Values

"In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be."
Hubert H. Humphrey

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."
Robert Frost

Read an article today by William Pfaff entitled "Islam and the West: Incompatibility of Values." Being the incurable optimist that I am I hoped that Pfaff would grapple with some of the moral questions that I have been grappling with.

I am quite aware of our nations blunders in the Middle East. And I know why nations around the world have reason to fear and even hate the United States. On the other hand the values we enshrine in the United States are things I believe in. I believe that Freedom of Speech, or Expression is a positive good. Not just for me here in the United States or in the West, but for every human being on the planet. I believe that Freedom of Religion is every child's birthright, that each child has the right to seek the Infinite as they see fit. I believe in individual freedoms. I believe in respecting the dignity of each human being, regardless of their Gender or Race or Religion. I believe in Democratic principles; governments run better when they seek the input of the governed. And again, I don't believe that these principles apply only to the United States or the "West." I believe these principles should be followed in every place there beats a human heart.

And yet some Radical Islamic Fundementalists would deny these rights and privaleges to those who live in their communities. They guide their communities into opposing freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought. They oppress women, and often religious and racial minorities. And some Radical Islamic Fundamentalists have lead their followers into open warfare with those who do not share their values. I don't mean to imply that the only reason terrorists attack the west is because of a clash in our values. They also have specific policies they would like us to adopt. Radical Islamic Fundementalists would like, for example, for us to allow them to eliminate the only Democratic nation in the Middle East and slaughter its inhabitents.

And yet, Islam is genuinely in most cases a religion of peace. Despite the rantings of some (Ann Coulter, i'm looking your way), most Muslim people are just like people anywhere. They love their children and seek to make a better world for them. I've met several Islamic people over the years and have liked most of them. To hold all Islam responsible for the actions of a few Radical Fundamentalists is insane. So how do I square these thoughts? Perhaps William Pfaff has some thoughts that will help me navigate these tricky waters.

Nope.

He holds with the standard far-left liberal thinking; the United States government is evil and corrupted and therefore anybody who fights against the United States Government is, ipso facto, good. He basically holds that the values of some Radical Islamic Fundementalists are the equal and perhaps superior to the values of the West.

He states "There is constant Western pressure on Islamic governments to conform to Western conceptions of human rights and promote free and critical religious and political thought.

In short, they are to become us."

Does Mr. Pfaff really believe that the principles of Islam are incompatable with human rights? With democracy? With freedom of expression and thought? I don't believe that. I would suspect many Islamic people in the United States and elsewhere would agree with me.

I get Unlazy

I mentioned yesterday that I was sure that Trent Lott had had problems with racism before. Well, John Nichols has compiled a list that seems very complete so I'm just going to link to that. I guess that's still pretty lazy.

On a side note, if you watch carefully, you can see several hardline Republicans that would be happy to see Lott go, including everybody's favorite radio commentator. Rush commented the other day that Lott had mismanaged the impeachment procedures, and had moved slowly on the Office of Homeland Security until President Bush pushed him on it. They would like to see a more forceful person in Lotts position.

A Rush Hiccup

Listening to Rush while I drove around at lunch, and it was enlightening. He commented that Trent Lott's were fairly innocent (a mistake, but an honest mistake), and that anybody with a brain should know that he's not a racist. He then turned around and suggested that Lott follow Clinton's methods of avoiding punishment (apologizing, having friends say that it doesn't affect his job, and that everybody does it, holding a prayer circle, etc.).

He also commented that before this incident nobody had ever suspected or accused Trent Lott of racism. More on that later. Unless i get lazy.

Happy Thoughts

Philip Berrigan has died, and many are writing articles of praise, as they should. I'm not sure I buy into Berrigan's world view, but I know for sure (as any American who studies his life should) that he believed in what he was doing for the United States. And he never turned down the path of violence and revolution.

In one article, James Carroll writes, ". . . Berrigan would insist that originating this crisis is not the eccentric machismo of George W. Bush (Berrigan challenged Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton), but the universal American fantasy that ''national security'' can depend on weapons of mass destruction.

"On this point, Saddam Hussein is our mirror image, which must be why we hate him so."

I don't think American security does depend on Weapons of Mass distruction. I don't think we are likely to use weapons of mass distruction on Iraq, but rather conventional weapons.

What's interesting historically is that traditionally it has been liberals who have focused on non-traditional approachs, including the Atomic Bomb. Such military solutions, or the threat of them, have been cheaper; thus freeing up funds for domestic spending programs that they favor. Conservatives usually have favored conventional weapons (although they like atomic bombs too, certainly.)

Carroll also points out Berrigan's opposition to the United States Atomic Bombs, as if it had begun at the end of the cold war. The truth is Berrigan opposed Atomic Bombs and Atomic Power well before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

My difference with Berrigan and Carroll is this--the United States really does have enemies in the world. There are nations that would like to destroy us. And as long as that condition exists we can either defend ourselves or accept conquest. I choose the first.

To Reveal or not to Reveal

“To him that you tell your secret you resign your liberty.”
Anonymous, Proverb

Today the Bush administration revealed that it is not apparently going to make a cursory glance at Saddam’s very lengthy document and then declare war. The Washington Post reported that Air Fleischer (President Bush’s press secretary) stated, “We want to be very deliberate as we move through and look at this document to determine, with the international community, what this indicates about Saddam Hussein and his disarmament.”

However, should the United States determine the document lacking in several key points, then we face a decision. I saw we, meaning our country. In truth the decision will be made with little, if any, public input. That decision is whether or not to tell Iraq and the world what we know and how we know it.

Two writers grappled with this question at Townhall.com. Mona Charen wrote a fiction piece, purporting to be an internal White House Memo. She stated, “Our advice is that you present the truth, as we have discovered it, to the American people and to the world in a televised speech (with maps and graphics) on the day our forces commence the attack on Iraq. . . . But we should do so only after the bombers are in the air. Christmas Eve would be ideal.” Touching that Ms. Charen clings to the antiquated notion that air power will be sufficient to win. One would think that Vietnam would have put that theory to rest.

Cal Thomas takes a different tack. He states, “The United States should lay out the latest evidence against Saddam Hussein. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said, “Any country on the face of the Earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”” Of course he goes on to assure his readers that war with Iraq is inevitable, necessary and a positive good.

The bottom line is this, any invasion of Iraq is going to entail the deaths of American Soldiers, Iraqi Soldiers and Iraqi Civilians. Those casualties could run into the thousands (and possibly more), and perhaps that is a price we will have to pay. But before we come to that conclusion, maybe we should follow our President’s lead and look at the information before deciding that this cost is inevitable.

A History Lesson

“Dangerous men, who are trying to win followers for their war on democracy, are attacking Catholics and Jews and Negroes and other minority races and religions.”
Harry S. Truman, October 25, 1948, Chicago, Ill.

“Our determination to attain the goal of equal rights and equal opportunity must be resolute and unswerving.”
Harry S. Truman, October 29, 1948, Harlem, NY.

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."
Strom Thurmond, 1948

“Pressed by ADA leaders to cut Wallace’s lead on civil rights, Truman issued executive orders in July 1948 desegregating the armed forces and banning discrimination in the federal civil service. He also endorsed a plank on racial equality that he personally considered too strongly worded. In response, some 300 southern delegates bolted from the Democratic National Convention and formed a States’ Rights (“Dixiecrat”) ticket headed by Governor J. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, known for his segregationist views.”
John Mack Faragher et al. Out of Many A History of the American People.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Trent Lott, 2002

Trent Lott should resign as Speaker of the House. It is a sign of how comfortable the Republicans are that he won’t and won’t be asked to. Rush and others have pointed out that many democrats (Robert Byrd, Al Gore’s Father) are not exactly clean on this issue. Fair enough. But neither Robert Byrd nor Al Gore are calling for segregation today, as Trent Lott apparently was.

A Link

Today's This Modern World is particularly inciteful. Tom Tomorrow is brilliant regularly, but today's is particularly good. Check it out.

Your Weekly Rush

Well Rush was pretty focused on being attacked by the left and on the 2nd amendment this week, but what stuck to me was some comments on environmentalists on Friday. I thought it would take this chance to teach you further the secrets of being a commentator.

First step, neatly divide the world into two categories--the good and the bad on an issue. Ignore all differences or subtle variations. Neatly whittle reality down to black and white.

Second, place yourself neatly in the good category.

Third, ensure that your audience knows the most bizarre, or damaging or questionable viewpoints of any member of the bad side. Also act like these bizarre viewpoints are the viewpoints of everybody in that group. Any member of that group that goes against these view points is simply hypocritical.

In the environmental arena, Rush admits to two groups of people who care about the environment. People who want clean air and clean water and environmentalist wackos. I cannot think of a time when Rush has supported any specific group campaigning for clean air or clean water. In fact, it strikes me that he usually takes the corporate side in any conflict.

So any environmentalist movement or speaker will immediately be referenced to the twin extremes of environmentalism.
The twin extremes are those who are opposed to eating meat and those who believe the earth is doomed unless we eliminate two thirds of the population of earth (or just the population of the United States given our consumptive ways). These are two extremes, and certainly the environmentalist movement could do a lot better at selling itself.

But Rush is pretty comfortable telling his listeners that all environmentalists want to take away their hamburgers, destroy their economy, and give your children a more pinched uncomfortable life.