Turkey's Rapid Descent into Hell

When the Turks denied the use of their land when Bush invaded Iraq, many wondered why a supposed ally and the most secular nation in the Middle East would act in such a way. In hindsight, it's obvious that it was one of the first blatant indications of the Islamicization of the country.

I have written before of the tragic conflict between the historically secular factions, including the constitutional authorities, and the growing movement to impose sharia embodied by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

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]n 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.

I wrote the above in response to a controversy in the spring of 2008 that saw the secular party appeal to the Constitutional Court to disband the Islamist AKP party because it (from the CS Monitor):

". . .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."

I saw this all as a tragedy because one side was clinging to a secularism that it didn't fully understand in the face of an existential threat--Sharia--that it fully understood and feared, and I didn't hold out much hope it would succeed.

Well, according to an excellent and very disturbing op-ed in the WSJ today, Robert Pollack not only confirms my fears, but shows that it's significantly worse than I had thought. Using the recent Gaza Flotilla that originated in Turkey as his starting point, he discusses the Turkish media's propagandistic response to the Iraq war, and highlights not only the mindset and actions of Erdogan and the Islamists, but also the sorry state of the secular opposition:

The secular Hurriyet newspaper, meanwhile, accused Israeli soldiers of assassinating Turkish security personnel in Mosul and said the U.S. was starting an occupation of (Muslim) Indonesia under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Then U.S. ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman actually felt the need to organize a conference call to explain to the Turkish media that secret U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. One of the craziest theories circulating in Ankara was that the U.S. was colonizing the Middle East because its scientists were aware of an impending asteroid strike on North America.

The Mosul and organ harvesting stories were soon brought together in a hit Turkish movie called "Valley of the Wolves," which I saw in 2006 at a mall in Ankara. My poor Turkish was little barrier to understanding. The body parts of dead Iraqis could be clearly seen being placed into crates marked New York and Tel Aviv. It is no exaggeration to say that such anti-Semitic fare had not been played to mass audiences in Europe since the Third Reich. [bold added]

This is alarming: even the secular opposition is descending into anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, likely motivated by a wounded nationalism (the Ottoman Turks once ruled an immense Caliphate and the sting of losing an empire is one thing that motivated Kemal's lurch toward secularism after the humiliation of WWI).

Pollack describes other ways in which the secular remnants are destroying themselves and what's left of the country, but the shockingly paranoid, nationalistic anti-Semitism indicates to me that this is the dying breath of secularism in Turkey. They are conceding the ends of the Islamists--the eradication of the Jewish state, for example--but under the guise of national pride and blind racism, rather than the commandments of Islam. As I wrote in the summer of 2008, when it wasn't so obvious to me that secularism was nearly dead:

With the recent court ruling [banning Muslim headscarves in universities], 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.

It appears that whatever protection there was has vanished. A population made up of radical religious fanatics on one side, and compliant, unprincipled advocates of a dead system who are all too eager to adopt the belligerent and racist positions advocated by their political enemies on the other side, is a country ripe for dictatorship.

Laughingstock and Paper Tiger

Ed Koch delivers a solid, withering attack on US foreign policy. He starts off clearly naming the enemy and the vital stakes of the battle:

We are at war with radical Islam, and that war will go on for many years.

For me, the question is this: will the secular Western civilization shared by America and Europe, which allows us to enjoy life and its creature comforts, still be standing at the end of that war? Or will radical Islam, with an aggressive culture that treasures martyrdom and death over life, prevail?

He advocates a mostly self-interested foreign policy and decries our administration's inaction, and names the real consequences of the current policies:

I believe these failures to stand up for allies and most importantly to stand up for ourselves is why we are taken less seriously by nations throughout the world than should be the case. When others fully respected us, we were able to keep the world at peace. We are losing that ability with each passing day, as we demonstrate our unwillingness to teach the bullies of the world the lessons they deserve. [bold added]

Koch is right, but I detect a slight altruistic tinge to his arguments. Our goal should not be to "keep the world at peace" but to protect the rights and interests of American citizens, and therefore the country. If broader peace is also achieved (or some such measure is a valid goal in the national interest) then so be it.

Regardless, Koch sees the problem that our incessant backtracking, apologizing, and appeasing is causing. We're becoming a paper tiger; one that is harmless not because it lacks muscle, claws, or fangs to attack with, but instead is self-crippled by a tragic moral inversion which states that the existence of such magnificent weaponry means it must never use it for itself. Our enemies know this, and use this advantage to great effect.

Finally, Koch addresses Obama himself, saying:

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock. [bold added]

"...speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all." That's a good line, and accurately reflects Obama's foreign policy stance. (I'd say he does carry a stick, but directs its use domestically instead.) I'm not familiar with Koch's politics, but I wonder if he sees the damage that was done by Bush's policies as well. Obama is weak and other nations are gleefully exploiting that, but Bush and other presidents back down the line for decades have been setting us up for just such problems. Altruism has long motivated much of our foreign policy, weakening us and undercutting our willingness to stand up for ourselves. Now that we have an actively anti-American president who despises our founding principles as much as do our enemies, we shouldn't be surprised by the results.

Willing and Eager Subjects in Training

Obama recently cautioned a group of graduating college kids that some of the arguments flowing to them via their "iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations" don't "rank all that high on the truth meter" and are threatening our democracy. One would hope that someone with even a little bit of healthy skepticism about the words spouted by popular figures, elected or not, would at least scratch their head about those statements, and wonder why the first president elected via Facebook "likes" and re-tweets would be calling out their high-tech gadgets and The Internets. Sadly, it looks like the poisonous mix of public, progressive education and a vacuous, charismatic Dear Leader onto which they can project their hopes and dreams has resulted in the perfect generation of young subjects for Obama. From a disturbing story on NPR this morning, "Opposite Of Radical: Today's Youth Trust Uncle Sam,"

A generation ago, young people vowed never to trust anyone over 30. But as it turns out, those under 30 today are actually more trusting of the government of all age groups, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. "As of now, I trust the government," says Brittany Tucker, a poli-sci major at Northeastern University in Boston. "I feel like they are trying to do what's best for us and their constituents."

The nearly unquestioning optimism and trust practically gushes from the kids the reporter interviewed, no matter the slight qualifiers they give. Think of Obama giving a commencement speech in which he openly attacks free speech, and know that this is the mindset of the kids in the audience:

Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

"It gives you hope, and that hope turns into trust in the government, because you believe that things can change — or like good things can happen," Tucker says.

Analysts say that "Obama-love" may be what's propping up young people's trust. Most under-30s supported Obama in 2008 and still do today.

It must be noted that the reporter, Tovia Smith, states that only 32% of under-30s answered the survey this way, but that is still a significant percentage. Smith also points out that "[p]olls going back to 1958 show that trust always begins to head south sometime after age 30." As people grow up and see how much is taken out of each paycheck, their attitude toward government changes. And yet, Smith and others speculate that "this generation may be different." They don't give a compelling reason why, but I have a theory. Progressive education, an inability to think in fundamental principles, and a lack of any understanding of individual rights has left these kids defenseless when presented with thinly disguised bullshit from someone with a pretty face and soothing voice. They don't just like the Hope 'n Change pablum, they believe it. They accept it on faith -- secular or religious -- because they neither respect nor know how to employ reason. And Obama and his lackeys know this, and use it to full advantage. In fact, they count on it. They are grooming the next generation of willing and eager subjects, and it's working quite well.

Sunstein is the New Alinsky

Alinsky wrote the playbook for leftists to push their socialist agenda, and it's been put to great use by the current administration. But another thinker is also heavily favored by Obama: Cass Sunstein.

Doug Reich probably had the same deja vu I had when he read the following quote from a recent Obama speech:

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

Doug calls it right when he identifies Sunstein as the source of this attack on free speech for being too free. Head on over there and read what else he has to say.

I left the following comment:

Thanks for writing this. As soon as I read Obama's quote, I thought it was perfectly Sunstein-esque. Hell, Sunstein wrote the literal book(s) on it throughout the last ten years of his prodigious output.

In particular, a 2008 work done under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute encapsulates all of this very well: "Why Groups Go to Extremes." (download a free PDF here)

In this book, Sunstein sums up all the different threads of topics he's been rehashing for a decade, and two of his main points have come out of Obama's mouth in just the past month or so--you name them both. He demonizes the Tea Parties as racist fearmongering--sorry, hatemongering--because they are "extremist." The theory underlying this view is discussed at length in pages 10-15 of Sunstein's short book.

As a "threat to democracy" such polarizing views supposedly isolate the "extremists" and they build up in an echo chamber. They way to "fix" it is to attack "too much speech" as Obama just did, and is described in pp. 15-25 of Sunstein.

Christ, this is like the Alinsky playbook, but specifically for attacking free speech in service of tyranny.

The Evil, Black Heart of Environmentalism

For all the glitzy, fun, and hip messages we see on TV (especially children's programming) about earth day, the true essence of the green movement is most emphatically NOT about making the earth a better place for humans.

I've posted it a few times before, but it is so dead on, here it is again:

Most of the doe-eyed and brainwashed zealots who mouth platitudes about "saving the earth" aren't honest or intelligent enough to see what they're saying for what it is. But theirs is the malevolent view of human life, and their ultimate end--whether they grasp it or not--is the utter destruction of humanity, raising the value of bugs, weeds, and rocks above human happiness.

This is the life-or-death alternative faced by humanity. We either purposefully, rationally, happily exploit the resources of nature for our survival and flourishing, or we live the nasty, brutish, and short lives of savages.

Ask yourself which one of the alternatives is embraced by the likes of Gore and Holdren? Which one does the green movement idealize as perfection?

Flexible Tactics, Integrated Strategy, Inflexible Purpose

While reading Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History by John David Lewis the other day, I came across something that I knew immediately I needed to post here. In the chapter about William Tecumseh Sherman, Lewis examines Sherman's goal-directed actions as he planned and executed his march through the South, and how he refused to make sacrifices or take any irrational actions that might stand in the way of his ultimate goal. For instance, he did not get bogged down in any battles over entrenched positions.

Most of all, he had to keep a firm eye on his strategic goal, to get from Atlanta to the sea, and then to move north to meet up with Grant. This goal would take precedence over secondary targets, such as taking a city like Augusta; it was the end point that must not be forgotten. All else was a means to an end.

These observations allowed him to adopt a strategy of "multiple objectives." His goal was the sea and then Lee's army in the north; these were certain. But he left open where he would arrive at the sea; this could depend on circumstances. Major Thomas Osborn wrote that no one—from the generals to line officers—knew Sherman's destination, but "no one had any misgivings about the success." Scipio may have used the same approach when planning the assault on New Carthage, and later when moving by sea to the coast of Africa; the particular terminus could be left open. For both commanders, a firm goal and fluid actions to attain that goal were not incompatible; flexible tactics within an integrated strategy could achieve an inflexible purpose. In this way he could keep the enemy off guard and unsure of where he was going. "I can take so eccentric a course" Sherman wrote "that no general can guess my path." [italics in original, bold added]

The sentence I highlighted above could be a motto for a successful life, let alone an effective and principled way to wage war. It can apply broadly to any goal-directed action. Do you want to find a new job? Save for a vacation? Write a book? Lose weight? Identify your goal, your long-range purpose, develop an integrated strategy taking into account all variables, possible conflicts, and most importantly your principles, and then keep your eyes open for any tactical measures that will move you relentlessly toward your goal.

Note that this is in no way being pragmatic. An integrated strategy means that it relies on principles, values, and morals, and any particular tactic that would violate those would not ultimately move one closer to his goal. The moral is the practical when one's morality is egoistic and one acts based on reason.

A firm goal and fluid actions to attain that goal are not incompatible; flexible tactics within an integrated strategy can achieve an inflexible purpose.

Catholic Hospital Going to Hell

Well, to Hades, actually.

Caritas Christi Health Care, a non-profit Catholic hospital chain in Massachusetts dedicated to Catholic morality and social justice, is being acquired by a private equity firm. The name of the firm? Cerberus.

Caution! Saw May Be Sharp!

Word to the wise: sharp things can hurt you. If you buy something that is sharp--say, a precision machine designed to cut wood by spinning a 10-inch blade at nearly 4,000 RPM--then it's reasonable to suggest that you know what you're getting into. Namely, that you know it could cut you if you happened to touch that spinning wheel of death.

If simple common sense isn't enough, the liability-shy manufacturers make sure to plaster DANGER: WILL ROBINSON!!! warnings all over their tools. So much so that the warnings take up more of the manual than the "how to operate this tool" section.

I'll admit that my table saw is an imposing piece of machinery. It's intimidating, and I treat it with a healthy dose of respect. Much like I would get into full battle garb and carefully plan all my movements when dealing with HCl or infectious bodily agents in the lab, my table saw gets special consideration in my pantheon of tools. Now that I think about it, some of my hand-held tools are probably more dangerous with regular use, but there's something about the table saw when it's going full speed. It is serious.

So if I told you that a Boston-area man bought an entry-level table saw from Home Depot in the mid-2000's and when he mangled one of his hands in 2006, he sued and just won a $1.5M verdict, would you be surprised?

Sadly, you probably wouldn't, and neither would I. Still, the patent absurdity of a jury awarding some bozo a ton of cash because the extremely dangerous tool he bought turned out to be exactly as advertized. . . well, it's beyond the pale.

His side argued that some prohibitively expensive safety feature exists that can sense when the saw blade touches human skin and stop the blade, and the manufacturer was negligent because it hadn't included it. Sigh.

Just because a safety measure exists does not make a company liable for selling a product that is exactly what everyone knows it is. If the company said "no one can ever be injured with this table saw, ever, never, NEVER!" then sure, they'd be liable. But they went in the exact opposite direction, warning about SERIOUS INJURY AND DEATH on every open square inch of the product, its packaging, and its manuals. Thus, one might expect that extra care was warranted in using said product, and if one's hand gets mangled, it's probably because one was being a fucking idiot while using it.

I'm sure this is the same line of thinking that reasonable people were bandying about when that old crone spilled hot coffee on her lap, and--my oh my!--burned the crap out of her legs. Still, rampant stupidity and abdication of personal responsibility for one's own well-being and life must be called to the carpet when it rears its head. Even if it's lost on too many to be any good.

At least one commenter on the Boston Globe article got it right when he summed it up thusly:

The hammer manufacturers will be next, for not including thumb detecting radar.

It really is that sick and stupid.

Orren Boyle, Meet Bill Gates

"Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google. These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. Microsoft's well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume. But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms."

-Lead whiner for Microsoft, counsel Dave Heiner, pleading for help from the DOJ and EC

This is just disgusting. Back when the looters and rotters were attacking Microsoft for being too good, I was angry and defended the company against the injustice. Now they are doing the same damn thing, pleading to the State to knock their competition down a few pegs. "But it's too hard beat them! It's not fair! Bing needs to gain volume too! Who the hell are they to think they're so great?!"

Screw you, Microsoft. You deserve every bad thing that comes to you from now on.

Today, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins have a column in the Christian Science Monitor provocatively titled, "Apple vs. GM: Ayn Rand knew the difference. Do you?," with a subhead of "Apple acts like a producer. GM acts like a looter. It’s a key distinction that Ayn Rand laid out in ‘Atlas Shrugged.’"

Microsoft, though it admittedly has a very mixed history, has generally acted like a producer in the past. Now, it's playing the political pull game, and shows its new pragmatic, unprincipled colors: cowardly, yellow, Orren Boyle type colors. Sickening.

Brook and Watkins could just as easily be talking about Microsoft as they are GM:

The producers, such as Hank Rearden, inventor of a new metal stronger and cheaper than steel, work tirelessly to create products that improve human life. The looters are basically pseudobusinessmen, like the incompetent steel executive Orren Boyle, who get unearned riches by getting special favors from politicians. Their business isn’t business, but political pull.

It is the producers who make life possible: who keep grocery shelves stocked; who discover new lifesaving drugs; who make computers faster, buildings taller, and airplanes safer.

The looters, on the other hand, leech off the wealth created by producers.

The novel rejects the widespread notion that both the producer Reardens and the looter Boyles are fundamentally united by a desire for profit. Only the Reardens, she argues, deserve to be called profit-seekers, because they earn rewards through productive effort; the Boyles are antieffort parasites seeking unearned loot.

But it’s not only unearned wealth the looters want. In “Atlas Shrugged,” Boyle uses his influence to throttle Rearden with progressively harsher government controls and regulations, because he can’t survive except by hindering the competition.

Witness the birth of Microsoft's new tagline: "antieffort parasites seeking unearned loot."