The President's Delusional History Lesson

President Obama's speech in Cairo contained a little history lesson... one that may surprise those who actually know their history. He said:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam... that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. ...

Islam? Islam carried the light of learning through centuries? The same "religion of peace" that violently persecuted those thinkers in the years prior to 1000AD who tried to adopt and teach Aristotelian philosophy? It was Islam, not a few Arabs drawing upon Greek philosophy, that is responsible for birthing the Enlightenment?

I strongly recommend that you head over to The Charlotte Capitalist blog and read an excellent and detailed historical account, drawn from multiple sources, that rips apart the President's despicable distortion of history. I'm sure his words played well with his target audience, stroking their fragile egos as they try to evade the fact that the only intellectual progress their culture made in all of history was due to ancient Greek philosophy. But he performs a grave disservice, and as The Charlotte Capitalist said, "It is a disgrace because it attacks not only the true tool of human progress (reason), but it attacks the philosophical and historical roots of the country of which he is president."

Ahmadinejad's Useful Idiots

In an Op-Ed for the Wall St. Journal, Bret Stephens provides an interesting argument that, despite superficial evidence to the contrary, Ahmadinejad's presidency has achieved a great deal for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Stephens describes how, without Iran "bending an inch toward the West" in its negotiating position on nuclear arms,

the Bush administration has gone from refusing to negotiate, to offering conditional negotiations, to pursuing low-level negotiations and now, lately, feeling its way toward tacit diplomatic normalization.

Above all, [Ahmadinejad,] you have given the world time to digest the notion that Iran will inevitably become a nuclear power, and that nothing can be done to stop it -- at least at any kind of acceptable price. Will Americans agree to open a third military front in the Middle East? ... How will the U.S. afford its epic Wall Street bailouts if you shut down the Straits of Hormuz?

Of course, this bleak picture raises the obvious question of where the fault for this lies. Is he some sort of magician, a super-statesman, or have the Bush administration and the American policy-makers and intellectuals conceded without a fight? Stephens answers:

Surely [Ahmadinejad,] your enemies will take no such risks. Which is why you're pleased that the more far-seeing Americans are coming around to your point of view. Look at former CIA spy Robert Baer. Mr. Baer has a new book arguing that the U.S. ought not "to stand in the way of Iran's quest to dominate Islam." He thinks Israel's nuclear arms should be put under U.N. supervision. He believes the U.S. and Iran are ripe for the kind of alliance Nixon forged with Mao.

It cannot surprise you that such ideas are now taking root with the American intelligentsia; useful idiots always contribute to the revolution. [bold added]

In our battle with the Islamists, it is clear that we are our own worst enemy. If capitalism and egoism were the guiding principles of our country -- not pragmatism and cultural relativism -- the sheer impotence of the threat from Islamists would be clear. In protection of our interests and the rights of American citizens, we could easily and righteously deal with the threats and wipe them off the map.

What we are left with instead is political and intellectual leadership that values international cooperation over individual rights, world opinion over justice, and the instant gratification of pragmatism over principles. When we abandon the ideas at the core of our defenses, even a backward and savage group of mystical thugs ceases to be impotent against us.

Those Americans who influence US foreign policy, from the State Department to academia, are faithfully following the pragmatist's playbook -- appease, appease, appease, OH NO! CRISIS!, appease some more -- and Iran just sits back and reaps the rewards. "Useful idiots" is tragically accurate.

Turkey Buys Some Time

I have blogged about the tenuous state of secularism in Turkey before, and now there is some slightly good news to report. As Scott Powell mentioned on his blog, Powell History Recommends, in April:

Turkey’s supreme court has accepted a case that could lead to a ban on the ruling party. The AKP party, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, though democratically elected, has a platform that contradicts the secularist tenets of Turkey’s constitution. If it isn’t stopped by the court, another military coup is likely to occur.

The court case Scott referred to dealt with the passage of a law by the AKP-ruled government that lifted the ban on headscarves worn in public institutions and universities. From CNN we find that the "good guys" won this round:

Turkey's top court has upheld a ban on wearing Muslim headscarves at the country's universities.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Turkish Parliament overstepped its bounds earlier this year when it passed constitutional amendments that would have led to allowing universities granting women the right to wear headscarves.

Why is this important? Because Turkey is in a pitched battle with itself, and its place in the Middle East as the most secular state around hangs in the balance (admittedly, that's not saying much). Says Scott in a great post that outlines the history of Turkey and its limping, crippled attempt to modernize (make sure to read the whole thing - this is but an excerpt):

By the time Turkey was formed in 1923, the educated Westernized intelligentsia still constituted less than 10% of its population. Most of the people were still agricultural peasants, and still under the sway of their local imams (”priests”).

Not surprisingly therefore, when Turkey’s great modern leader, Mustafa Kemal, came to power after WWI, he found that it was necessary to “force the people to be free.” He would establish a benevolent, secularist dictatorship, until a more stable foundation could be erected and the people could be entrusted to direct their own progress.

Primary and secondary education were secularized. Women were emancipated, and given access to all levels of education. All symbols of traditional submission, such as long beards and headscarfs, were eliminated within government institutions. Even the alphabet and the calendar were Westernized. Given such measure, within a few generations, perhaps, the people would be ready.

It may seem surprising that Kemal, and his successor Ismet Inonu, who were both oppressive dictators after a fashion, were indeed committed to freedom. They definitely crushed any opposition–often violently. Critics could be exiled, or just as likely hanged in public, while the reform program was imposed upon the people. Still, Turkey’s leaders continually tinkered with democratic forms, trying to expand the peoples’ participation in the government.

Sadly, they found them still incapable of understanding and defending their own freedom. In 1950, hoping that the time had come, Inonu allowed the first free elections to be held, and the incumbent regime was removed. From this point on, Turkey’s history is a dizzying, erratic succession of democratic and military regimes, with coups almost as numerous as elections. The army, the most westernized institution in the country, has repeatedly defied the majority of the population’s wish to re-inject Islam into the government. Most recently, a democratically elected Islamic party was ousted by the military in a 1997 coup, only to be succeeded by a new democratic regime whose leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also intends a shift towards Islamism.

The situation in Turkey is inherently unstable.

With the recent court ruling, reasserting secular practices on a divided people, it appears that Turkey has taken steps to slow its seemingly inevitable descent into Islamism. Without a fundamental shift in political philosophy, however, this is just rearranging deck chairs. Turkey is fighting the growing influence of Islamism, but the only weapon it has is the historical example Kemal. He established a "benevolent, secularist dictatorship," but there is no indication that the people themselves widely adopted those ideas. Secularism--not secular ideas themselves, but a particular set of commandments in the constitution viewed now almost as "revealed truth"--is now limping along from rote memory. Why maintain secularism? "Because we have always done so." Or, "Because Kemal said so." It's a reactionary response from entrenched centers of power. And that offers very little protection from a virulent, violent ideology like Islamism.

Afghanistan Explained

Have you ever wondered just what the heck is going on in Afghanistan? Why all the tribal warfare and the warlords? Why did the Soviets invade such a wasteland of a place? Why is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan so porous, and so amenable to Islamists?

For me, the first time I ever really tried to figure out anything about the country was right after 9/11. Prior to that, other than knowing vaguely about the Soviet invasion and pull out, I didn't give the country any thought at all. Even after 9/11, the information I was able to find was essentially random facts presented out of context. Things like the tribal nature of the culture and the mess on the Pakistani border were presented as if floating in the ether, meant to be accepted as "truths", though it was never clear to me why these things were so, and what, if anything we should conclude from them.

Well, if you have wondered about some of these things too, and want to get a good survey of Afghani history and some cogent observations about why things are the way they are, head over the Scott Powell's blog and read Afghanistan: Highway of Conquest.

NY Times Bemoans Downfall of Madrassa Principal

The New York Times writer Andrea Elliot has a new feature detailing the rise and fall of the principal of the Arab-language charter school started in Brooklyn last summer. This publicly funded school, the Kahil Gibran International Academy, has been discussed at length by Gus Van Horn. Gus points out the obscene nature of the people of New York City -- the victims of 9/11 -- paying to support a school where "the general expectation among many Arab language instructors [is] that their students are interested in converting to Islam."

Elliot takes a different view of the situation, however. The title of the piece really says it all: "Critics Cost Muslim Educator Her Dream School." From there, the rest of the article serves to paint the picture of the principal, Debbie Almontaser, as a frustrated idealist unfairly targeted by media and harsh critics.

Elliot and the Times characterizes Almontaser as a well-intentioned moderate Muslim who became the victim of circumstance, of a "well of post-9/11 anxieties," and of unscrupulous critics who characterized her as "a 'radical,' a 'jihadist' and a '9/11 denier.'”

The thing is, Elliot may be right in this. Almontaser may have truly wanted to start a relatively secular school -- as much as "normal" (i.e. Christian-leaning) public schools can still be called secular, anyway -- that was able to cater to an Arabic-speaking population. Many of her critics may have been out of line, calling her a terrorist, among other things. The media may have seized upon the controversy and burned her at the newsprint stake.

But none of that is really the point. The point is that on top of the fundamental problems with the entire concept of public education, this school adds insult to injury by using taxpayer dollars to fund a school that could easily foster Islamist ideas while teaching the Arabic language.

Despite attempting to present him in a negative light, Elliot does print detailed quotes from Daniel Pipes, one of the primary critics and director of the Middle East Forum, and the intelligent reader can go from there.

The danger, Mr. Pipes says, is that the United States stands to become another England [a la the Archbishop of Canterbury -ed] or France, a place where Muslims are balkanized and ultimately threaten to impose sharia.

“It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia,” Mr. Pipes said. “It is much easier to see how, working through the system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam.”

Mr. Pipes refers to this new enemy as the “lawful Islamists.”

They are carrying out a “soft jihad,” said Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a trustee of the City University of New York and a vocal opponent of the Khalil Gibran school. [links and bold added]

The Times article is a long one, and goes into great detail about the various troubles at the school, the media scandals, and details more of the criticisms by Pipes and others. But the overwhelming bias of the article is palpable, and Almontaser is presented as a tragic figure who could have created a "dream school" where the students would become "ambassadors of peace and hope," but for the fact that she "didn't get a chance."

It is this casual acceptance -- and even admiration -- by the cultural relativists of an Arabic-language school next door to Ground Zero that is so galling. Still, I would like to see the amount of public indignation described in the article also being raised about Spanish-language public schools, or better yet, the very existence of public schools in general.

It's hard to celebrate a movement to bring down an Arabic school to fight Islamist ideas taking root in the culture, when the much more insidious ideas of a "public right" to education are flourishing, sucking my pockets dry, and leaving my family with a scant few good options for education.

Other things, et cetera, and so on #5

An Airport Encounter

No, not that kind. A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew to Denver for a family wedding. On our return trip, we went through the obligatory TSA security check at Denver Intl. Airport. After collecting my things from the conveyor belt, I walked over to a row of chairs and sat down to put my shoes back on. I happened to be sitting next to an older gentleman who was also tying his shoes and getting all of his things in order. I didn't really notice him, as I was privately wishing -- as I always do -- that I could somehow learn to like loafers so I didn't have to waste so much time tying my shoes at airports.

As he finished, he leaned over to me conspiratorially and said under his breath "Damn Arabs!"

Startled, I replied "I agree," and with that he got up and walked toward the terminal trains and I didn't see him again. Then I was lost in thought for a bit as I wondered if we had meant the same thing. I questioned whether he had just distilled a long, principled line of reasoning into a sound byte to say to a random stranger in indignation at the state of our world, or if he was just a jerk and a bigot.

When I said I agreed with him, I was responding to the other thought that occurs to me every time I fly, namely that if we as a country would respond to Islamic terrorism in the appropriate way, then we wouldn't need to screen little old ladies' shoes for bombs. I don't have a problem with Arabs (how can you have a problem with an ethnicity?). My beef is with radical Islamists and the disastrous response our political leaders have given, and it was too difficult to gauge if that's what he really meant in the 3 second exchange. Thus I don't think I'd say "I agree" again.

Still, however crudely he phrased it, for a moment I thought we shared a common view. All in all, I'm sure that encounter affected me much more than it did him.

Around the Interwebs

SB over at One Reality has a very thought provoking post about the Pope standing in Yankee Stadium. I particularly like his characterization of the proper place for the Pope, and his ideas about the nature of organized sports as an example of advanced civilization.

RationalJenn is hosting the Objectivist Round Up, and she also got some great news about one of the cutest little girls I know.

LB posted a great Kipling poem that her daughter happily memorized! I'll certainly remember that one. With a line like "...Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it..." my kids will hopefully be reciting this poem one day. And I don't even like poetry.

Zawahri vs. Iran Exposes 1,300-Year-Old Tensions

From an AP article, we learn that:

Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, has stepped up his denunciations of Iran in recent messages in part to depict al-Qaida as the Arabs' top defense against the Persian nation's rising power in the Middle East.

I find this fascinating because it highlights that the animosity between Sunni and Shia that has existed since Mohammed's death in 632AD is alive and well, even when two of the most evil organizations on earth -- Iran and al-Qaeda -- have a common sworn enemy in America.

Just as the original conflict arose between two groups of power lusters vying for control in the vacuum left by Mohammed's death, so goes the battle between two power-hungry and fanatical groups jockeying for position in preparation for the American departure from Iraq.

Al-Zawahri appeared intent on exploiting widespread worry in the Arab world over Iran's influence, particularly in Iraq, to garner support for al-Qaida. At the same time, he sought to denigrate Iran's ally Hezbollah, which has gained some popularity even among Sunnis in the region for its fight against Israel.

In an audiotape last week, al-Zawahri denounced what he called Iran's expansionist plans, saying Tehran aims to annex southern Iraq and Shiite areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula as well as strengthen ties to its followers in southern Lebanon. He warned that if Iran achieves its goals, it will "explode the situation in an already exploding region."

The rhetoric is a stark change for al-Zawahri, who in the past did not seek to exploit Shiite-Sunni tensions. When the former head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was waging a campaign of suicide bombings against Shiites in Iraq, al-Zawahri sent messages telling him to stop, fearing it would hurt al-Qaida's image. [ed: WHAT?!?!]

Al-Qaida doesn't have the strength to launch attacks in Iran, but it intends to do so "in the future," [terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna] said. "If al-Qaida becomes strong in Iraq ... Iran believes al-Qaida in Iraq could become a major threat." [bold added]

This just rehashes millennia of conflict between the rival factions, and even evokes the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries (and beyond). There are no fundamental ideas at the root of the conflicts, and instead the fighting is grounded in power lust and fanatical religious whim.

The Iranians and al-Qaeda are more alike than they are different, and though they may squabble with each other, they are both hellbent on the destruction of the West. Here's hoping they simply blow each other up as their in-fighting intensifies.

Hugs for Hamas

Jimmy Carter is at it again, this time openly hugging a Hamas official in a pandering, disgusting "peace" mission to the Middle East.

Former president Jimmy Carter angered Israel's government yesterday by embracing a Hamas politician during a visit to the West Bank, ignoring Israeli and US designation of the Islamic militants as a terror group.

Israel accused Carter, the broker of the first Arab-Israeli peace accord, of "dignifying" extremists. But Carter vowed to meet Hamas' supreme leader this week in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace laureate, also laid a wreath at Yasser Arafat's grave, another break with US policy during a private peace mission to the Middle East that includes stops in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria - where the virulently anti-Israel Hamas movement has its headquarters. Carter returns to Israel on Monday.

Carter has been shunned by Israel this week [ed: Good for them!], and the White House has criticized him for his willingness to meet with Hamas leaders. Carter says the United States and Israel should stop isolating the group, whose control of the Gaza Strip threatens to undermine Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. [bold added]

In what I can only imagine is a lingering, intense but unidentified guilt at his appeasement of and ultimate failure to confront Iran during his presidency, Carter has now exposed himself to be a complete crackpot. We can only interpret his actions as either an evasion on a massive scale, or else openly anti-American. Perhaps it's both.

That he is seen as representing America in any way is a travesty, and it's a black mark on the history of our nation that we ever elected him president.

------------------------------------

Update: Myrhaf has posted a shocking Carter quote that you just have to see to believe.

Poll Says Arabs Don't Like Us

File this in the "stating the obvious with an air of discovery" folder. Care of Reuters and the Boston Globe, Sue Pleming informs us that:

Eight out of 10 Arabs had an unfavorable view of the United States and only 6 percent believed the US troop buildup in Iraq in the last year has worked, in a poll of six Arab countries released yesterday.

The poll by the University of Maryland and Zogby International also indicated most Arabs did not see US foe Iran as a threat and they sympathized more with Hamas in the Palestinian Territories than US-backed Fatah.

"There is a growing mistrust and lack of confidence in the United States," said Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor in charge of the annual poll. [bold added]

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but I suppose it's a point of curiosity to see something resembling actual data. It also supports the idea that Iran is seen as the Islamic Superpower in the region, and is looked up to by the Islamic Middle East.

In contrast to US government views, most Arabs did not see Iran as a major threat and 67 percent considered Tehran had the right to a nuclear program....

Hezbollah [ed: backed by Iran] leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's popularity grew as did Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's. When Arabs were asked which world leader they disliked most, President Bush was at the top of the list with 63 percent; Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert followed at 39 percent.

The issue I have with this is mostly that anyone thought it was necessary to actually take a poll. It implies that we should not only care what our reputation is, but also that having them like us somehow translates to an actual value. It's similar to the military/political goal of "winning hearts and minds" as opposed to identifying actions that would be in our national interest and pursuing them self-interestedly.

A poll like this also glosses over the underlying factors such as the Arab world's idolizing of Iran, and the even bigger issue of militant Islam and it's fundamentally anti-American ideas penetrating all levels of Middle Eastern life.

There is nothing at all that we could or should do to make Arabs like us, simply for the sake of making them like us. The dominant philosophy in the Middle East is antithetical to everything that America was founded on, and rather than being concerned about our popularity, we should be steadfastly pursuing our rational, objective values without regard to polling numbers.

Other things, et cetera, and so on #4

Israel Readies for Iran

Here is more evidence in support for Scott Powell's contention that Israel may be ready to make a strike against Iran. From the World Tribune, we have "Israel readies largest exercise ever to prepare for Iran-Syria missile war":

The government has been preparing for a five-day exercise in April that would simulate conventional and nonconventional missile strikes from Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Officials said the exercise would test emergency response as well as evacuation of cities struck by enemy missiles.

No mention is made in the article of any military preparations, but one can assume that, though not publicized, they are certainly under way.

Sigh of Relief

Last week I mentioned that my dog, Jazmine, had surgery to remove a tumor on her spleen. (note: it was 8 lbs.!) She came home last Thursday, and despite the humiliation of wearing a T-shirt to keep her from licking the 12 inch incision, she's doing great. Nearly all the bruising is gone, she's happy and active (though we are keeping her from being too active) and everything is looking good. The best news is that the testing of the tumor and the biopsy of the liver showed no cancer. The prognosis for dogs with this condition and no cancer is extremely good, so here's hoping that she will be around for many more years.

I really marvel that this level of medical care is available for pets. Jazmine had an ultrasound, x-rays, biopsies, and major surgery to remove a tumor and a damaged organ. One interesting part of this whole process was the money. We were given an estimate for the cost (with an upper and lower bound), including all drugs, anesthesia, the surgeon's fee, etc. The actual cost was right in the middle of the range -- less than $1500. It made me wonder what human health care would be like if it was left to a free market.

EU Asserts Democracy at Turkey's Peril

Looking at it without context, the current crisis in Turkey seems clear cut. One political party is appealing to a "Constitutional Court" to have another major party shut down and the president and prime minister barred from political life for 5 years.

The EU, who is in the mix because Turkey is applying for membership, sees this and responds angrily, scolding Turkey and calling it "antidemocratic." Sounds reasonable, right?

Wrong.

Turkey -- the only Middle Eastern country that has been trying to modernize and Westernize -- is in a battle for its life, trying to derail the movement away from secularism toward Islamism and Sharia law. I agree that on the face of it, it seems strange, if not wrong, to have one party petition the courts for the dissolution of another party. But in Turkey's case, those who want Turkey to remain a secular state and stay true to the complete separation of church and state, are trying to fight off rampaging Islamism from the AKP (Justice and Development Party). This is a good thing, in the context of Turkey's history and the battle it is waging to keep Sharia law from dragging the country into hell.

"The AKP ... uses democracy to reach its goal, which is installing sharia [Islamic law] in Turkey," the indictment says. "There is an attempt to expunge the secular principles of the Constitution."

But the EU doesn't see it that way. Just like George Bush, they seem to value democracy as an end in itself, regardless of what ideas are being voted on. If the Turks or the Iraqis vote for an Islamic dictatorship, who are we to question that? They voted for it.

The Turks, at least those still wanting to Westernize, are hoping to gain entry to the EU. Assuming that the EU is also working towards this, we can only conclude that it would rather have a democratically elected, anti-Western Islamic dictatorship as a member, than a secular nation fighting Islamism and trying to modernize.

Well, if the Islamists succeed in Turkey and the EU wants them to join, the EU will eventually come to realize what the proper, reasoned response to the current crisis would have been. Namely, to support and assist Turkey in resisting Islamism in the name of pro-Western ideas, to make sure the prospective member state would share similar values.

More likely, the EU will decide to deny membership to a new "Islamic Peoples State of Turkey" or whatever it becomes. If they do, they will have to fabricate grounds to do so, because the real reason -- that free states cannot deal freely with dictatorial regimes hellbent on their destruction -- would directly contradict their view of the primacy of democracy. After all, the Turks would have voted for their dictators.

(Note: See Powell History Recommends for a much more detailed examination of Turkey's history of Westernization and the threat it currently faces.)

France Rattles Its Nuclear Sabre

While this article from Reuters is titled "France to cut nuclear arsenal", what I found most interesting was the clear indication from President Sarkozy that France identifies Iran as a threat and will explicitly maintain the nuclear capability needed to defend itself from that threat.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced cuts in France's atomic arsenal on Friday but vowed to keep a strong enough deterrent against threats such as the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran.

... Sarkozy said his nation had to face new security threats, including Iran, and needed to be able to strike back forcefully if attacked.

I find this candor refreshing, and I'm glad to hear of a European nation identifying the threat Iran poses, and at the very least stating that it will defend itself.

Iran denies the charges [of developing nuclear weapons], saying it only wants to make electricity. It also continues to expand its long-range missile program, and says it can hit targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away, heightening concern in the West.

"Maintaining the competences necessary to dissuasion at the highest level is a fundamental objective for our security," he said. "All those who threaten to attack our vital interests would expose themselves to a severe riposte by France."

I have next to zero optimism that this is the beginning of a rationally self-interested foreign policy from France, but I can certainly credit them for openly identifying the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hopefully our next US president will do the same.

Other things, et cetera, and so on #2

Good Things in the Art World

I have been following the progress of Bryan Larsen's latest oil painting over the past month or so, and so far the results are pretty amazing. He posts updates on his progress to his blog RationalArt, and through his posts I have been learning about techniques in oil painting that 1) I never knew, and 2) never thought I'd be interested in. Perhaps it's because I really enjoy his work and respect his talent that I can appreciate the technique. Strangely, when someone throws paint at a canvas or uses "found objects" (i.e. trash) to adorn a childlike rendering of roadkill, I'm not that interested in their "craft".

Also, he has a nice large reproduction of a commissioned painting he did for the cover of the BB&T 2007 Annual Report. (it's at the end of the post, and click the image for a larger version) You may remember BB&T as the bank that gave a $1M donation to Marshall University with the stipulation that Atlas Shrugged be taught.

Don't Mock the Muhammad

Bin Laden is in the news again, this time ranting against the Pope and Europe for Muhammad mockery. On top of all the other supposed evils that the West has perpetrated on the Muslim world, the Danish cartoons are apparently among the worst:

"You went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings," he said. "This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe." [bold added]

If you're wondering how it's possible that cartoons could create such a fuss, now is a good time to point you to an excellent article by Elan Journo in The Objective Standard, called "The Jihad on America". This article goes into great detail regarding the Islamic assault on America, including an insightful analysis of the Danish cartoon issue, and how Islamic leaders stirred up the outrage in their own people. You can see the opening paragraphs of the article without a subscription, but I can't recommend highly enough that you just buy a full subscription. It's a great journal.

Iran's Absurd Gasoline Problem

Iran, one of the world's largest oil producers, rations gasoline for its citizens.

This isn't new news. Ahmadinejad imposed the rationing in June 2007. One would rightly ask, however, "why?!"

Here is some data to set the stage:

• Iran has been subsidizing gasoline since at least 1979.
• At the time the recent rationing was imposed, gasoline prices were raised 22% to 42 cents per gallon. (note that the rationing and price rise triggered rioting)
  
• Last year, Iran spent nearly $7B importing gasoline.

Julian Border from The Guardian puts this situation this way:

(because of the subsidies)... There is consequently huge demand, but limited supply. With that price at the pumps, it has not made economic sense to build refineries, so Iran has managed to become an oil-rich nation with chronic petrol shortages.
...
Everyone I talk to, including officials, realises that the petrol subsidies make no sense, but no government since the 1979 revolution has had the political courage to cut them.

So if we look at the situation from this limited perspective, we see a nation artificially inflating demand with subsidies, and then going into debt paying for it. (Inflation last year was estimated at 20-30%.) The subsidies have also made it uneconomical to build refineries, so they can't produce their way out of the hole they have dug.

This isn't the whole story, however.

Roger Stern at the International Herald Tribune explains:

Iran has ensnared itself in a petroleum crisis that could drive its oil exports to zero by 2015. While Iran has the third- largest oil reserves in the world, its exports may be shrinking by 10 to 12 percent per year. How can this be happening?

Heavy industry infrastructure must be maintained to remain productive. This is especially so for oil, because each oil well's output declines slightly every year. If new wells are not drilled to offset natural decline, production will fall.

This is what is happening in Iran, which has failed to reinvest in new production. Why?

As mentioned previously, the subsidies for domestic gasoline prices make it very unattractive for foreign or domestic firms to invest in new refineries. But there is another aspect to this situation that is equally compelling. Stern continues...

For the mullahs, the short-run political return on investment in oil production is zero. They are reluctant to wait the 4 to 6 years it takes for a drilling investment to yield revenue. So rather than reinvest to refresh production, the Islamic Republic starves its petroleum sector, diverting oil profits to a vast, inefficient welfare state.

Employment in the loss-making state-supported firms of this welfare state is essential to the regime's political survival. [bold added]

I must admit that when I first heard that Iran rations its gasoline and imports huge amounts of it, I thought that the problem was likely because they couldn't find or maintain the technology to refine it. They may be able to pull the oil out of the ground, but being a strongly anti-western nation, I assumed they were falling drastically behind in technology. Just think of what the West found after the Soviet collapse, and how desolate and backward it really was despite putting on a brave face for 50 years.

The general consensus seems to be that the welfare state is more to blame and the problems are mostly economic and policy errors. But I was happy to see Stern bring up the very point about technology:

Refinery leakage exemplifies all that is wrong with the Iranian petroleum sector. According to the state-run Iran Daily, leaks account for 6 percent of total production, yet go unattended.

This colossal revenue loss persists due to the Soviet-style logic of Iran's state-planned economy. Subsidized energy prices force the state oil firm to sell at a loss to the domestic market. Therefore, while Iran could gain billions by fixing the leaks, the state oil firm would be worse off because the maintenance would generate no new revenue. Thus oil and money simply seep into the ground. [bold added]

Perhaps more than anything else, I see the symbolism of outward technological decline -- such as these decrepit refineries -- as inescapable signs of much deeper and greater rot at the core of a society.

The glaring absurdity of one of the most oil-rich nations on earth being reduced to rationing gasoline leads us inevitably to fundamental examples of political and philosophical failures. The Iranian government is based on Islamic law, but in political practice it's just another form of socialism. Soviet-style managed economy, political oppression, stagnation... it's a story we've all seen before. With very few exceptions, the history of the past 100 years has shown that the extent to which a country denies individual rights and with it, free markets, it hastens its downfall.

Here's hoping that the extreme nature of Iran's belief system leads them to collapse faster than the Soviet's did, and before they build or buy nuclear weapons.

Other things, et cetera, and so on #1

On Moths, Soup, and Memory

A recent study appears to show that moths retain caterpillar memories. Please check out the article for details, but to sum up, the researchers trained some tobacco hornworm caterpillars to avoid a certain smell by shocking them, and even after metamorphosis, the resulting moths also avoid the smell.

Having been delinquent in maintaining my up-to-date knowledge of moth metamorphosis research, there were a couple of things that really jumped out at me from this article.

1. Caterpillars can be trained? Upon a moment's thought, it seems obvious that just about any organism with any sort of somewhat sophisticated neural system would be able to develop a kind of sense memory, or learned response to stimuli. I just hadn't pondered the particular case of the caterpillar.
2. On the face of it then, it doesn't seem totally alien that the resulting moth would retain some of the caterpillar-ian memory. It is the same organism, regardless of its form. That is, until I learned the following.
3. During the pupa stage (in the cocoon), the metamorphosis apparently isn't just a rearranging of parts.

"The intriguing idea that a caterpillar's experiences can persist in the adult butterfly or moth captures the imagination, as it challenges a broadly-held view of metamorphosis -- that the larva essentially turns to soup and its components are entirely rebuilt as a butterfly," says senior author Martha Weiss, an associate professor of Biology at Georgetown University. (bold added)

Soup?! As I said, I haven't kept up with moth science, but I had never heard that metamorphosis was such a radical tear-down and rebuilding. I mean, what happens here? Do some enzymes get activated that liquify all the body parts into constituent proteins and genetic material? Or individual cells? Or groups of cells/proto-organs? How does the rebuilding take place? Some cellular structures must be controlling this process, but I can't reconcile a soup-theory with any other process I know about.

Can anyone out there shed some light on this Soup Theory? I've done some cursory searches to find out more advanced explanations of the metamorphosis of moths and butterflies, but I have yet to find anything satisfying. I'll keep looking and post what I find, but if anyone has any links to check out, please post them in the comments.

To me, this issue is crucial to understanding the caterpillar-to-moth memory trick. If the Soup Theory means that even the neurological system is dismantled or even dissolved and then rebuilt, retaining memory seems impossible. This leaves the question of whether some structures are retained (like the 'brain') and the rest of the 'soup' organizes around them.

I first heard this story this morning on NPR, and the researcher who was interviewed made an offhand joke at the end, saying in effect, "We may be getting closer understanding metamorphosis, but we still have no idea why moths crash into porch lights." This was rather annoying to hear, because a pretty good theory for this behavior has already been put forth.

Name That Religion

Here are some quotes from an article about intra-religious clashes in the middle east between hardcore members and more mainstream members over properly modest dress and other public actions.

Dr. H_ is a modern (religious) woman who dresses modestly, ... and observes the (tenets of the religion). One day driving home, she saw that someone had put up a sign in her neighborhood that read "Don't pass here unless you dress modestly."

"I find that offensive," she says. "I don't think that anybody should impose dress codes on the public."

When she tried to haul the sign down, some ultra-(religious people) pelted her and her car with rocks. Dr. H_, who asked that her full name not be used, went to the local police, but she says they did nothing.

...

That rock attack was hardly an isolated incident. People driving on the (holy day) have been bombarded with rocks. Earlier this year in B_, a young ... woman was sitting next a (national) soldier on a public bus when ... men assaulted both of them and forced the woman off the bus. Men and women, they said, should be segregated. Later, (a member of the same religion) who stood up to the zealots within his own community was himself brutally beaten. He said it was like a pogrom.

If I was reading this post, I'd think the quotes came from an article about Iran. That would be wrong. The story from NPR is about ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel.

The parallels between ultra-orthodoxy in Judaism and Islam (and Christianity, too) are very striking.

I don't see any greater lesson here than that, however. It's not surprising in the least that religious zealots would do something like this, regardless of the religion. And though there may be some extra-crazies making things tough on the not-quite-as-crazies, either in Iran or Israel, at least the Jews aren't turning out anti-Western terrorists hell bent on our destruction.

But while we focus on the terrorist threat, and even though some are starting to come around to the view that we really are fighting militant Islam, it's important to remember that the essential nature of all religion -- subjugation of self to the supernatural, and denial of an individual's right to their own life -- is the defining characteristic that makes the pogroms possible.