The oceans no longer protect us. The terrorists are coming over any minute to kill us all in our beds. They are a ruthless enemy who hide in caves until they suddenly decide to strike without mercy. But they have an achilles heel. They are all suffering from serious memory problems. Unless they see it in the paper they forget that we are tapping telephones. Then they slap themselves in the forehead and say “Oh no! I’ve been calling my friend Mohammed in LA planning that awesome terrorist attack and like, totally fergot that the infidels are listening in. Fuck. Man, Zawahiri is gonna to be so pissed.”
This is why it was so horrible that that the NY Times revealed the program. It jogged the terrorists’ memories and now they won’t use their phone and e-mail accounts anymore. Until they forget again, that is. So, shhhh. Loose lips sink ships.
Note: I’m not sure the following is entirely cooked. Consider this three quarters baked. Or less.
Mahablog has a bunch of links to opinions about the cartoon riots. And links to some opinions about the opinions.
In a different post, Barbara links to Juan Cole’s comments on the matter and as always they are interesting. Juan believes, among other things, that there something akin to an economic thing at work here. That’s ’cause Muslims, many if not most, live in Third World countries and communities. In short, in part it’s the rich and well off ridiculing the poor.
Maybe.
But as I recall, during the Satanic Verses flap (which in many important ways, I think, the cartoon riots do NOT resemble), Khomeini was in the midst of some serious domestic problems – bad economy in Iran, enormous number of deaths in a futile war with Iraq. Rushdie’s book was the perfect deflection. Similarly, Saudi Arabia had some very good reasons to stoke the controversy. During the recent haj, some 350 Muslims died. Now if the cartoons were published in September, why in late Jan/early Feb is there suddenly such shock, shock? In short, the cartoon riots are part of a Wag The Camel strategy.
Maybe.
And maybe Atrios is ultimately right, that the right to ridicule Muhammed must be defended, but the decision to do so is open to serious question. Especially given how tense things are presumed to be between the West and Islam.
But while Atrios’ take is as close to mine as I’ve read, what seems behind all the craziness is pretty deep stuff, deeper than a first glance might seem. I’m gonna go through my steps in coming to my own somewhat different conclusion, complementary to Duncan’s.
I must confess my Inner Contrarian was the first to react. No, not less but even more offensive cartoons! The world needs more mockery of Muhammed and Islam, I thought. The more they’re mocked, the less power the mockery has and that’s good for everyone. The more it’s mocked, the less sensitive Muslims will become to every slight. The worst thing to do in this situation is to declare ridicule off limits. It makes Islam above human reach, like the acts of Zgriertwrw (the substitute word for the name of the US president, whose name has become too holy to be uttered by non-Republicans).
But then I thought more about Art and Morality. Soundbite version: It simply isn’t art’s job to teach anyone a lesson.
True, it’s not art’s job to be polite. If it was, there wouldn’t be Michelangelo’s David, let alone the poems of Baudelaire, or the late recordings and performances of John Coltrane. And it is certainly not art’s job to make a culture less sensitive and passionate.
But then I flipped that all around and a glimpse of a personal opinion on this mess started to occur to me. If it is not art’s job deliberately to console, it also is not art’s job intentionally to piss anyone off. The dissonances in Monteverdi’s madrigals were not deliberate provocations, as many thought. It’s simply what he heard. Stravinksy wasn’t trying to cause a riot with Le Sacre. He was furious, not happy for the publicity. An artist, if s/he’s really an accomplished artist, doesn’t seek to anger. What a monumentally trivial objective!
In the case of the cartoons, it seems as if they were commissioned for moral reasons, to illustrate a point of view, propagate an ideology – freedom of speech impinged upon by Muslim objections. Their existence was not drawn from some internal kind of inner aesthetic impulse (people have argued for hundreds of years what’s meant by that kind of a drive and I’m not gonna go any further now to define what I mean) but from without.
In short, the cartoons are art to teach a lesson. But while the artist can control his/her brushstrokes, the reaction to art cannot be controlled. In moral art, the reactions are often far from ones the artists desire. Put another way most of us who’ve read the Inferno stop right there. I’m sure the good parts are wonderful, but I think I’ve already read the really good – ie, lurid- parts.
And that’s sort of like the problem with my initial impulse. I, too, wanted to teach those sumbitches a lesson – who, exactly? I dunno, those sumbitches. And that’s just like the newspaper that originally published the toons. But, as I thought through what I was saying, I realized it’s not my business to teach anyone a lesson and that thinking it was is nuts. Gut feelings are very often not good.
Now, perhaps a bit of a digression but it really isn’t. A bit of detail on the use of moral themes in art.
Some great artists have conciously worked with moral themes in art today, to try to come to terms with it. One of the greatest masters of the trend is – irony of ironies – the Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier. His masterpiece, “Breaking the Waves,” (don’t rent it, see it in a theater where you can’t escape) is both a deeply moving affirmation of Catholic faith and a harrowing, pornographic rant against the superhuman sacrifices required to live a life truly in imitation of Christ. You can easily conclude that art as the mediator of morality has not been deconstructed but eviscerated in von Trier’s work. But you can just as easily see in the fate of Emily Watson’s character the redemptive, sacrificing love of Christ and the good that can flow from it. And that’s just for starters in trying to approach this amazing, impossibly aggravating film.
Von Trier’s film is shattering, insane, magnificent, fiercely ambiguous, sublime. By intent, Lars makes you seek your own sense of morality within the structure and actions of the film. And just as intentionally, you are doomed to fail. This isn’t a paen to relativism or amorality. Rather, for von Trier, it’s something like the point of the Book of Job: the moral compass of humans is too puny to grasp God’s greatness and thoughts. But while you’re on this doomed journey of moral discovery, you just might think to wonder how your sense of good and evil gets shifted and twisted and turned inside itself. And if there is a “good” in the film, it’s that sense of wonder. An aesthetic sense. The sense of art. It’s an exhausting experience to watch Breaking the Waves. And unforgettable.
By contrast, the Muhammed cartoons are, morally dull, even by their own admittedly less high-falutin’ standards. And the reason is obvious after a bit of thought. The intention behind them is not to work out some kinky artistic/personal problems. No, the intentions behind the cartoons were those of the self-righteous Western mediocrity and they couldn’t be clearer – let’s show Them free speech is a good thing.
Wow, that’s taking a controversial position! But much to the amazement of the Danes, they found that it actually was. And this is what makes the cartoons indefensibly awful, even stupid. Unlike Stravinsky, for whom teaching moral lessons was the last thing on his mind; unlike von Trier, whose control is simply awesome over fiendishly complicated moral themes; the cartoonists and their editors set out, like the naive, idealistic Kevin Costner in the Untouchables, to do good. They got their asses handed to them.
So here’s the point of this long digression into von Trier, aesthetics, et al.
Why do the cartoon riots remind me of Paul Wolfowitz and George Packer, who seemed to have nothing to do with it? For a very simple reason. The same perverse sense of entitlement and exceptionalism underlies the anti-aesthetic impulse of the editors: Let’s do some good! This is not to argue for a crude Scowcroftian realism, but rather to protest, strongly, against the insanity of making simplistic moral/political statements either in art or in foreign policy. A lot of the time, they just make things worse. A lot worse.
So to sum up. Yes, on the level that most often should be addressed – the practical level – Atrios is right and that’s as far as anyone needs to go. Of course, the rioters are, at best, grossly overreacting and at worst, have been driven insane by those that provoked them to overreact. Of course, free speech needs defense, and of course commonsense propriety was in short supply in the newspaper’s newsroom. But underneath these self-evident truisms lies a sad truth that bears some thinking about. The events of the cartoon riots, in all their mad senselessness and fatal tragedy, reflect – epitomize – some of the worst but most virulently widespread presumptions of our time: the arrogance and shallowness of white boy moralizing; the maniacal self-destructive sense of sheer helplessness that descends into pointless murder, destruction, and horror.
As I see it, both the decision to commission and publish the cartoons and the riots that followed simply defy comprehension not because one couldn’t predict the consequences but because one could, with depressing ease. Unless they come to their senses, the white do-gooders are gonna get us all killed in their crusades. And the recipients of all this do-gooding are gonna do the exact same thing when their fury at the do-gooders is cynically stoked and channelled into senseless destructiveness and murder.
In short, no more cartoon riots. No more cartoon editors. No more cartoon evil cavemen. And no more cartoon American administrations. It’s time not to listen to what our gut says, it’s time to give it some alka-seltzer and get it to shut up so we can think.
I’m beginning to wonder if the Democrats might not have some information that the administration has done domestic surveillance without a warrant. They keep asking. Pointedly. And Gonzales keeps saying that he isn’t “comfortable” acknowledging the question.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that this administration would use this illegal surveillance program for purposes other than that to which they have admitted, particularly since they consider political dissent to be bordering on treason. This is, remember, an administration that has made a fetish of the politics of personal destruction. The gathering of “oppo research” is the life’s blood of their political strategy and it goes all the way back to the Big Kahuna.
At a seminar in Lexington, Kentucky, in August 1972, Rove and Robinson recounted the Dixon episode with considerable delight. They talked about campaign espionage, about digging through an opponent’s garbage for intelligence — then using it against them. Robinson recounted how the technique had worked well for him in the 1968 governor’s race in Illinois when he “struck gold” in a search of an opponent’s garbage. He found evidence that a supporter had given checks to both sides in the race, but more to the Democrat, Sam Shapiro.
“So one of our finance guys calls the guy up the next day and told him there was a vicious rumor going around,” Robinson said, according to a tape recording of a seminar. “The guy got all embarrassed and flew to Chicago that day with a check for $2,000 to make up the difference,” he said.
This was the summer of the Watergate break-in, with the first revelations of a scandal that unraveled the Nixon presidency.The Watergate burglars broke in to the Democratic National Committee offices on June 17 and the whole business of political dirty tricks was rapidly becoming a very sensitive subject. Both Rove and Robinson recognized that. They even specifically mentioned the Watergate break-in at the seminars, not as a reason to avoid campaign espionage, but as a reason to keep it secret.
“While this is all well and good as fun and games, you’ve really got to use your head about who knows about this kind of thing.” Robinson warned.
“Again in those things, if it’s used sureptitiously in a campaign, it’s better off if you don’t get caught. You know, those people who were caught by Larry O’Brien’s troops in Washinngton are a serious verification of the fact that you don’t get caught.”
Remember: Watergate was about bugging the Democratic National Committee. The “3rd rate burglary” was to replace an illegal bug that had been planted on the telephones of prominent Democrats.
The lesson of Watergate for the chagrined Republicans was that they needed to be more forceful in assuming executive power and they needed to be more sophisticated about their campaign espionage. This is what they’ve done.
Anybody who even dreams that these guys are not using all their government power to spy on political enemies is being willfully naive. It is what they do. It is the essence of their political style. This is Nixon’s Republican party and they have finally achieved a perfect ability to carry out his vision of political governance: L’etat C’est Moi. If the president does it that means it’s not illegal.
I’ve been digesting this morning’s hearings and I am dumbstruck by the totality of the Republicans’ abdication of their duty. These men who spent years running on Madisonian principles (“The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse”) now argue without any sense of irony or embarrassment that Republican Senators are nothing more than eunuchs in President Bush’s political harem. They have voluntarily rendered the congress of the United States impotent to his power.
I’ve watched this invertebrate GOP caucus since 2000 as they submitted themselves to this lawless administration again and again, shredding every bit of self respect, every figment of institutional pride, every duty to the constitution. The look in their eyes, which is somehow interpreted as strong and defiant by the equally servile media, is actually a window to empty little men who have given up their manhood to oblige their master. The only reward they seek is unfettered access to the taxpayers money for their own use.
We are looking at fifty-five of the most powerful people in the country. Collectively the Republican Senators represent almost a hundred and fifty million citizens. And they have allowed a callow little boy like George W. Bush along with his grey eminineces Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to strip them of their consciences, their principles and their constitutional obligations. What sad little creatures, cowardly and subservient, unctuously bowing and scraping before Karl Rove the man who holds their (purse) strings and dances them around the halls of congress singing tributes to their own irrelevance at the top of their lungs. How pathetic they are.
Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.
Update: Oh, and don’t get excited about Huckleberry Graham’s “tough” questions. This is his schtick. Going all the way back to the impeachment hearings, he has done this. He hems and haws in his cornpone way how he’s “troubled” by one thing or another until he finally “decides” after much “deliberation” that the Republican line is correct after all and he has no choice but to endorse it.
Update II:Matt Yglesias notices the same thing and wonders why the senators don’t have a hunger for pwoer. I say it’s because they are craven, bedwetting cowards who are afraid of Karl Rove and addicted to stealing from the American people.
I’m watching the NSA hearings and it occurred to me: did the UK and Spain “declare war” on terrorism or al Qaeda? After all, they have been attacked as well and I wonder if they are operating under wartime conditions or wartime laws. Dores anyone know whether we are the only country in the world that considers itself “at war” with terrorism in the literal sense of the word?
One who attended was George Terwilliger, a deputy attorney general in Mr. Bush’s father’s administration, who said that questions over the spy program were “not so much a debate about the law as about the tactics that are necessary to combat the type of violent enemy we’ve never confronted before.”
He added, “I hope the A.G. will make that point very strongly, that there is no precedent for what we’re dealing with here.”
I’m hearing everywhere that the Democrats are skittish about pursuing the NSA scandal due to the GOP’s aggressive framing of the program as necessary to protect the American people. It is indisputable that Republicans have been very successful at portraying themselves as strong and Democrats as weak on national security for more than 40 years and have used this issue aggressively in the last two elections. Indeed, the only time we won the presidency since 1964 was during times when national security was not on the agenda (or their president was forced to resign in disgrace.) They have appropriated certain master narratives about heroism and courage to define Republican leadership which they sell as necessary when the country is under threat — a threat which they also insist upon defining as existential (communism and terrorism) and which always requires brute force rather than strategic cunning or intelligent maneuvering. (Remember that at the country’s most dangerous moment in the last 50 years — the Cuban Missile crisis — the hawks insisted that the only answer was to launch a pre-emptive strike while cooler heads insisted on trying to figure out a way to step back from the brink.)
So, knowing this and knowing the Rove has been telegraphing that they plan to pull out their wellworn playbook once again, I’m throwing this out to you readers today to mull over and discuss. Since the Republicans have been successful in winning elections on national security, how should Democrats deal with it?
Normally, in articles like this one, another dispatch from the front lines of the extreme right’s War On Brains. a quote packed with the usual lies of the extreme right is reproduced without context or fact checking. This gives the reader the impression that the facts are basically right and therefore what the fanatic is saying may be a reasonable, even if unusual, opinion to hold:
“I got tired of people calling me and saying, ‘Why is my kid coming home from high school and saying his biology teacher told him he evolved from a chimpanzee?’ ” Mr. Buttars said.
This time around, however, the reporter, Kirk Johnson, was permitted to be a genuine reporter and report the whole truth, not just be a quote puppet. The very next paragraph reads:
Evolutionary theory does not say that humans evolved from chimpanzees or from any existing species, but rather that common ancestors gave rise to multiple species and that natural selection — in which the creatures best adapted to an environment pass their genes to the next generation — was the means by which divergence occurred over time. All modern biology is based on the theory, and within the scientific community, at least, there is no controversy about it.
Yes, exactly. The only thing that’s remarkable about this is that this kind of apropriately critical attitude is rare. The lies that the extreme right and radical christianists spew out as a matter of course can only be stopped from polluting the discourse if they are met immediately and head on.
This article has the right idea. Someone might wanna inform their colleagues at the Book Review that reviewers and essayists, too, are obligated to know enough about their subjects to separate fact from fiction and not be seduced into a bogus equivalence of value by rightwing lies no matter how confidently asserted.
An while you’re at the NY Review of Books (NOT the Times Book Review), check out, among other great pieces, Thomas Powers’ review of James Risen’s book, “State of War.”
Our energy is misdirected if we fight harmless beliefs in angels or intelligent design. There are antiscientific illusions with far more serious repercussions for society. Among these are the continuing belief in ballistic missile defense; or an irrational fear of terrorism when alcohol, automobiles or suicide pose much greater risks. On these fronts, you will find practicing scientists engaged.
The front against creationism is fought mostly by science philosophers, because intelligent design is fodder for their discipline, and by science educators, because creationism infringes on their professional activity.
He makes some good points, but he is utterly wrong.
The reason is this: although I can see how someone might develop an argument that, say, fear of terrorism is irrational, I disagree. At the very least, it’s quite arguable whether a substantial level of fear of terrorism once your town has lost some 3000 citizens in a single day is rational or not. The comparison of terrorism stats with alcohol deaths, et al is specious – for many reasons, this seems apples to oranges to me.
Reasonable people cannot disagree about “intelligent design” creationism. It’s garbage, the same way Star Wars is garbage. But it is not a harmless folk belief. Far from it.
ID is a carefully crafted strategy, extravagantly funded by the most extreme elements of the religious far right, to undermine science. Destroying science is but one front in an openly declared struggle to replace the American republic with a theocracy.*
And indeed, to drive the point home as to how important it is for scientists to combat fake science of the IDiotic variety Atrios points to an article with excerpts from a memo that actually circulated within NASA. There is much that is distressing in this article, but it is this part I want to focus on here:
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA.
Get it? This fight is not about what kids learn in high school. This is a knockdown drag out fight – no, this is a culture war – in which the extreme right is trying to re-define science as just one more set of religious doctrines. This crap about the Big Bang, discussed in all seriousness in a government document!, comes from the the wackiest fringes of religious fundamentalism, people who think all of particle physics is a lie and what constitutes the universe are not quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on, but Jesus. I kid you not. This bizarre comic strip is not a parody.
Ominously, the notion that somehow science is just one more set of equally believable opinions about the world, no different than say, astrology, has just been made legitimate in the Times Book Review:
neo-Darwinists [sic] emphasize natural selection, a god-like mechanism
This is so utterly wrong I’m at a loss for words. The reviewer not only doesn’t know a damn thing about modern evolutionary science. He doesn’t even know basic theology.
Thomas Aquinas hedged his bets, saying that astrology might have a deterministic interpretation when applied to people in large populations, but that individuals, in communion with God, are freed from the bondage of the group. This aptly parallels the relationship between Newtonian mechanics
It does not.
quantum physics, in which individual particles are allowed the luxury of free will.
This is bullshit, even in an informal sense, even in an attempt at wit.
Popular astrology, with its simplistic emphasis on sun signs and their psychological traits (e.g., Geminis are fickle; Virgos are meticulous), is a wan replica of traditional astrology.
Bullshit. “Traditional astrology” in terms of accuracy and validity is just as bogus and arbitrary as “popular astrology.” There are just more levels of bogosity.
But astrology can also be seen as early science, an attempt to understand nature.
Bullshit. That would mean that any and all creation myths or crystal ball gazing are just crude, early forms of science. This entirely misrepresents what science actually is, and how it differs from creation myths and crystal ball gazing.
Modern man can choose from a veritable smorgasbord of Type 1 errors: string theory, neo-Darwinism, cosmology, economics, God. Astrology is as good as any…
Bullshit. This reviewer doesn’t know the first thing about any of the topics in his list.
There has been a great deal written about the faked memoirs of James Frey. The Times itself has printed editorials deploring the author. But somehow, a genuine peabrain who hasn’t met a fact or an idea that he can’t scramble beyond any recognition – is he, perhaps, this guy using a pseudonym? – was permitted to review in the Book Review, and the paper published it without bothering to run it past a single scientifically literate person who would immediately spot the omnipresent fraudulence.
*I have documented every single assertion, and every single adjective within these assertions far too often to repeat them. Anyone seriously interested in the details is welcome to pick up Forrest and Cross’s “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” which goes into enough detail for most laypeople. Any comments attempting to excuse or advocate for the “worth” of “intelligent design” creationism will be ignored by me in the comments. Even before Dover, that was not an argument intellectually honest people could make with a straight face. After Dover, there are no excuses to give it the time of day.
[UPDATE: Mark in SanFran over at Kos] fills in some details of the science, and some background information on the reviewer of the astrology book.]
It’s now official. There’s no point in denying the rumors any longer; we knew they were true long ago. Our very own Michael Berube is none other than the Keith Richards of Academe. Congratulations, Michael! No false modesty now, you’ve earned it. You deserve the title. I hold my lighter to the sky in your praise.
Who sez Berube’s Herr Professor Keith, the inimitable virtuoso of chalk in Open G? No greater an authority than David Horowitz does. Yes, THAT David Horowitz (and I’ll be fried in Crisco before I’ll give him a link). David says so in his new book called The Professors, listing the 101 most dangerous college profs in America.
Close that slack jaw, buster. It’s real, I saw it with my own eyes last night in a store (didn’t buy it, natch). Think I could make something like that up? No one in their right mind could begin to imagine a book about academics that endanger America with their ideas. (Um…Better move right along before anyone notices…)
And in said tome, betwixt pages 71 and 73, we can learn all about the evil Berube, his darkest, his grooviest, his most Keith-iest transgressions:
1. How he supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban but then relapsed into standard leftist opposition to war when it came to Iraq.
2. How he teaches a class in creepy postmodernistical deconstructionalistical what-have-you, during which Berube makes the case that sane laws and ethics devolve from people and not from attempts to discern the commands of a divine, supra-human will. Never you mind that sounds a lot like the argumentation in the Declaration of Independence. David Horowitz says this is evil. And David knows a lot about evil. (eh… well, as I was sayin’)
3. Michael Berube dilates in class. That’s right, it’s there in black and white in David’s book, look it up. Michael Berube dilates in class.
Who knew? In fact, I’ve met Prof. Berube twice for dinner and concerts and I never guessed. Again and again, I stared straight into the eyes of one of the most dangerous professors in America. He stared back. I stared. He stared. We both stared. I could swear he never dilated. Not once.
Now, you might ask, “Did he ever get up, excuse himself, and say, ‘I’ll be right back, gotta dilate’ ” ? He did not.
The closest I came to seeing anything remotely like dilating occurred just after dinner. Professor Evil, with a sideways glance worthy of Cary Grant in Notorious, reached into his sports jacket and pulled out a dangerous looking metallic device, flicked it open with a wrist motion that bespoke hundreds of hours of intensive practice, mashed a few buttons and then muttered some cryptic words into it that sounded suspiciously like, “Hey, howru? Jamie ok?”
But everyone knows that’s “dialating” and Horowitz was quite specific. Berube dilates. Daily. And in class, no less.
So it’s official, Michael Berube is fookin’ dangerous. And, just as Keith is proud of his reputation as the Bad Boy of Rock, Michael, too, should take this as a badge of honor. I’m thrilled to know one of the most dangerous men in the country. Let me say it ever so loud and proud. I want the world to know:
I stand completely behind Michael Berube.
(Obviously. Because if I stood anywhere else, who knows what I might get hit with when he dilates?)
Will there be an award? Will Michael unite with his old band at the ceremony, will the songs sound as fresh as the day they prematurely split, and will they reunite for one last tour of triumph, selling out Albert Hall and the Garden? Stay tuned.
PS As mentioned, I didn’t buy the book and I didn’t have much time. So, perhaps there are more of my buddies listed, both in the blogosphere and in MeatLand. To all of you, my heartfelt congratulations.