Tag Archives: Muslims

Christians Riot Around World.

Catholics in Italy and in Spain, Orthodox Christians in Bulgaria, and many others in Scotland and South America rioted Thursday. They were triggered by the reports  that a fragment of papyrus suggested that Jesus the Christ was married.  Christians in several African countries burned down mosques with worshipers inside after looting the shops of Muslim merchants

The report incensed several varieties of Christians because it is a major article of faith among Christians that the Savior did not partake of the pleasures of the flesh (as marriage sometimes implies).

Elsewhere in the world, two Oslo rioters where shot dead by police trying to protect the embassies of Muslim countries. In Helsinki, ever-fanatical Lutherans tries to set the Egyptian Embassy on fire because the papyrus fragment in question originated in Egypt. One Finnish rioter declared that the new Islamist government of Egypt  concocted the blasphemous story or, at the very least, that it failed to censor it. Other rioters joined in to proclaim that the papyrus should have been suppressed out of respect for the Christian religion..

7 Comments

Filed under Bitching, Current Events, Short Stories

The Thundering Silence Of Muslims: Important Correction to Response to a Friend.

A good friend of mine who is not a Muslim has been living in an all-Muslim country for several years.

He responded briefly by private email to my oped: “Levelling with Muslims” . He says pretty much the following:

The highly educated rational and internationally oriented Muslims I know simply refuse to go around affirming to the world that they are not (violent) jihadists. Besides, they think it’s useless,that they have already been adjudicated guilty by the court of western public opinion.

I hope I am translating my friend correctly. If I don’t, I hope he will correct me and do so promptly.

But I don’t know of any public clamor that request of ordinary Muslims to prove that they are innocent. My own oped does not require this at all. Perhaps, I was not clear. I have to give myself another try.

It is also simply not the case, even after hundreds of acts of jihadist terrorism world-wide since 9/11 that westerners assume all Muslims are more or less fanatics. This may be surprising but I think most Americans who are other than Muslim tend to give everyone ample benefit of doubt. However. Muslim silence, at home and abroad erodes this tendency. This erosion is not conducive to peace.

I would like to know that my friend’s Muslim friends are talking about moral responsibility. I would like to know that they are talking to one another and to those less well situated educationally. I would like to be told that many are disgusted by the criminal barbarity of murdering envoys in Libya. I would also like them to take a position on this kind of question: Is it a greater sin (or crime) for Muslims to bomb from the air apartment houses occupied by Muslim families with small, children in Aleppo or for non-Muslims to mock the Prophet Mohamed? To what extent does Islam require that the faithful get killed and kill policemen to protest blasphemy against a man of faith who took care to insist that he was only a man, with no shred of sacredness attached to his person?

The only way I will know whether this sort of conversation is taking place among Muslims is if Muslims or those who live among them, such as my friends, say it loud and clear.

I would like many Muslim voices to say loudly and clearly about acts of terrorism by those who call themselves Muslims: This is not done in my name. This is contrary to my religion.

What their governments tell me for their own reasons, I discount heavily. I want to hear Muslim civil society if and where there is one

I hear barely a whisper.

Muslims are telling us in practice: Leave us alone. Our everyday life is difficult enough. We merely want what you want. We want a chance to build our lives and to raise our children without interference. Those Salafists, those violent jihadists, we have nothing to do with them. They are your terrorists as much as ours.

Sorry, they are not. If Lutherans started bombing other people’s churches because they did not like their beliefs, if Baptists blew up car bombs in front of hotels to protest child baptism, if Catholics cut caricaturists’ throats because of cartoons of Jesus Christ, you can be sure that loud Lutherans, Baptists, Catholic voices would be raised in clear denunciation.

I repeat what I advanced in the previous essay: Peaceful Muslims are not clear in their hearts about right and wrong. That’s why we don’t hear them, even under the cover of anonymity. My oped “Levelling with Muslims” has had dozens of hits from predominantly Muslim countries and from countries such as India where here are many Muslims. Not a peep! Please, tell me I am wrong.

Of course, anyone can answer me and perhaps prove me wrong by posting a pertinent link at as Comment on this blog.

Update one day later: My friend says I did not render his statements properly. I think I did. I invited him to post corrections here in any form he wishes, in English or in French.

Update and correction on 9/21/12

My friend eventually  sent me links to four French newspapers  each of which led to op-eds by writers with Muslim names that indicated a clear attachment to freedom of expression while they disparaged the violent mob actions in several Muslim countries and the murder of the American personnel in Benghazi. My friend said it took him little time to find those items.

Then, I asked him if conversations about the importance of freedom of expression vs blasphemy were also taking place in the Arabic language press. In response, he sent me a link to what he said was an op-ed in Arabic dealing exactly with the topic of my question. He invited me to use one of the on-line translation tools. I was not able to open this last item. The fault lies entirely with me, I am sure, with my bad computer equipment and with my shamefully bad skills. I read nothing into it, of course.

So, at this point, I stand partially corrected. Contrary to my allegations, people with Muslim names do condemn the alleged reaction to the alleged blasphemies of that Internet video. The evidence available to me however all seems to come from France. It makes sense when I think about it.

As a colonial power in Africa and in the Levant, France has  had a Muslim immigration for a long time ago. It seems to me that this makes it possible to have Muslims and descendants of Muslims who have lived in the French context long enough to be appreciative of freedom of speech and of other allied freedoms.

Nevertheless, a leader of a French Muslim organization asked the French government recently on television to do the needful to ensure that Islam enjoys the respect that Muslims have a “right” – “le droit” to expect. A little wobbly, still! The French constitution does not accord a right to respect anymore than does the US Constitution. The French cabinet minister who answered pointed out that courts of law -rather than the executive  branch- where the proper venue to pursue such matters. Lately, the French have shown us how not to be weak-kneed. What do you know!

By contrast with the French case, the immigration of significant numbers of Muslims into the US is relatively recent. American Muslims and Muslims who live in America have had less time to become acculturated to the freedoms associated with democracy. Or, it’s possible that American institutions don’t do as a good a job as do French institutions in this respect. Subjectively, that would not surprise me, by the way.

At any rate, I still don’t hear or read of Muslims, or especially, of Muslims that seek to represent other Muslims condemning the assassinations and the riot. Fouad Ajami had a good piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. You can always count on him to be the voice of reason and lucidity on Middle-Eastern affairs. Somehow, I don’t think he speaks for many Muslims. I could be wrong. I hope I am.

At this point also,  I have no evidence that the defense of freedom of speech against religious fanaticism is currently taking place in any Arab country or, indeed, in any Muslim country. (And, again, it’s not because my friend did not try.)

Incidentally, I wonder how many predominantly Muslim countries even bother to guarantee freedom of speech in their constitutions or in their other basic laws. It goes without saying that I will immediately publish here any response that contradicts my suspicion in this respect.

In conclusion: The impression that started this oped, here on this blog, has been partly falsified. An important fraction of my initial impression has been successfully  contradicted because someone took the trouble to respond. I stand corrected.The Internet world is enormously better than anything preceding it. Nowadays, no one is condemned either to drag around the same old fallacies for a lifetime or to become an expert in whatever is ailing him. Others are able to come to the rescue credibility and the world is little bit better for it, maybe. I only regret that  none of the fair number of readers who look at this blog from Muslim countries has commented. I understand that in many cases, they have good reasons to fear intervening. I wish them well all the same.

But, I ask again: Is it a greater sin (or crime) for Muslims to bomb from the air apartment houses occupied by Muslim families with small, children in Aleppo or for non-Muslims to mock the Prophet Mohamed?

I would like the response of a religiously well-educated Muslim.

25 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Socio-Political Essays

Levelling with Muslims – Updated 10/11/12

The Obama administration, as did  to an extent the Bush administration before it, and now even Rep. candidate Romney, all persist in not levelling with the Muslims of the world. I have some readers in Muslims countries so I will do it myself. I hope they will pass the word.

1 Our government pretty much operates withing the bounds of a short constitution written and adopted a long time ago. It’s not just a fiction as the world’s mental adolescents tend to believe. It’s a reality. The main word here is “bounds” imposed on government action.

2 Our constitution unambiguously protects blasphemy and blasphemers.

What separates our moral tradition in that area from Muslims  is not a little ditch as American governments and the pussy-footed State Department bureaucrats would sometimes have you believe. It’s a Grand Canyon.

It’s not that we don’t understand the  pleasures and merits of prohibiting and punishing blasphemy. We tried it. For several centuries, our ancestors burned people alive for small deviations in belief. They did it with an enthusiasm never seen in Islam. Then, we decided that any restrictions to freedom of expression destroyed both human happiness and human progress. Shortly afterwards Christian and formerly Christian societies began forging ahead of all primarily Muslim societies. No exception.

We don’t imprison or otherwise punish artists who blaspheme the mainstream religion of our country, Christianity, when they place a crucifix in a bucket of piss or use elephant shit as material for a religious object pertaining to the Virgin Mary. Our governments are equally impotent to condemn a movie leader you happen to find insulting. How deeply or strongly your feelings in this respect are  is completely irrelevant.  And if you try to punish those who so offend you, you are breaking our laws and you become liable to our punishment.

More on the movie leader below.

The early  apology the US Embassy in Cairo apparently issued unfortunately suggests that our diplomatic personnel is not that clear about our constitution. It’s a good emanation of the Obama administration in this respect. Let me re-affirm it: The US Constitution does not protect the right of Muslims anywhere not to be offended. It protects every American’s right to offend anyone, including Muslims.

The President is not a jihadist and he is not a Muslim as some conservatives persist in affirming. He just does not know what to do or what to say in the current crisis, as he does not know what to say or do in connection with the economic crisis. I told you this before he was even elected: He never had a job in his life; his grades are in hiding. Why wouldn’t he be out of his depth? The best he said, he said it about candidate Romney and it would wonderfully apply to himself: He shoots before he aims.

One fear lurks in my heart though: If President Obama manages to kill any violent jihadist leader he can present as somehow responsible for the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and for the murder of the US ambassador, I think he will be re-elected as a brave war leader( and my indignation will strangle me).

As usual, our liberal elite demonstrates a deeply anchored ignorance of anything foreign. Secretary Clinton, soon echoed by Senator Feinstein ( one of the few Democratic politicians I like), wonders how the violent jihadists could do it to us, in the very country and the very city, Benghazi, we helped save from bloody destruction.

Ms. Secretary, Ms Senator: That’s why they did it.  First, the Salafists, extreme jihadists, played a minor part in the liberation of Libya from dictatorship. They were upstaged by the same  infidels who recently dispatched their figurehead in Pakistan.  Their collective credibility was at stake.

Second, Ms Secretary, Ms Senator, there is no reason to believe that  the violent jihadists respond to our own behavior in any way except the way I describe above. They don’t kill us because of what we do, they kill us because of who we are. They also kill Middle-Eastern Christians, Jews, and Shiite Muslims because of who they are. Their ideology comprises no reason to stop waging war until they have conquered the whole world for a reborn Islamic Caliphate. Some are willing to die in the service of this grand cinematographic endeavor. But, incidentally, if you think about it, the number really willing to die is quite small in relation to one billion Muslims (take or leave one hundred million).

On the absence of a relationship between what we, America, do and what violent jihadists try to do to us, you might read a long oped by Husain Haqqani in the Wall Street Journal of 9/14/12. He is a former Pakistani ambassador to the US and currently a professor of international relations at Boston University. His  name suggests he is not a Lutheran.

More silly waste of time among our hapless pundits: Was the attack in Benghazi planned? You bet! Even in Libya, people don’t go to a peaceful demonstration of protest carrying automatic rifles and grenade launchers. The day was 9/11, the right time to strike the imagination of the undecided, perhaps the right time in their reading of us to strike fear in Americans again. The indignation about the blasphemous movie trailer provided excellent cover. The terrorists got lucky this time. (They have not had much luck in the past nine years, let’s face it.)

All the same, the question can’t help arise about the origin and the function of the said blasphemous bit of a bad movie, a sure object of provocation for the wider Muslim world. The 9/13/12  Wall Street Journal has a piece tracing it to Coptic Christians (Egyptians Christians ) living in the US who falsely attributed its production to a non-existent Israeli also living in the US.( Le Figaro echoes this thesis the next day.) The seemingly silly cover could be in fact a smart cover.

First, I have trouble imagining Copts doing something like this under their own power, with millions of their relatives serving as hostages in an excited Muslim Egypt governed by Islamists.

Second, I can’t help but notice that if I wanted to cast the Arab Muslim world in a bad light, I could hardly think of anything better than the said film. By insulting the Prophet Mohammed, you can always make Muslim Arabs riot on command. It never fails. It’s like pressing a button. If I wanted to renew and improve American public opinion support for a strike anywhere in the Middle-East, I would fill American television screens with  screaming, murderous Muslim mobs setting fire to American embassies. It never fails: Insult the Prophet – Riots – Cause Americans to dislike Muslim Arabs. I don’t believe much in conspiracies but I am willing to consider the possibility, especially when they don’t require large numbers to keep a secret.

Finally, I want to examine briefly a continuing mystery. All media, including Fox News, love pictures of Embassies going up in flames. But, in fact, when I listen carefully, I find that all the reports I receive in English or in French refer to “hundreds” of rioters in any given country except possibly Egypt. Rioters reportedly set fire to the German Embassy in Sudan. (Sudanese rioters may simply not know any more geography than your average American high-school student. Don’t cast stones from inside your glasss-house!) Rioters in Lebanon burned a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise while under the impression that Colonel Sander is a great Christian prophet, I assume: tit-for-tat, no more Mister Nice Guy! The international display of rage would all be rather pathetic were it not for the assassinations of four Americans. That’s the only thing giving the display a measure of gravitas.

The mystery is the deafening silence of Muslims who are not violent jihadists themselves and of the institutions that present themselves as representing them. Our television capture Muslim Arab masses acting like savages and they say nothing. I am tirelessly stating that I have know Muslim Arabs all my life. On the average, they were kinder, gentler, easier to get along with than the Christians and the Jews in my life. (But the free-thinkers and atheist were the nicest of all.) People who would not raise a hand to swat a mosquito seem to contemplate with equanimity highly public disgusting behavior that is certain to increase the Western prejudice against them. Why ?

I am not a theologian but I suspect that the  bulk of the answer lies  in the Muslim doctrine of takfirism. To simplify, I am sure terribly but, I am equally sure, usefully, the doctrine says this:  When a Muslim (singular) sees something wrong being done, it’s his right and his duty to intervene to stop the wrong. No consultation with others, just with one’s conscience; no worries about “taking the law into one’s own hands,” that’s what the doctrine tells  you to do; not much room for  consideration and re-consideration.

I think few Muslims are literally takfirists. However, the same Muslims who find it difficult to  swat a mosquito find it even more difficult to condemn takfirism. That’s because the doctrine of takfirism is tightly bound with what is most admirable in Islam, the religion. I mean its extreme moral individualism: No excuses, no hiding behind a “church,” no Talmudic discussion of fine points verging on recommendations for inaction, no lace-adorned Pope in Rome interceding on your behalf, no  sacred singing to distract, no forgiving congregation, no pastor assuring you every Sunday that God has got your back.

We, Americans, however, are mostly not takfirists at all. I don’t know how many American Muslims are. I don’t know how many Muslims who live in American are. I don’t really care.  Terrorist guided y takfirism will equally murder,  and with a light heart, the children of Muslims and of Christians and of Jews and of non-believers. We must destroy those who destroy us and even those who say they want to destroy us, and those who help them. That’s irrespective of why they want to kill us, that’s irrespective of  some stupid, badly made Internet movie; that’s irrespective of whether someone in this country committed blasphemy or not. Again, blasphemy is unambiguously protected under our constitution. Bad taste is our birthright. It’s worth fighting for.

If you are a Muslim or a non-Muslim resident of a mostly Muslim country, and if you can do so safely, please leave a comment. You can be completely sure your comment will not be censored. (I have no procedure by which I can filter comments on this blog. ) Feel free to use a pseudonym.

UPDATE 10/11/12 Testimony before a Congressional Committee on October 10th demonstrated that the murderous attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was not preceded by nor associated with a spontaneous riot. There was no link between this event and the video insulting to the Prophet Mohammed. It was simply a terrorist act to celebrate the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York. My instincts were right. I am not bragging; I am wondering why the media’s understanding is so befuddled. Could it be political bias that blinds them?

14 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Socio-Political Essays

A Family-Plus Outing

I am at the beach in that state of dreaminess that watching children playing in the wavelets on a warm day induces. I am keeping an eye on my lovely and tough grand-daughter who is three. She is doing interesting things in the shallows of a Pacific Ocean that’s not too cold for once.

My eyes are drawn to a small girl in a short wetsuit who looks a bit like my grand-daughter from a distance. But the girl is both smaller and older, maybe around five. And she is a blonde with very white skin while my grandchild has apricot skin and brown hair. (It’s a long story, another one! Let’s just say that she has Indian blood, from India, that is.) The little fay stranger holds a tiny boogie-board in both hands and fiercely throws herself into the small waves brandishing the board in front of her. This goes on for a long time without the girl ever coming close to catching a wave. I can only admire that strange little girl’s determination. She seems even tougher, even more determined, than my grand-daughter and that, has never, never happened on that particular beach, not once!

There are plenty of parents at the water’s edge keeping an eye on their offspring. I notice from the corner of my eye a woman who is looking at the little girl from a fair distance. I guess she must be in charge of the girl. There is something strange about the putative mother though. She is covered from head to ankle and she wears a full hijab, the Islamic head covering, and there is even a straw-hat on top of of the hijab. I inch close to her because I am a conscientious social scientist. Soon, it becomes obvious to her that I am watching a little girl in a wetsuit as is she. I smile at the woman and make some anodyne comment. She answers calmly in an equally meaningless way. She has said enough for me to notice that she has a foreign accent that sounds more or less French. I ask her in French if she speaks French. She responds in the same language in a sing-song accent but with perfect fluency. She says she is Romanian. The Romanians I meet all speak good French, even once a traffic cop in Bucharest, a long time ago. (That’s in a story published in the periodical “Liberty.” ) I can’t see any of her hair but the veiled Romanian lady has bright blue eyes. Hence the little girl’s coloring. She adds that her husband knows French very well because he is from Morocco. (Most Moroccans get most of their schooling mostly in French.)

In the meantime, two boys, seven or eight or nine, in full wetsuits, approach the little girl and talk to her kindly in a language I don’t understand. I just know it’s not Romanian. They handle her sweetly for a little while. The youngest boy plants a kiss on the girl’s cheek. The two boys are rather dark skinned and they both have brown hair. They could be my grand-daughter’s siblings in fact. Do you see where this is going?

Then, the Romanian lady begins looking outward, toward goings-on in the bigger waves, one hundred yards off the beach. A man in a bathing suit is frolicking there quite competently. This draws my attention because I seldom see a man over twenty-five in water over his head, and almost never one who does not wear a wetsuit. Few contemporary American men seems to be competent ocean bathers. Or those who are all take up surfing and never show up on family beaches. And others may be competent but too lazy or too wussy actually to swim in our cold central California ocean. It’s remarkable because I see women swimming in simple bathing suits fairly frequently.

I notice that the man the Romanian lady is watching is not alone. He is in the company of a woman who also seems to know what she is doing in the waves. That second woman is also clad in a full Islamic outfit. A hijab that must be tightly held to her hair by numerous pins covers her head. She seems dark-skinned. From a distance, she appears attractive. You can tell she has a slim body. She does not swim much but it’s obvious that she can and it’s obvious she enjoys the fairly big waves. After a while, the man and his woman companion do what loving couples often do in the ocean when they think they are far enough. They feel each other up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man had attempted to prove to the woman that the cold water had not diminished him. It all looked familiar to a habitual beach-goer like me except the woman’s outfit, of course.

After a while, the mermaid leaves the water and goes with a beach-bag toward the building where you can change. The man also comes out of the water after a little while. He exchanges a few words I don’t hear with the Romanian lady. Then, he walks toward me a with a friendly smile. He offers his hand and introduces himself as a Moroccan. Not to brag but I already guessed this, down to the town where he had lived in Morocco. (Rabat, on the Atlantic Ocean where there are big waves and the water is on the cool side.) He and his family have been in the US for nine years. They live in Santa Clara (in Silicone Valley). And no, he is not associated with the large Islamic center there. He is an accountant. I don’t want to pry. I tell him I used to be French. He is a little puzzled, a little interested but his peripheral vision grasps something that draws him to the spot where the children and the lady swimmer, now changed into long dry clothes, are sitting.

After a little while, he ambles back to me holding a metal mug full of very hot, mint flavored Moroccan-style tea. When I am finished, I am smart enough not to walk to his spot to return the mug. (I keep telling you I am a distinguished social scientist!) The two hijab-covered women and the three children are now bunched together on the warm sand. The man comes back to me with a half of a Moroccan cookie. And then, he returns to pick up his mug.

The Moroccan accountant has been more than friendly. He has been more cordial, has shown greater hospitality than would come forth with Americans casually met at the beach (and Americans are almost always very friendly at the beach except when they are drunk which makes them territorial). Yet no intimacy has developed at all between me, a man alone with a small child, and the Moroccan family. He has kept me at a distance while befriending me. Any contact with another man who is not a relative is haram for certain kinds of Muslims. It’s simply forbidden, even on a beach, even in California. I don’t know the Moroccan’s name though he knows mine. We will not contact each other again as is common here among francophones after a chance encounter.

There are several stories in my story. First, a polygamous family is thriving in our midst. It resides in this paragon of modern life, Silicone Valley. How they manage their family life from a legal standpoint, I don’t know. But there is probably no California law preventing a man from living under the same roof with both his wife and his mistress. (The main reason non-Muslims like me seldom try it is simply abject fear of their wives.) There is obvious affection between the children from the two wives. Of course, I don’t have the answer to the main and louche question: How do the wives get along? Yet, I noticed that they wore outfits of similar colors, grays and blues. It’s not far-fetched to guess that they might borrow clothes from each other, like sisters. Their common husband seems perfectly at ease. In the short span of our tiny conversations, he used the words, “my wife” with respect to both women in turn. No explanation necessary, he thought.

Second, America is open-minded and California is both open-minded and excessively cordial. Relax! The old underlying charges of racism and xenophobia against Americans have become absurd. They have lost all their currency in my lifetime.

Third, I am pretty sure that there are not native-born Muslims in Romania. Have not been for at least a century. (A Romanian reader of mine will correct me if I am wrong on this point. He corrects me on everything else, so, why not?) The blue-eyed woman Mom with the hair veil is a convert to Islam.

Fourth, something happened to me on that beach (again). I am realist. I know that more than 9/10 of terrorist acts worldwide in the past twenty years were committed by people who called themselves Muslims. And all terrorists acts against America and Americans. The connection with my beach acquaintances is fairly straightforward, I think. Islamic garb is not a fact of life, it’s a chosen part of a chosen life-style. The choice also constitutes a forthright rejection of my civilization and of some of its central values. Notwithstanding what silly feminists want you to believe, central among those central values is the Western belief that women are full human beings. Full adult human beings are sexual beings. Any repression of the harmless affirmation of their sexuality is an attack on my civilization. Sex repression is repression; it’s usually the first repression, in fact. As I often affirm, with practically no contradiction: Show me a woman who never acts a little sluttish in her appearence and I will show you a repressed woman or a depressed woman.

There is more: When they are allowed to, women everywhere advertise their wares. Often, they even do it where they risk their lives by doing so. That’s hard-wired behavior. I has to be. That’s the normal way and the natural way for women to attract a mate. Where this path is closed, women are the object of arranged marriages. Mostly, with arranged marriage frequently goes the status of women as chattel. To a large extent, it’s either cleavage or slavery.

A combination of crass ignorance and of benevolence causes many Americans to believe that Muslim women who wear full Islamic garb, including the hijab, are just following their religion. It’s not so. The Koran says nothing about women covering their hair. Neither do the oldest hadiths, the most valid sources by Muslim jurisprudence. The Koran simply recommends in general terms that women be “modest.” The people on the beach have decided to follow a certain brand of Islam. To believe otherwise is to affirm that the millions of Muslims women who dress like my sister are all, without exception, bad Muslims. That’s ridiculous. The rejection of my civilization implicit in female Islamic garb is deliberate, aggressive, in my face

And polygamy is rare today in the Islamo-Arab world. It’s especially rare in the middle-classes. There might even be only one Moroccan accountant in the whole world who is a polygamist and I know him! Although it’s explicitly allowed, polygamy is considered backward. It’s also a conscious rejection of the modern world I inhabit and in which millions of Muslims reside happily.

Next linkage: Do violent jihadists recruit from social milieus where women act just like Methodist Americans, or yet, from that part of Muslim society where young women wear crotch miniskirts (I have seen those)? Or do they focus their recruiting attention on the men from families where women are covered from the top of their heads to their ankle and where a man may have four “Moms”?

And here I go again, I have to tell you what I did not say. I did not say that all, or most, or many hijab wearers engender terrorists. Or that polygamists do. I would bet good money that the extended family on the beach are not terrorists and are no aiding and abetting terrorism in any tangible way. What I did say is that terrorists are unlikely to come from groups were women go bare-headed and from women who have one husband each. So, I have every reason to detest that particular brand of Muslims. That’s the brand whose very appearance proclaims that they dislike and feel contempt for my world. In fact, I am ready to dislike them on sight and I am suspicious of them. Men whose women wear the hijab I suspect of being capable of routinely committing horrendous crimes against women and little girls, with the approval of their brand of religion. And mass murder is only one of those crimes and not necessarily the worst crime.

So, did the chance meeting on a Santa Cruz beach change my mind about anything? No, it did not as the last paragraphs above indicate. The encounter, and the kindness of a mug of tea and half a cookie have done something to me though. Together, they have smoothed my angles. They have made my potential hostility less potent, at least for a while. It did not take much. And it always works out that way. I have known Muslims all my life. I can’t remember a single individual Muslim I disliked. A handful of Muslims are close to my heart as I write. Over the years, my liking of individual Muslims has murkied up my analysis quite a lot. Also, and I doubt the polygamist was thinking that way, I would bet he was not because a strong sense of hospitality is a big part of Arab culture but, if his hospitality had been an intended investment in peace, it would have been a good investment.

I wonder if our own national policies are ever based on the same model. I wonder if any part of our federal government understands the art of rounding off angles, of smoothing relations with small gestures. When I was in Morocco, five years ago, Dolly Parton and Ray Charles traveled in the taxis with me and they walked though the souks alongside me. I am hoping that the State Department or any branch of the federal government is handing out fifty cent music CDs through the Arab world the way the polygamist handed me a mug of tea on that Santa Cruz beach.

Note: Of course, I will publish integrally on this blog any comment or, at least any comment that is not an appeal to crime. I welcome especially comments from Muslims. I may add my own comment to any comment, of course.

20 Comments

Filed under Socio-Political Essays

Osama, Obama: He is not really lying

The fact that the administration ‘s story about the death of Bin Laden keeps changing does not mean that it’s hiding anything. Liberals and progressives can’t think straight. That’s why they don’t get the simplest messages such as : “Don’t spend more than you have,” and “Don’t wait for the guy who keeps shouting he hates you to hit you, hit him first.”

Incidentally, the difference between liberals and progressives is that the former, by and large, would like what they affirm to be the truth. The latter don’t care because their end justifies the means. I asked one of my progressive Facebook “friends” last week whether he thought that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s a straight question. It should allow for a straight answer. He responded with a torrent of sentences, some about things I did not no know anything about. At the end, there was no answer to my question. His name is John Wolfe. Look him up for a sample of dissembling. I don’t mind give him the publicity for educational purposes.

LeftThought is so twisted, left-wingers often cannot espouse the logical consequences of their own assertions. Here is a current one. In World War Two, we killed about 500,00 uniformed Japanese soldiers to destroy the hideous hyena that was militaristic Japan. None of those soldiers received legal counsel, none had a fair trial. Most were conscripts. Many had not killed anyone. Mostly, their mistake is that they did not offer to surrender. Yet, when one man brags on the world media about killing thousands of Americans and thousands of others (many of them fellow-Muslims), when he proclaims loud and clear his intention to kill more, when he explicitly targets civilians and incites others to do the same, when he does all this under cover of darkness, out of uniform, outside the boundaries of a properly constituted army, a part of the American Left wants to extend him constitutional guarantees devised to protect the innocent.

When you point out the mental confusion inherent in such a stance, they never hold their ground. Quickly, they change the subject to the many crimes of America in general and of the Bush administration in particular. (Of course, current events in the broader Middle-East demonstrate with blinding clarity that G. W. Bush was right all along.) My main point here is that the problem we are facing with a big segment of the American Left is not this or that policy they favor but a cultural problem. They prize neither logic nor facts. Their overall understanding of the world is a mental health pathology.

Note that I have not said a thing about Democrats in general. The Democratic Party is comprised of several segments. These include most African-Americans, who would vote Democrat if Democratic Party leaders were lynching them. (Lest you think I am being gratuitously outrageous here, remember that they used to do exactly that.) Then, there are genetic Democrats, people who vote for the party because their grandfathers did. (Let’s be honest, there are genetic Republicans too.) Then, there are the many union rank-and-file who are simply voting their bread and butter. Many of them are normal on every other issue. They just have a blind spot when bread comes up, and another one for butter. Many are patriots nevertheless. Finally, there is the hard, collectivist left-wing that has been trying to capture the Democratic Party for forty years. That’s Obama’s Left. Those are his friends and his entourage. They are the bearers of the perverse culture I alluded to above. Our universities overflow with them (although most college professors are only knee-jerk liberals.)

I am perplexed by some of the commentaries I hear in the media about Bin Laden’s untimely demise. Even some conservative pundits use the word “assassination.”  Makes it sound nasty and it’s false. It was the killing of an enemy during an on-going war. Bin Laden never sued for peace; he had ten thousand opportunities to surrender. He might even have been able to negotiate his surrender. His choice! Wrong choice, or right choice, depending on what you want from life. Remember that the same thing happened to 500,000 Japanese soldiers. What’s the underlying thinking, I wonder. If you are famous, you shouldn’t just get killed?

I also keep hearing left-wing commentators allude darkly to the Geneva Conventions. I haven’t looked. I wonder if they say anything about someone not in a regularly constituted army acting on behalf of a state killing civilians on purpose while out of uniform. I don’t need to look. I am ready to bet that if there is any mention of such scum, the Conventions say: not covered.

Personally, I have only two comments. As I have said before, disposing of the body was a big mistake. They should have frozen it to answer ulterior questions. The White House is so silly, it probably really believed it showed Muslims respect by dumping it into the sea. In fact, Muslims religious authorities with no dog in that fight immediately commented that so-called “burial at sea” was completely disrespectful for Muslims who have died either on land or close to land. Some people manage to have their cake and eat it too. President Obama manages to have his soup of bitter herbs and to eat it to. All the same. He gave the order to pull the trigger. Not many on my side would have bet before-hand that he would do it. Give credit….

My second comment is that the SEALS who conducted the operation are even more disciplined than they are rumored to be. Me, I would not have resisted the temptation to shoot him in both knees and then, to gut-shoot him. It’s not fair how easily and how quickly Osama went.

Now, a sad commentary about the aftermath of the announcement of Bin Laden going on to his reward. I have written several times on this blog and I have said several times on my show that I have known Muslims all my life and that I have hardly ever met one I did not like. (My radio show “Facts Matter” is on KSCO Santa Cruz 1080 AM. It’s on every Sunday from 11 am to 1 pm. You can catch it on-line.) These cordial relations are not enough to make me close my eyes or my ears. As always, I pay attention to what did not happen. All the heads of state and heads of government of Muslim nations made all the right noises after the death notice. However, my attentive monitoring of the media did not show me any popular celebration in the same countries, not one. Remember that Bin Laden and those he inspired have murdered many more Muslims than Americans non-Muslims. His being rub off the surface of the earth should be enough of a cause for celebration among Muslims. That it’s not requires an explanation

It seems to me inescapable that this absence reveals the following moral calculus among many Muslims, I think, perhaps among most Muslims: Killing Americans is a good thing. Killing Muslims is kind of acceptable if the killer killed enough Americans. Nobody is perfect! I hope I am wrong. I hope someone will show me in logical terms the absurdity of this analysis.

There is a good piece relevant to this discussion in the May 7/8 Wall Street Journal (p. c2) by Irshad Manji. Its title speaks for itself:  “Islam Needs Reformers,  Not Moderates.”

I don’t see why American Muslims who hate Islamist terrorism haven’t yet formed something like a league of  “Muslims Against Terrorism.” It would help dissipate the confusion of people like me if I am, in fact, confused.

I also keep hearing ad nauseum that the killing of Bin Laden is not going to stop terrorism. It gets repeated to the point that it sounds almost futile to have accomplished this long-sought goal. That’s stupid. Al Qaida is a classical charismatic movement. Its leader is an essential component even if he had become only a symbolic figure. The fact is that there have been Islamic fundamentalists for one hundred years. They did not get their act together to mass-murder infidels until the regretted Osama showed them the way.

One more thing: The media are irresponsible in their lack of fact- checking. They don’t even look at their own images. Bin Laden was not living in a “mansion.” He was living in a large, ugly concrete house such as there are thousands of in that part of the world, including India. And it wasn’t worth a million dollars. You could buy its neighbor for $100,000. It’s a small thing but it means that powerful news networks are not paying attention.

PS   Yesterday was Cinco de Mayo. It’s official in most California schools, I believe. No one with whom I crossed paths in the two days preceding could tell me what the celebration celebrated. Anglos couldn’t, Mexican-Americans couldn’t, and Mexicans couldn’t. The latter were able to inform me of what it wasn’t, however: not Mexican Independence Day. I am the only one I know who knows, apparently. Read up on it. It’s a strange story.


8 Comments

Filed under Current Events

The Fat Women and Bill O’Reilly

I was going to leave behind that storm in the tea-cup but it won’t go away. It’s there, on the TV, in front of me every time I go to the gym. Besides, it may have a cultural meaning, or several meanings, after all. So, here it goes:

Last week, the television host Bill O’Reilly got into a tangle on “The View.” It’s a morning show for women. (More below.) What happened is that two of the three fat women show hosts walked out on him because of something he said. They walked off their own show, like that!

First, O’Reilly. He has an evening television program that’s very popular, one of the most popular in the nation, and his simple-minded books are bestsellers. He is a blow-hard, not very well-informed, a little obtuse, and stubborn. His English is uncertain although he obviously spends his morning coffee time reading the dictionary. He is also clearly an Irish-Catholic prude of the worst kind. With all this, O’Reilly is very effective when he decides to right a scandalous situation nation-wide. Several times, he has put the fear of God in lazy, or malevolent, or dishonest state legislatures and forced them to do the obvious or the obviously needed. He used forthright terror in each case and named names.

Now, “The View.” As I said, it’s a women’s show. It comes on a ten on the Pacific Coast. (That’s why I catch it a the gym and only there and then.) It’s designed by women for women. The hostesses are five women. One is Barbara Walter, an old journalist who has been over-rated all her life. Yet, she is a reasonable women although lacking in general culture. She has had the immense good sense to invest her large media earnings into her continued good appearance. She looks nearly as good as she did twenty years ago. I respect that. Barbara is a classical moderate DC liberal. The second hostess is a fairly foxy blonde who plays the token conservative very well although her lack of bulk is probably a handicap. The three other hostesses, one white, two black, are fat. They are not “somewhat overweight” like most of us, they are frankly fat. None of the three could buy her clothes in a department story if she had to. One is a brassy New-York-sounding woman whose name escapes me, and it does not matter. She wears maternity clothes year-around. The other is a black woman with a pretty and sweet face and a sweet disposition most of the time. She often displays common sense. The last member is Whoopi Goldberg, a very large black woman who used to be a good actress. She became a media person years ago by making shocking statements no one expected from a black person. She learned to be an African-American white upper-middle-class oral radical with little ghetto on her.

The show consists of these five women giving their opinions and discussing them among themselves, mostly about events on the front page of USA Today and in the evening news. There is a formula to the show, I think: Four parts of “same young actress arrested for DUI, and male celebrity beating up live-in girl-friend for the nth time;” one part political happening. They are not well-informed on anything they discuss; their opinions are without interest; their conversations are superficial to the point where it’s painful. The show is quite successful as I said. It’s Lifetime Channel masquerading as information.

I realize this all sounds bitchy. It’s bitchy, fairly so, but not especially condescending to those who watch The View, or O’Reilly for that matter. I too watch trash, almost every day in fact.

O’Reilly, known to be a fairly abrupt guy, was discussing the planned “Islamic Center” near Ground Zero with the women, who had invited him. At some point, he said, “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” That’s what caused two of the three fat women to walk off their own show for a few minutes. Here is a logically parallel statement:

“A dog bit me.”

Apparently, we are not supposed to make this kind of simple declarative utterance anymore. Instead, we are expected to say something like this, “A mean dog- that is not representative of dogs in general – bit me.”

See the ridiculousness. Of course, we should let not such bullshit pass, ever. Rational people must not submit. They must piss on political correctness wherever they encounter it in daily life. I do my bit every morning, right downtown of the People’s Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz. The girls at the coffee shop ask me discreetly, “The usual?” “Yes – I confirm- give me an Americano in a non-recyclable paper cup. Make sure it’s not fair-trade coffee. I like my coffee beans grown by scrawny, sickly little indigenous farmers.” I feel that, with this bit of satisfying childishness, I contribute to collective sanity.

The View is so successful because it performs an important social function many smell but no one talks about. The bulk of its attraction is its bulky women. Let me explain.

Most American women have trouble with the Green Dragon. Who would not? The media they watch, their movies, the women’s magazine they have to look at at the hairdresser ( or at the “spa”) overflow with young women, and with other not so young, displaying impossible body geometries. Many actresses are so improbably designed, they would not fly if they were airplanes. Things were not always like this: Take a good look at pictures of Marylin Monroe in her glory days and you will see a woman of modest proportions whose flesh hinted slightly at flab. There was no trace of muscle on that woman. Had she not died so unfortunately, she would have entered shortly into her physical decline. She was very attractive, I think but she was an attractive flash in the pan by today’s standards. Why,today, the epidemic of female pulchritude on our screens is ever spreading! Even television journalists with a law degree and a former career would have won the bikini part of the beauty contest in 1960. It does not seem fair!

The main thing to remember is that feminism has failed utterly in its overt message: Women want to be sex objects, not less so, more so than before because of the progress of leisure time. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at any Virgina’s Secret product and ask yourself if the company is successful.

So, if you want to have a morning program, and therefore, one squarely aimed at women, you face a severe dilemma. On the one hand, you have to provide many stories about the usually loopy behavior of highly sculptured media and movie female stars. In addition, you must talk about the villainous conduct of even more finely sculptured male stars. The first one procures a chance to say, ” tsu, tsu, tsu.” The second gives women opportunities to enjoy the sensuous pleasure of indignation: “What an absolute pig!” That’s a sure recipe. It’s been followed forever by (morning) soaps, the Life Time Channel, and all American general women’s magazines but one (Vanity Fair.)

On the other hand, the constant exhibit of supernatural beauty leaves ordinary women high and dry and it puts a bad taste in their mouths. As we know, women in America are often harried by too many different tasks and most are overweight, and increasingly so. And those I would not consider overweight in my limited, silly male vision consider themselves overweight anyway. So, what to do: You administer a drug that is habit-forming but that makes the users unhappy in the long run?

The answer given by The View is original. It stages fat women doing the right thing during the short segments of the show that deal with serious issues. You chose fat women who will invariably disapprove of what’s wrong, who support what’s right, who are always on the side of common liberal decency. You chose loud women, like Whoopi Goldberg (who is also articulate). You chose them mostly black as a mute but strong demonstration of the inherent open-mindedness of the show. It’s not that their corpulence is tolerated or ignored. Rather, your spokeswomen for all that is right and against all that is wrong have to be fat.

The View gives fat women everywhere gravitas in lieu of the stunning, ravishing, man-annihilating fantasies they would probably prefer.

18 Comments

Filed under Cultural Studies, Current Events

Zionist Agents Blow Up Muslim Sacred Site, Again!

We have become inured to Islamist atrocities, especially when they take place in far-away places, especially when the victims are Muslims. Just imagine the following headline:

“Two Calvinists Blow Up Catholic Shrine in France, Killing Themselves.”

Difficult to imagine, right?

Two young men blow themselves up in southern Pakistan. They blow up a Sufi shrine at the same time. The Sufis are one brand of Muslims. The homicidal bombers were either another kind of Muslims or they were from the Christian minority amounting to 0,0000001 % of the population. That’s unless they were half of the four Jews still living there, of course.

It’s all George Bush’s fault, naturally, if you look into it carefully. Or maybe,even probably, the bombers were Zionist agents.

I have to speculate like this because everyone knows that Islam is a religion of peace. When are American Muslims ever going to come out of the closet?

4 Comments

Filed under Current Events

The “Ground Zero” Mosque Issue Clarified

First, it’s not at Ground Zero but nearby. Small exaggerations make conservatives lose credibility. That’s what the other guys do. We must refrain. Second, there is no way to forbid the proposed mosque from being built that is both constitutional and legitimate. Conservatives protest rightly when any level of government abuses zoning laws. Let’s be consistent here.

The issue is not one of permission by civil authorities but one of a debate that should be taking place within the American Muslim community but is not.

American Muslims and their spokespersons are being judged, probably for a long time to come. Rational and moderate Muslims should be the most loud voices opposing the “Córdoba” Center. Here is why.

Its designated imam does not want to condemn Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group. I think it is. The US State Department has officially designated Hamas a terrorist group. My opinion does not matter much (but it should matter some to Muslims). However, when it comes to terrorism, freedom of speech should be self-limiting. There is no constitutional guarantee to express the belief that murdering Jews – or anyone – is a sacred duty. This is one of these cases where if you are not with me, you are against me. The imam is an enemy of the US irrespective of what services he may have given to US governments in the past. He should be treated as an enemy.

The imam also said that this country should be ruled to a greater extent by Sharia, Islamic law. In several parts of the world, adulterous women are stoned to death in the name of Sharia. Others merely receive one hundred lashes of a whip, enough to kill a frail woman. By the way, under some or all interpretations of Sharia, an adulterous woman is a woman who has sex with someone to whom she is not married. That would be nearly all the single women in my town of Santa Cruz. In some cases, still under Sharia, some victims of rape are further punished for adultery. I am not making any of this up nor am I generalizing unduly. That’s one interpretation of Sharia. If the imam does not squarely denounce that particular interpretation of Sharia as barbaric and criminal, he is the enemy of most Americans. There is no ground for reconciliation at all. Hating such an imam is not intolerant, it’s a moral duty. It’s a moral duty for Muslims as much as it is for me. If they don’t, they are my enemies too and they don’t deserve any tolerance.

The leader of the group of developers involved is on the record stating that he doesn’t rule out accepting Saudi money for the project. That’s wrong. Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Malaysian, Indonesian funds are fine. Saudi money is unacceptable until there is an official Christian church somewhere in Saudi Arabia to serve the tens of thousands of Christians who work there, and until there is a synagogue. The synagogue could be tiny, it could be an oversized, glorified closet somewhere; it would have to be called a synagogue though. Until the Saudis do the obvious, those who accept money from them to erect their own place of cult show disrespect for our values. I have no obligation to like them or to respect them. Neither do American Muslims who are very well located to observe and to appreciate the benefits of religious freedom.

So, it’s fine for any American to take sides and to denounce the Islamic cultural center planned near the site of the 9/11 mass murders by Muslims.

American Muslims have an even greater obligation to take sides and to denounce because each of their voices counts for two or three in this case. If they don’t, they will bring upon themselves the enmity of their fellow-citizens and a big wave of  what they stubbornly persist in calling “intolerance.”

As to what rank-and-file conservatives can do, here is the best proposal I have heard: Set up a large gay nightclub as close as possible to the planned Islamic Center. If there were a public subscription to facilitate such a project, I would gladly contribute. I would also like to see a charcuterie on the other side. That’s a French-style butcher shop specialized in pork products.

I defy anyone to raise arguments against these two small, private, peaceful proposals that do not also destroy the rationale for an Islamic center within blocks of Ground Zero.

For more opinion on this topic see on this blog:

Declaration on Ground Zero by Two Muslim Intellectuals,” posted 8/16/10.

18 Comments

Filed under Current Events

Jews Kill Muslims

Mass Demonstrations in Muslim Countries to Protest Assassinations of Muslims by Muslims.

In cities, big and small across the Muslim world, tens of thousands of demonstrators spontaneously gathered today to protest the casual mass killings of tens of thousands of Muslims by other Muslims in Algeria, Darfur (Sudan), Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.”

OK, I am messing with your minds. Never happened, never did, never will. This gives you a moral measurement device by which to assess the reaction to the killing of nine Islamic activists in a war zone. (See my earlier posting: “ Israel Attack; Gaza: the Background.”)

Keep in mind that the nine dead were all on a ship leased by an Islamist  (ist) Turkish organizations for the specific, announced purpose of breaking the blockade. Keep in mind that they were on a ship where a military inspection team was received with iron rods. If someone attacked you with iron rods and you had a gun, what would you do? Don’t get confused, that question is separate from the question of whether you should have been there or not. The fact is that the nine dead had deliberately put themselves at risk unlike, for example worshipers blown up by a car bomb thrown againt a mosque at prayer time, unlike Darfur women trying to collect wood to cook dinner for their children.

And what does their reaction say about the ever-pious Europeans? Do they think that Muslims routinely killing thousands, tens of thousands of Muslims is OK, well, sort of, you know, while Jews killings nine Muslims in self-defense is morally unacceptable? Old cultural habits die hard?  Blame the Jews! And Muslims are expected to act in a barbarous manner anyway, right? Much barely hidden contempt for the victims here.

5 Comments

Filed under Current Events

Profiling: How To

The President first said: No big deal! Then, he called it a “systemic failure” and a “catastrophe.” He was wrong the first time and half right the second time. There was no catastrophe but it wasn’t thanks to our huge, expensive, cumbersome and troublesome anti-terrorism bureaucracy. It was asleep at the wheel one more time. The catastrophe was avoided because of the terrorist’s own incompetence (or loss of nerve) and because of the presence of mind and courage of a Dutch traveler. (Am I making this up or do I detect a reluctance on the part of the big media to call a foreigner, “a hero”?)

What we have is not working well enough, Even when it works, it’s repellent. The inconvenience of security checks act as a brake on my willingness to travel by air. There is no reason to think I am the only one feeling that way. In response to the failed crime, the airwaves have filled with discussion of “profiling.” Every discussion I have heard treats profiling in terms of physical appearance. It would not be difficult to convince me that preventive physical profiling could be done effectively and should be done. Yet. I try to be sensitive to the sensitivities of others. It’s clear that many Americans find the idea of profiling based on physical appearance disturbing, or even unacceptable. There may even be good historical reasons for this rejection that I will discuss if anyone asks. It seems to me though that a big partial solution is staring us in the face that I have nor heard mention at all. And yes, it involves profiling, another kind of profiling.

On the one hand, a Finnish grandmother who belongs to the Lutheran church is about 35,000 times less likely to blow up anything than a 28-year old Muslim man from Yemen. Yes, I made up this number. The real odds are probably even less than that. On the other hand, international air travel requires certain documents, a passport in almost all cases. Passports show the age and name of the traveler,

Muslim males nearly always have distinctive first name and last names. Even when their last name is generic, their first name comes from a small list of Islamic first names. So, why not profile on the basis of sex, age and name? I mean, create a special security line at airports for all males under a certain age (I think, fifty), who have a Muslim name. Subject them to special scrutiny and frisk them physically or electronically. I am not referring here to any deliberately humiliating or gratuitously disruptive treatment, just to a businesslike standardize procedure. In fact, if such a measure were adopted, one could ease up the inspection of everyone else and all lines would probably move faster, including, the profiling line itself.

Objections to such a scheme are easy to predict: Predominantly Muslim countries would protest. We could call their bluff and point out that international relations are governed by the principle of reciprocity: tit-for-tat. There would be nothing to stop them for subjecting young Christian men entering their territory to equivalent treatment. Some Muslim men would no doubt choose to go elsewhere on vacation or to school than the US. That would be a negative consequence but a price worth paying to avoid millions having their freedom restricted forever without notable gain in their safety. Besides, some of the tiny number of would-be terrorists might also be dissuaded. (A column in the Wall Street journal just observed that there is apparently not an inexhaustible supply of jihad martyrs.)

Next, American Muslims would howl: “Islamophobia!” There are two answers to this accusation. One is that Islamic organizations don’t have a vote until such time as they come to their senses, stop denying reality, and shoulder a big share of the burden their misguided brethren impose on all of us. Shouldering the burden would involve first and foremost making concrete proposals to improve on our common danger from violent jihadists instead of crying “Islamophobia.” Right now, they are worse than useless. Two days after the Christmas Day foiled terrorist act, none of the following organizations had any comments on its website: Islamic Supreme Council of North America; Islamic Circle of North America; Council on Islamic-American Relations. The latter had, prominently displayed, an article about an old fake accusation against a Muslim traveler. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reported simply that Detroit area Muslim leaders did decry the bombing attempt and that they feared “retaliation” and the creation of a “climate of fear.” (Historical note: The fact is that not a single Muslim was murdered in America in retaliation for 9/11. My own very first spontaneous reaction on he morning of 9/11 was: What to do to protect local Muslims? My reaction was wrong, unwarranted.) The Arab-American Institute, an organization for which I have much esteem, had nothing. Al Jazeera in English had nothing by Sunday morning.

Here is a message about how to deal with protests from such organizations: It’s OK to punish mildly persistent collective irresponsibility. Being double-searched at the airport is a mild punishment.

My second response to the silly accusation of Islamophobia, is that allowing large numbers of Muslims to be killed without lifting a finger to protect them either is Islamophobia or, it’s worse than Islamophobia. The fact is that the hapless Nigerian traveling on the day of the main Christian holiday in order to explode an airliner over the largest concentration of Muslims in America (Detroit) was about to assassinate many Muslims. The young Muslim man subjected to the unpleasantness of double scrutiny at the airport will be protecting his mother, his sister and his children. As I keep repeating, violent Jihadists have murdered many more Muslims than they have Christians.

So, it seems to me that it’s simple to improve greatly on both our safety at home and on the chilling effect airport security measures have on our economic life and on our enjoyment of life. Someone is not doing his job or her job, not even thinking about it. And, by the way, nothing like the Christmas Day failed attack took place on Georges W. Bush’s watch.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, Socio-Political Essays