that differs from the period before it. The Modern Age itself, as an historical period – the time period to which I was referring – is often pegged as the era from the French Revolution. One expression of “modern warfare” is total war. The following is a good definition of the byproduct of this type of “modern warfare”:
“The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country’s ability to engage in war. The targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.”
This is what I meant earlier when I referred to strategic bombing theory (an appreciation of the application of force to which I suspect that Rumsfeld adheres). It is with this understanding that Sherman and Tokyo fall very well within the parameters of “modern war.”
-“The whole point of the Geneva Conventions–which we agreed to abide by in Iraq–is to minimize civilian casualties. When those conventions get violated from time to time, the US does not hear the end of it.”
Although the Gulf War is not a total war from the American perspective (allocation of all our resources), many of the factors of total war are still applicable. We may be able to see how this happens when we appreciate the differences between policy and application, or between strategic or operational (bombing) and tactical (treatment of prisoners, rules of engagement at roadblocks, etc.) application of the rules of warfare. This is especially relevant in the case of Iraq – we cannot expect “reasonable” Iraqis to pat us on the back for fire discipline at checkpoints if their commercial and residential districts have been the targets of smart bombs. There is also the issue of power and, in our case, the degree to which a superpower may circumvent international law. (It is very helpful in relation to this topic to read the Pentagon’s legal advice regarding the application of the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of GWOT prisoners – they jumped through hoops to demonstrate how they in fact did not apply. One may ask why these protections were not extended to the detainees, even if they were non-state actors? Answer: the detainees are uncivilized savages who started this ugly business and in order to be effective against them we must respond in kind – they broke the Conventions so we can break them (see page 3 of the “Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations” of 4 April 2003 that was requested by Rumsfeld).) Granted, the fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocols prohibit the targeting of civilians, but they also provide for the destruction of property if military necessity requires such destruction. One can see where things might get a little fuzzy here regarding what constitutes a legitimate target and any collateral damage that might be incurred. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions cannot entirely mitigate against the social, technical, political, and organizational changes that have effected the nature of warfare in the Modern Age. Again, how does one explain the deliberate destruction of power grids and water treatment facilities, embargoed medicine, and the 1 to 2 million dead Iraqis over the last 14 years? I assure you, the military and political leaders who instigated the sanctions and directed the bombings knew what the results would be.
Although the Gulf War is not a total war from the American perspective (allocation of all our resources)…
I think that definition’s a little off. “Total war”, IME, refers to the scope of potential targets not the expenditure of resources by the “total war”-pursuing country. Sherman’s March to the Sea was total, IOW, not because he marshalled most of the Union troops into a big line but because he burned damn near everything in his path to the ground.
By that standard the American war in Iraq isn’t even close to total, though, so I think your underlying point remains.
The average american has a hard time remembering what happened last year, I seriously doubt that the average iraqi has that short of an historical memory.
oh, the average american can remember what happened long long ago – remember when FDR sold out eastern europe at Yalta ?
I’m surprised to hear British politics is different–if anything I’d have expected even more disagreement, since it’s my impression the political spectrum over there goes quite a bit further to the left. Does everyone agree on facts then, and just disagree on policy?
(I sort of doubt it.)
Speaking as a believing Christian, btw, I don’t understand what Tacitus is claiming when he says there’s an obvious distinction between Christian warfare and Islamic jihads. It’d be nice to think so. When Christians fight as Christians, the results aren’t pretty, whether it’s Puritans massacring Pequots or the English slaughtering the heathen Catholic Irish or the Crusaders slaughtering the heathen Jews and Muslims after taking Jerusalem in the First Crusade, or…well, anyone here could probably add a few more examples. About two centuries ago it crossed our minds that we should be slaughtering each other for secular political reasons instead. But the crusading mentality is still there, ready to be called on to justify slaughtering commies and I suppose Muslims again if need be.
Anarch,
Thanks for the check. Actually, both expenditures and targets are part of the definition since under this type of warfare a nation gathers all its resources to quash the ability of its opponent to make war (as opposed to limited war where some resources are not put to use). Although total war is not new to the Modern Age, it is with the advent of industrialization that it came to be seen as a particular type of war. Check out Clausewitz, the military thinker most associated with the conceptualization of total war.
Yes, certainly not total from our side. Most of us Americans can look around everyday and wonder, “What war?” If there wasn’t a war right now in Iraq, how would most of us be able to tell? (I say this with the utmost sympathy for the dead, wounded, and families of American soldiers.)
It would have been nice had I found this sooner, but here it is, a sample chapter from _The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions_
from the publisher’s blurb
Sherman’s march to the sea resulted in a great deal of property destruction. Now, I’m on slow dialup, but IIRC, any given pitched battle in Virginia resulted in a greater loss of life than what Sherman did. Yes, the march was terrifying, butI would not characterize it as terrorist, although brutal. I’d venture to guess that it resulted in a net savings of human lives, although many people were impoverished as a result.
Speaking as a believing Christian, btw, I don’t understand what Tacitus is claiming when he says there’s an obvious distinction between Christian warfare and Islamic jihads
Fine, I agree, but give me the date of the last Christian jihad-type warfare. And to all you other Christians who think that Baptists are especially dangerous, well, I wish you happy St Bartholemew’s Day (sort of forgotten Huegenot history.)
davec
What exactly are you are thinking of when you say ‘jihad-like warfare’. If one accepts the observations of John Dower at face value (_War without Mercy_), one could discuss the war in the Pacific as a jihad-like war, or one could claim that Amritsar massacre as one. I am assuming that by jihad like, you mean motivated by religious notions rather than other notions, though it has been suggested that events like these never have a single cause, so to use this as your definition is problematic.
Noting Charles’ update, see here. I’d rather not repost it here and besides this thread is too long anyway.
“…but give me the date of the last Christian jihad-type warfare.”
Serbia v. Bosnia is in the neighborhood.
“…but give me the date of the last Christian jihad-type warfare.”
There is a list of ‘para-military’ groups, plenty of them are christian and have been active in the last 5 years.
This was the first one I clicked. “The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) was formed in December 1989 for the purpose of seceding from India in order to create an independent Christian fundamentalist state of Tripura.” and appearantly they have been active with bombs and such in 2003 and possibly 2004.
I’m going to politely suggest that you reread the sentence, and reexamine what you’ve interpreted it to mean.
And other comments to this effect: I suggest you Google “price inelasticity of demand” and read. If you don’t believe it, look at how price has affected consumption: not at all. In fact, we’re continuing to push the redline the capacity of US refineries.
So again: I am not an economist, obviously, but there are some things that some of you appear to be overlooking.
Really? You think rising costs aren’t presented as an increase in price? That might be true if the costs of Company X were rising and Companies Y, Z, etc had flat costs. But if everyone’s cost rises, the price is going to go up. The new price equilibrium may in fact reflect a lower profit margin, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for that total profit would be flat irrespective of price. Imagine if the price went in the other direction. Imagine if the price of a gallon of crude magically dropped to $1; can you think that Exxon would still be raking in $25 billion in profit?
Well, I thought I did. Hypothetical: a company buys goods, processes those goods, and sells the product. The cost of those goods doubles, for example. If the markup on material cost remains constant, what happens to the price?
I can see that what I thought was pretty obvious wasn’t in fact obvious to many of you. My paragraph:
didn’t explicitly say that the percent markup was fixed. So, my apologies for the confusion. Also inexact was reference to markup implicitly as both percentage and the result of the application of that percentage. Ick.
Charles Bird:
That is very much in dispute, d-p-u, unless you’re willing to accept at face value the words of a detainee who is most likely a terrorist and an enemy of the United States.
Not a detainee – several released detainees. Question: Why is the US releasing detained terrorists?
Answer: It isn’t (have some faith in the government you’re prepared to defend to the hilt, Charlie)
Conclusion: Allegations of disrespect for Islamic sensitivities (including sensitivities about flushing the Koran down the toilet) are credible because they do not come from terrorists – just from folks who were unlucky to be in the wrong place when the troops were deporting first and asking questions later.
Corroborative data: Abu Ghraib photography.
And, finally, WAY upthread I just found this:
Um, no. I was just making a rather oblique jab at the sentence I quoted:
Which, when removed from this context and pasted into the Iraq-had-WMD context, provides some amusing irony.
Oh, one more thing that I didn’t state explicitly: that demand is inelastic to price. I didn’t think I needed to. And no, I don’t need you to tell me that demand is going to fall off at some price; I’m not making that point at all. Just that at current prices, demand hasn’t changed much, and I don’t think I need to point out that the price has changed by quite a lot.
Gary,
Secondarily, I read the article you linked to, and I can’t find a word in it that even suggests that “people go to the newspapers for news anyway so who cares what the tv news broadcasts.”
The link was to declining newspaper circulation, meaning that people are NOT reading newspapers. Most people get their news from TV & radio; newspapers are a declining medium. I was trying to be sarcastic — obviously I failed.
Maybe you guys should call Bush. Hello? Exercise Room? Yep guys, if only Newsweek hadn’t re-run a story from 2001, 2002, 2003 AND 2004, the middle east would be a Cayman Islands-like free trade zone by now! I coulda got a Rolex cheap in Baghdad and banked the savings in Tehran!
Good thinking, guys!
The above troll is banned, JFTR.
thanks Slarti
I couldn’t make heads or tails of what he/she was on about, but I concur with your judgment of the appropriate action.
I’m glad we’re in agreement. And, welcome back!
And other comments to this effect: I suggest you Google “price inelasticity of demand” and read. If you don’t believe it, look at how price has affected consumption: not at all. In fact, we’re continuing to push the redline the capacity of US refineries.
The elasticity in question is defined as the absolute value of (percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in price). Demand is said to be “price-inelastic” when that number is less than one, for example if a 10% price increase produces a 5% reduction in quantity sold. Inelastic demand does not mean there is no reduction in quantity sold. What you are saying is that elasticity is zero. That never happens. Look up the “law of demand.”
Really? You think rising costs aren’t presented as an increase in price?
No, I don’t think that. I don’t know how you could interpret this sentence that way. All it says is that if your sales go up your profits will too, if your costs remain constant. That seems uncontroversial.
That might be true if the costs of Company X were rising and Companies Y, Z, etc had flat costs. But if everyone’s cost rises, the price is going to go up.
Certainly.
The new price equilibrium may in fact reflect a lower profit margin, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for that total profit would be flat irrespective of price.
It will produce a lower profit. You haven’t seen a compeling argument that profits would remain flat for the same reason you haven’t seen a unicorn.
Imagine if the price went in the other direction. Imagine if the price of a gallon of crude magically dropped to $1; can you think that Exxon would still be raking in $25 billion in profit?
Bear in mind that Exxon is not simply a retailer. They are also a producer. When oil prices rise for reasons that do not affect Exxon’s operation their profits go up, and when they drop so do Exxon’s profits. What do you think would happen to WalMart’s profit if the cost to them of the goods they sell changed?
Worth a look, engage humor drive, now!
Before It Kills Again!
One of the comments on the fafblog post is priceless:
The toilet may not have flushed a Koran, but I am reasonably sure they flushed a copy of the U.S. Constitution there
No, I’m not. I’m saying that demand has, if anything, increased, while the price has increased. Do you claim that the price increase we’ve seen over the last year and change has diminished demand?
In turn, I urge you to Google on “law of demand” oil.
How so?
That’s been amply covered upthread.
If you’d tack on from their oil extraction endeavors, we’d be in complete agreement.
slarti,
I can’t find figures on recent oil consumption but it is entirely possible that consumption has increased recently. That doesn’t mean that demand has increased. A puzzling statement, maybe, but remember that demand is not a quantity but a function – a relationship between price and quantity. It tells us how much people will want to buy at any given price. Similarly, the supply curve tells us how wmuch suppliers are willing to sell at any price. The intersectionof these two curves is the equilibrium price and quantity in the market.
An increased price caused by a change in the supply curve will lower the quantity consumed unless the demand curve shifts. It can shift for many reasons, the most obvious being economic growth, which makes consumers and businesses more willing to spend money on oil.
The demand curve for oil also moves seasonally, as consumers drive more in the summer than in the winter, hence the tendency for gas prices to rise in the summer.
It will produce a lower profit.
How so?
Look at my widget example upthread. You are able to sell 1000 widgets for $15, and they cost you $10. So you make $5000.
Now suppose your cost goes to $12. How are you going to make $5000? if you raise your price to any amount greater than $15 but less than or equal to $17, you won’t sell 1000 widgets, and you’ll make less than $5 each, so that won’t do it.
Suppose you go to $18, and sell 850 widgets, for a profit of $5100. Great. But why weren’t you selling them for $18 before, and making $6800? In other words, if $15 was the right price before the cost increase, $18 can’t be the right price now. Similarly, suppose you lower the price to $14, and sell 3000, for a $6000 profit. Then why weren’t you selling at $14 before, and making $12000?
So, you might make more money, but only if the price you were charging before was wrong. If it was at or , practically speaking, near the optimum you have to give up some profit when your costs rise. Now, not everyone charges the optimum, I guess, so some people could be lucky, but I suspect the oil companies have a pretty good idea how to price gasoline. They certainly have plenty of data, and opportunity to experiment a bit, so I doubt they are far off.
Again, this assumes no change in the demand curve and before Felix reminds us again it also assumes that the oil companies do have some pricing power.
If you’d tack on from their oil extraction endeavors, we’d be in complete agreement.
Done.
Ok, this is where my allergic reaction to economics really starts to kick in. Yes, yes, I sit corrected.
I think this story falls apart at you won’t sell 1000 widgets, because if widget sales respond to price changes in a manner similar to oil sales, I don’t think you’ve said something true.
If demand for oil is unaffected by price increases, it is ludicrous altruism on the part of the oil industry to keep them as low as they are or to stick to a constant percentage markup. If they double the markup they will just make that much more money.
That would make sense, except they all have to compete with each other at the pump.
I think this story falls apart at you won’t sell 1000 widgets, because if widget sales respond to price changes in a manner similar to oil sales, I don’t think you’ve said something true.
But oil sales did not go up because prices rose. When prices go up quantities sold go down. Did you ever say, oh boy, I was going to buy a six-pack, but since the price is up I’ll buy a case instead?
Oil consumption increased, if it did, in spite of the price increases. There are many things that affect oil sales, including, as I mentioned, the economic situation. Similarly there could be many things that affect the sales of widgets – news that they help you lose weight for example.
To be clearer, I should have written, “all else equal, you won’t sell 1000 widgets.”
Entirely Redundant, I am.
Daniel Drezner states, far better than I did, the odd sense that many of us are ____ on Flushgate (choose one, and only one, cliche’ to fill in the MadLib):
Of course not. Not that I ever made such a point.
I’m late to this thread. It was obviously as heated as it was long, and perhaps I missed where these two points were addressed, if they were. Sorry I missed all the fun.
Followers of Islam, if I am not mistaken, call Jews and Christians the people of the Book. I wonder if they would be as quick to desecrate a holy text they actually hold in high esteem.
My memory of this is distant, but clear. I am just not sure if it was purely a Hollywood fabrication or if it had some basis in Kipling’s writing. In either case it indicates a precedent for this kind of thinking. It may even have a basis in historical fact. I recall an old B&W pre WWII film where British soldiers used the threat of burial in the carcass of a pig to extract information from a Muslim. It’s not a stretch to imagine that the British may have used similar methods with cows and Hindus in India. If a person was so inclined, a little research may indicate that this is nothing new, and sadly, entirely believable. Any Kipling fans out there?
Charles: Does diversity at end at skin color and sexual orientation, Phil?
There is no genetic basis for religion that I am aware of, Charles. It’s a matter of conversion, or what some may call choice.
I am no expert on Kipling or the British colonial period in the region, but I do find the “truth is stranger than fiction” meme more true than strange. Apparently the Flag of the U.S. flew over a previous successful invasion of Afghanistan, led by a Quaker of all people. I never knew that.
I’m a major fan of Kipling, and do not recall any story in which “the threat of burial in the carcass of a pig to extract information from a Muslim” was used – though that doesn’t mean there isn’t one: I’m not absolutely certain I’ve read every short story and poem Kipling ever wrote. It doesn’t sound absolutely improbable to me: while Kipling plainly valued Muslims above Hindus in his grading of the religions of India, he was capable of writing scenes of terrific brutality with a kind of detached aplomb. As a Malaysian friend observed, one can love everything about Kipling but his politics.