It began with the bees. Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross wrote an article in The Independent on 15 April arguing that cell phones were killing bees and thereby endangering the survival of the human race (since we need bees for pollination.) Somehow, according to Lean and Shawcross, "radiation" from phones interferes with the "navigation systems" of bees, leading to the death of entire hives (known as "Colony Collapse Disorder" or CCD.) The "evidence is increasing," the authors argue in increasingly hysterical language, that cell phones lead to brain tumors, senility, and male impotence.
The problem with this argument is that the authors have failed to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Radio waves are many orders of magnitude larger in wavelength than sunlight, much less radioactive wavelengths (gamma rays are often a millionth of a nanometer, whereas radio waves are generally at least a meter.) Ionizing radiation produces cancer and other nasty things. Non-ionizing radiation produces heat. A cell phone, in terms of the radiation it produces, is little different from the radio sets that have been around for nearly a hundred years. (Light from candles is another form of non-ionizing radiation, yet somehow no one has claimed that those cause cancer, despite prolonged direct exposure for many humans over the course of millenia.)
A more plausible cause of CCD is related to mites that live on bees, although conclusive evidence remains elusive.
The Independent has a history of making spurious technology-related claims. In May 2006, its writers argued that electrical fields and radio waves somehow cause cancer in humans. This kind of hysteria has a precedent in the 1980s, when many fear-mongers argued that high-tension electrical wires caused cancer (there was even an Eddie Murphy film in which a major plot point involved little children getting cancer from power lines.) Unfortunately for the hysterics, the Earth's electromagnetic field is several orders of magnitude stronger than that emitted by the high-tension wires.
In other words, if cell phones or wireless signals harm the health of humans or any other living species, it is by some undiscovered mechanism (divine intervention?) If we are to base our reasoning on objective reality, however, it appears that non-ionizing radiation is not the cause of either cancer or CCD. It seems that the writers at the Independent saw or heard the word "radiation" and jumped to unreasonable, unscientific conclusions. (They could just as easily scream about 450-terahertz radiation coming from computer LEDs. Except that 450-terahertz radiation is equivalent to almost any variety of visible light, including the glow of candles.)
Ignorance of basic science is evidently in as common in England as America. Prince Charles, after all, recently advocated the use of magic to treat medical problems. One wonders whether these examples of science and rational thought being rejected in favor of irrationality and mysticism are a sign of the cultural dominance of postmodernism and anti-Enlightenment thought in the Western world.
Monday, 23 April 2007
Thursday, 19 April 2007
We now interrupt this blog for some late-breaking news...
The Warriors are in the Playoffs!
The Warriors are in the Playoffs!
The Warriors are in the Playoffs!
We now return to our regular blogging schedule.
Camus and Car Bombs
On the same day that thirty-one students were gunned down at Virginia Tech, at least the same number fell in Baghdad. Days have passed with Virginia Tech at peace, and across the ocean men and women and children are still being kidnapped, shot, and dismembered and burnt by the shrapnel and flames of car bombs.
Yet the latest atrocities in Iraq received minimal media attention, while Virginia Tech made front-page news all over the world. In America, people argue about gun control legislation; meanwhile there is still no coherent strategy or clear long-term goal for America's most significant foreign policy venture of the decade, even after more than four years (or five, if one includes the extensive secret preparations in 2002.)
Yesterday I had a lengthy conversation with a prominent local businessman regarding the motivation of people who set car bombs. He was disgusted, to an extent: "Kill the Iraqi soldiers, fine! Kill the Americans or the Jews, fine! But don't kill innocent people!" (His comment is a reminder that "innocent" can be a weasel word; after all, according to some people I've spoken with, 9/11 victims were contributing economically to the (perceived) international crusade against Islam (cf. any of the al-Qa'ida recruitment tapes) and were therefore legitimate targets.)
But I also had a conversation with a local college student, who sympathized with the bombers. They were in revolt, he said, against an occupation; they were striking a blow for justice. He mentioned the battles of Badr and Yarmouk. When fighting an oppressor one cannot be merciful. (Mercy and turning the other cheek, in the Christian view, is a moral imperative. In Islam, one turns the other cheek only if it is just to do so. And it is never just to bow to a Pharoah or tyrant.)
"What is a rebel? A man who says no."
This latter viewpoint reminds one of what Camus wrote in his L'homme revolte: in a revolution, rebels do not die and kill because they are full of hate. On the contrary, they are inspired by a vision - a vision of justice, of beauty, of a better world just around the corner. Bathed in the light of this vision, convinced of its truth, everything is justified and nothing is forbidden. Saint-Just would not have hesitated to use car bombs against the monarchists. The Russian Communists were similarly driven. It is not that these people were without scruple, but that all scruples paled before the light of the ultimate scruple, the vision of perfection.
This same vision of perfection drove nobles across medieval Europe to abandon their material possessions and "take up the cross" (and their swords) when they heard the heir of the Apostles proclaim: "God wills it!" It is what drove the Turks to drive their gunpowder-laden boats straight into their Russian opponents during the Crimean war. It is what drove Cromwell's followers to turn against even their own family members if they were infidels. It is what led Hegel (and his intellectual descendant Marx) to imagine a utopia at "the end of history." And it is, one might argue, exactly the same combination of fanaticism, romanticism, love, and quixotic desire for perfection that inspires young men from Tetouan to Brussels to Baghdad to plot the mass murder of Iraqi citizens, day after day, week after week.
Camus also argued that the true rebel must never "demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others." I find this viewpoint less convincing (as have most rebels) since the objective of a rebellion is often to replace one master or system of justice or beliefs with another, rather than to establish the kind of total freedom Camus has in mind. Most rebels do not even remain true to the vision of their ideal societies, as these usually do not involve mass murder as a matter of course; the rebel instead "claims for himself the relative freedom necessary" to achieve the unachievable. (Camus praises the Russian anarchists because they felt bad about their murders, which, in theory, would have prevented murder from being acceptable in their ideal future society.) The customary failure of rebels to remain true to their principles partly explains why most rebellions against dictatorship and injustice end in dictatorship and injustice (French, Russian, Iranian, etc.)
For those in Iraq behind this week's car bombings, surely, the promised world of justice will arrive. Until then, many, many more people will have to die.
Yet the latest atrocities in Iraq received minimal media attention, while Virginia Tech made front-page news all over the world. In America, people argue about gun control legislation; meanwhile there is still no coherent strategy or clear long-term goal for America's most significant foreign policy venture of the decade, even after more than four years (or five, if one includes the extensive secret preparations in 2002.)
Yesterday I had a lengthy conversation with a prominent local businessman regarding the motivation of people who set car bombs. He was disgusted, to an extent: "Kill the Iraqi soldiers, fine! Kill the Americans or the Jews, fine! But don't kill innocent people!" (His comment is a reminder that "innocent" can be a weasel word; after all, according to some people I've spoken with, 9/11 victims were contributing economically to the (perceived) international crusade against Islam (cf. any of the al-Qa'ida recruitment tapes) and were therefore legitimate targets.)
But I also had a conversation with a local college student, who sympathized with the bombers. They were in revolt, he said, against an occupation; they were striking a blow for justice. He mentioned the battles of Badr and Yarmouk. When fighting an oppressor one cannot be merciful. (Mercy and turning the other cheek, in the Christian view, is a moral imperative. In Islam, one turns the other cheek only if it is just to do so. And it is never just to bow to a Pharoah or tyrant.)
"What is a rebel? A man who says no."
This latter viewpoint reminds one of what Camus wrote in his L'homme revolte: in a revolution, rebels do not die and kill because they are full of hate. On the contrary, they are inspired by a vision - a vision of justice, of beauty, of a better world just around the corner. Bathed in the light of this vision, convinced of its truth, everything is justified and nothing is forbidden. Saint-Just would not have hesitated to use car bombs against the monarchists. The Russian Communists were similarly driven. It is not that these people were without scruple, but that all scruples paled before the light of the ultimate scruple, the vision of perfection.
This same vision of perfection drove nobles across medieval Europe to abandon their material possessions and "take up the cross" (and their swords) when they heard the heir of the Apostles proclaim: "God wills it!" It is what drove the Turks to drive their gunpowder-laden boats straight into their Russian opponents during the Crimean war. It is what drove Cromwell's followers to turn against even their own family members if they were infidels. It is what led Hegel (and his intellectual descendant Marx) to imagine a utopia at "the end of history." And it is, one might argue, exactly the same combination of fanaticism, romanticism, love, and quixotic desire for perfection that inspires young men from Tetouan to Brussels to Baghdad to plot the mass murder of Iraqi citizens, day after day, week after week.
Camus also argued that the true rebel must never "demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others." I find this viewpoint less convincing (as have most rebels) since the objective of a rebellion is often to replace one master or system of justice or beliefs with another, rather than to establish the kind of total freedom Camus has in mind. Most rebels do not even remain true to the vision of their ideal societies, as these usually do not involve mass murder as a matter of course; the rebel instead "claims for himself the relative freedom necessary" to achieve the unachievable. (Camus praises the Russian anarchists because they felt bad about their murders, which, in theory, would have prevented murder from being acceptable in their ideal future society.) The customary failure of rebels to remain true to their principles partly explains why most rebellions against dictatorship and injustice end in dictatorship and injustice (French, Russian, Iranian, etc.)
For those in Iraq behind this week's car bombings, surely, the promised world of justice will arrive. Until then, many, many more people will have to die.
To Veil or Not to Veil: Thoughts On Modesty
I noted with interest a column in The Globe and Mail by Farzana Hassan and Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress arguing that what is today regarded as Islamic dress “has nothing to do with morality” or even Islam. The authors note that “[t]here is not a single reference in the Koran that obliges Muslim women to cover their hair or their face. The only verse that comes close to such a dress code (Sura 24, ‘The Light,’ verse 31) directs believing women to let their head coverings obscure their bosoms.” Hassan and Fatah lament the malevolent influence of “Islamists” who “have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam.”
The Legitimacy of the Veil
While Hassan and Fatah probably mean well and while many share their point of view, it is ultimately not credible. The authors’ argument hinges upon the fact that the hijab is not mentioned in the Qur’an. But the Islamic head covering is mentioned many times in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith, pl. ahaadith.) To reject these traditions is to reject a fundamental element of Islamic theology and to effectively become an apostate. While some question this viewpoint, they are an eccentric minority with no following at major theological institutions from al-Azhar to Qom.
To counter the claims of Fatah and Hassan, here is just one example of contrary evidence:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma bint Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.
There are many other examples.
The real debate is not whether the hijab is required, but whether it is required to cover the entire body or just everything except the face and hands. Hardcore Salafis believe the entire body must be covered (I have seen a lot of this in London and Saudi-influenced places in the USA) whereas moderates feel that the face and hands do not need to be covered.
Excerpt from an Indonesian textbook.
Hassan and Fatah are pretending that their own theology does not exist. In this they are just like the Saudi-subsidized John Esposito, whose Islam: The Straight Path similarly asserts (see p.98, for example) that the hijab is not part of Islam and that it was just a custom borrowed from the Byzantines. I can sympathize with these apologists; the Western world, with its comparatively liberal view on women’s dress code, would be far more accepting of Islam if it believed that the requirement is just to be “modest.” But for thinking believers, the hijab is not just modesty, but an act of obedience, purity, righteousness, a symbol of faith, bashfulness (“part of the nature of women”), and a shield against jealousy.
Thoughts on the Veil’s Psychological and Social Effects: The Case of the Australian Mufti
Because the hijab is regarded as central to female virtue, unveiled women are by definition less virtuous. Many young Muslim men regard unveiled women as fair game for verbal or physical harassment. In one example, Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, gained notoriety when he stated that non-Islamic sexual activity is
90% the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying…Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.
Al-Hilali was referring to the Sydney gang rapes of 2000, in which 14 Muslim Australian youths were convicted of sadistically and enthusiastically gang-raping 14-16 year-old Australian girls. The girls were told, among other things: "You deserve it because you’re an Australian." While calling for more friends to join in on the rapes, one of the assailants wrote in an SMS: "When you are feeling down ...bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up!"
Al-Hilali goes on to compare non-Muslim Australian women to “uncovered meat,” citing the writer al-Rafihi:
…if [he] came across a rape crime, [he said he] would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life…because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? … If the woman is…wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.
Al-Hilali is not part of any “tiny minority of extremists” – on the contrary, he was elected Mufti by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, serving in that role for almost twenty years. When some criticized Hilali’s comments he replied that he was only trying to protect women’s modesty.
British Muslim and Islamic scholar Abduljalil Sajid, prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain, defended al-Hilali, saying that “his intentions are noble in order to make morality and modesty part of our overall society,” and that his words had been “taken out of context.”
Support for Al-Hilali also emerged from Denmark, where another mufti declared that women who do not wear headscarves are “asking for rape.”
Being unveiled is a symbol of moral corruption, a mark of whores and unbelievers. This view reasonates, in the words of Australian Muslim moderate Tanveed Ahmed, “with social conservatives in general, who see human freedoms, especially with regard to sexuality, as having gone too far.”
Some youths in Sweden are inclined to agree (translation courtesy of a friend.)
“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.”
“It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore… girl, I mean,” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”
This Swedish girl wasn't veiled; obviously she was "asking for rape."
The Legitimacy of the Veil
While Hassan and Fatah probably mean well and while many share their point of view, it is ultimately not credible. The authors’ argument hinges upon the fact that the hijab is not mentioned in the Qur’an. But the Islamic head covering is mentioned many times in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith, pl. ahaadith.) To reject these traditions is to reject a fundamental element of Islamic theology and to effectively become an apostate. While some question this viewpoint, they are an eccentric minority with no following at major theological institutions from al-Azhar to Qom.
To counter the claims of Fatah and Hassan, here is just one example of contrary evidence:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma bint Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.
There are many other examples.
The real debate is not whether the hijab is required, but whether it is required to cover the entire body or just everything except the face and hands. Hardcore Salafis believe the entire body must be covered (I have seen a lot of this in London and Saudi-influenced places in the USA) whereas moderates feel that the face and hands do not need to be covered.
Excerpt from an Indonesian textbook.Hassan and Fatah are pretending that their own theology does not exist. In this they are just like the Saudi-subsidized John Esposito, whose Islam: The Straight Path similarly asserts (see p.98, for example) that the hijab is not part of Islam and that it was just a custom borrowed from the Byzantines. I can sympathize with these apologists; the Western world, with its comparatively liberal view on women’s dress code, would be far more accepting of Islam if it believed that the requirement is just to be “modest.” But for thinking believers, the hijab is not just modesty, but an act of obedience, purity, righteousness, a symbol of faith, bashfulness (“part of the nature of women”), and a shield against jealousy.
Thoughts on the Veil’s Psychological and Social Effects: The Case of the Australian Mufti
Because the hijab is regarded as central to female virtue, unveiled women are by definition less virtuous. Many young Muslim men regard unveiled women as fair game for verbal or physical harassment. In one example, Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, gained notoriety when he stated that non-Islamic sexual activity is
90% the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying…Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.
Al-Hilali was referring to the Sydney gang rapes of 2000, in which 14 Muslim Australian youths were convicted of sadistically and enthusiastically gang-raping 14-16 year-old Australian girls. The girls were told, among other things: "You deserve it because you’re an Australian." While calling for more friends to join in on the rapes, one of the assailants wrote in an SMS: "When you are feeling down ...bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up!"
Al-Hilali goes on to compare non-Muslim Australian women to “uncovered meat,” citing the writer al-Rafihi:
…if [he] came across a rape crime, [he said he] would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life…because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? … If the woman is…wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.
Al-Hilali is not part of any “tiny minority of extremists” – on the contrary, he was elected Mufti by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, serving in that role for almost twenty years. When some criticized Hilali’s comments he replied that he was only trying to protect women’s modesty.
British Muslim and Islamic scholar Abduljalil Sajid, prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain, defended al-Hilali, saying that “his intentions are noble in order to make morality and modesty part of our overall society,” and that his words had been “taken out of context.”
Support for Al-Hilali also emerged from Denmark, where another mufti declared that women who do not wear headscarves are “asking for rape.”
Being unveiled is a symbol of moral corruption, a mark of whores and unbelievers. This view reasonates, in the words of Australian Muslim moderate Tanveed Ahmed, “with social conservatives in general, who see human freedoms, especially with regard to sexuality, as having gone too far.”
Some youths in Sweden are inclined to agree (translation courtesy of a friend.)
“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.”
“It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore… girl, I mean,” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”
This Swedish girl wasn't veiled; obviously she was "asking for rape."Tuesday, 17 April 2007
(Evan Vucci/Associated Press)I woke up this morning to the heart-wrenching news of the Virginia Tech shootings. Our hearts go out to the victims of this atrocity and their families. I can scarcely believe that eight years after Columbine, nearly a decade punctuated by school shootings against a backdrop of horrible, unrelenting gun violence in cities across the country, there has been virtually no action against this plague. The so-called "rights" conferred by the Second Amendment of the Constitution are nothing more than a scourge on the youth of our country; the almost limitless access to guns across the United States is a national scandal that we wake up to only intermittently, in the face of events such as yesterday's.
What happened at Virginia Tech makes me physically sick; it is hard not to be so affected so soon out of college, thinking of the bright, promising, decent people lost yesterday. It is hard, also, when one considers one's family and friends on campuses across the country, and the awful vulnerability of a place and a culture built so purposefully on openness, tolerance, and trust. And finally, one thinks of the spiralling gun violence in cities like Oakland and Richmond; the young lives lost almost daily in those communities are intimately tied to the dead of Blacksburg,Va.
The vision crystallizes at such moments as this. Would the Virginia Tech killings have taken place in a nation not so awash with guns? Quite possibly. Yet in the U.S. it seems the simplest thing for those intent on killing to arm their evil with terrifyingly powerful weapons.
It is unspeakable that eight years after Columbine, a truly clarion wake-up call if such a thing is indeed still possible in this nation, that we now have Virginia Tech. There have been no serious efforts at national reform of the legal foundation of our gun culture; indeed, during the past eight years the NRA and their ilk have made it their priority to expand this lethal franchise.
The NRA and their allies in our country's political "leadership" will no doubt respond to the killings at Virginia Tech in their typical fashion, which they have of course have had far too many opportunities to rehearse. They will wait a suitably respectful period in somber reflection, and then they will begin the pandering and the peddling of excuses. They will blame everything, everything, but the extraordinary ease that they have promoted for the legal attainment of firearms. They may even have the audacity, once the dust settles, to question whether more guns might have in fact been the very ticket in this situation. One shudders to think what they will do with Virginia Tech's thoroughly sensible prohibition against guns on campus.
I close with the caveat that if this seems an overly emotional reaction, then I find that it is hard to have anything but at present. There is much we still do not know about this situation, and surely we should wait to hear more information before jumping to any conclusions. Yet the pink elephant is sitting in the corner of the room, and it is one that we can be fairly sure President Bush, in his public reaction to the crisis, will ever-so-tactfully avoid acknowledging. But enough of that.
I am so deeply sorry to those who have lost somebody at Virginia Tech. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
The Desert and the Arctic
Today I offer two literary digressions: the first from the desert, the second from the Arctic.
Courtesy of Sahih Muslim's Kitaab al-Imara ("Book of Government") here is an anecdote that I have heard people use to justify the struggle against the forces of unbelief by any means necessary, even unto death:
"The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain."
And next, courtesy of the Gutenberg Project, here is another inspirational anecdote from Shelley's "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus." Context: the eloquent, thoughtful, but hideous and sociopathic creature Frankenstein created has killed his dearest friend and his newlywed bride, and the doctor has set off in murderous pursuit of the creature, chasing it even to the northernmost reaches of the Arctic, where he and his ship's crew become mired in ice:
I was roused by half a dozen of the sailors, who demanded admission into the cabin. They entered, and their leader addressed me. He told me that he and his companions had been chosen by the other sailors to come in deputation to me to make me a requisition which, in justice, I could not refuse. We were immured in ice and should probably never escape, but they feared that if, as was possible, the ice should dissipate and a free passage be opened, I should be rash enough to continue my voyage and lead them into fresh dangers, after they might happily have surmounted this. They insisted, therefore, that I should engage with a solemn promise that if the vessel should be freed I would instantly direct my course southwards...
I hesitated before I answered, when Frankenstein, who had at first been silent, and indeed appeared hardly to have force enough to attend, now roused himself; his eyes sparkled, and his cheeks flushed with momentary vigour. Turning towards the men, he said, "What do you mean? What do you demand of your captain? Are you, then, so easily turned from your design? Did you not call this a glorious expedition?
"And wherefore was it glorious? Not because the way was smooth and placid as a southern sea, but because it was full of dangers and terror, because at every new incident your fortitude was to be called forth and your courage exhibited, because danger and death surrounded it, and these you were to brave and overcome. For this was it a glorious, for this was it an honourable undertaking. You were hereafter to be hailed as the benefactors of your species, your names adored as belonging to brave men who encountered death for honour and the benefit of mankind. And now, behold, with the first imagination of danger, or, if you will, the first mighty and terrific trial of your courage, you shrink away and are content to be handed down as men who had not strength enough to endure cold and peril; and so, poor souls, they were chilly and returned to their warm firesides. Why, that requires not this preparation; ye need not have come thus far and dragged your captain to the shame of a defeat merely to prove yourselves cowards. Oh! Be men, or be more than men. Be steady to your purposes and firm as a rock. This ice is not made of such stuff as your hearts may be; it is mutable and cannot withstand you if you say that it shall not. Do not return to your families with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows. Return as heroes who have fought and conquered and who know not what it is to turn their backs on the foe."
He spoke this with a voice so modulated to the different feelings expressed in his speech, with an eye so full of lofty design and heroism, that can you wonder that these men were moved? They looked at one another and were unable to reply. I spoke; I told them to retire and consider of what had been said, that I would not lead them farther north if they strenuously desired the contrary, but that I hoped that, with reflection, their courage would return. They retired and I turned towards my friend, but he was sunk in languor and almost deprived of life.
Courtesy of Sahih Muslim's Kitaab al-Imara ("Book of Government") here is an anecdote that I have heard people use to justify the struggle against the forces of unbelief by any means necessary, even unto death:
"The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain."
And next, courtesy of the Gutenberg Project, here is another inspirational anecdote from Shelley's "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus." Context: the eloquent, thoughtful, but hideous and sociopathic creature Frankenstein created has killed his dearest friend and his newlywed bride, and the doctor has set off in murderous pursuit of the creature, chasing it even to the northernmost reaches of the Arctic, where he and his ship's crew become mired in ice:
I was roused by half a dozen of the sailors, who demanded admission into the cabin. They entered, and their leader addressed me. He told me that he and his companions had been chosen by the other sailors to come in deputation to me to make me a requisition which, in justice, I could not refuse. We were immured in ice and should probably never escape, but they feared that if, as was possible, the ice should dissipate and a free passage be opened, I should be rash enough to continue my voyage and lead them into fresh dangers, after they might happily have surmounted this. They insisted, therefore, that I should engage with a solemn promise that if the vessel should be freed I would instantly direct my course southwards...
I hesitated before I answered, when Frankenstein, who had at first been silent, and indeed appeared hardly to have force enough to attend, now roused himself; his eyes sparkled, and his cheeks flushed with momentary vigour. Turning towards the men, he said, "What do you mean? What do you demand of your captain? Are you, then, so easily turned from your design? Did you not call this a glorious expedition?
"And wherefore was it glorious? Not because the way was smooth and placid as a southern sea, but because it was full of dangers and terror, because at every new incident your fortitude was to be called forth and your courage exhibited, because danger and death surrounded it, and these you were to brave and overcome. For this was it a glorious, for this was it an honourable undertaking. You were hereafter to be hailed as the benefactors of your species, your names adored as belonging to brave men who encountered death for honour and the benefit of mankind. And now, behold, with the first imagination of danger, or, if you will, the first mighty and terrific trial of your courage, you shrink away and are content to be handed down as men who had not strength enough to endure cold and peril; and so, poor souls, they were chilly and returned to their warm firesides. Why, that requires not this preparation; ye need not have come thus far and dragged your captain to the shame of a defeat merely to prove yourselves cowards. Oh! Be men, or be more than men. Be steady to your purposes and firm as a rock. This ice is not made of such stuff as your hearts may be; it is mutable and cannot withstand you if you say that it shall not. Do not return to your families with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows. Return as heroes who have fought and conquered and who know not what it is to turn their backs on the foe."
He spoke this with a voice so modulated to the different feelings expressed in his speech, with an eye so full of lofty design and heroism, that can you wonder that these men were moved? They looked at one another and were unable to reply. I spoke; I told them to retire and consider of what had been said, that I would not lead them farther north if they strenuously desired the contrary, but that I hoped that, with reflection, their courage would return. They retired and I turned towards my friend, but he was sunk in languor and almost deprived of life.
Friday, 6 April 2007
Vietnam As A Leader of the Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Fisk as Soviet Memebot
Blood for Oil?
I have often heard the argument that the US invasion of Iraq was a ploy to gain control of regional oil supplies. I always found that point of view implausible; for starters, it is cheaper and easier to cut deals with dictators - witness Saudi Arabia and the Gulf rentier states, not to mention the arrangements between pre-2003 Iraq and Germany, France, and others. Moreover, oil producers do not control oil buyers. If a US oil company operates an oil field, this does not mean that the oil it produces will ultimately end up in the US. What is essential to remember is that oil, like any resource, will always be available at a price. (This is why predictions of doom from oil running out are absurd - as oil depletes, its price will rise; those who really need it will still be able to get it, and meanwhile huge economic incentives for alternative energy will stimulate growth in the non-oil-related energy sectors. Scarcity fuels innovation, as with the Green Revolution that began in the 1960s. But that deserves its own blog posting later.)
In any case, now that Iraq has awarded its major oil contracts to companies in China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia - and now that experts predict other Asian firms are "well positioned to grab further contracts" - I hope that the "no blood for oil" crowd will finally abandon their fanciful red herring. (For a less fanciful take on oil strategy, consider this article.)
The Recent Iranian Affair
On another topic, I cannot resist joining Language Log in mocking Robert Fisk. The grammar-challenged anti-Western rhetorician, fresh from his condemnation of cartographers a few weeks back, predicted the following on 2 April:
Oh how pleased the Iranians must have been to hear Messers Blair and Bush shout for the "immediate" release of the luckless 15 - this Blair-Bush insistence has assuredly locked them up for weeks - because it is a demand that can be so easily ignored. And will be.
Fisk goes on to explain that if these hostages are held indefinitely, it's all our own fault anyway (or at least the fault of our evil leaders.) The non-Westerners, the "victims" in Fisk's view, as usual bear no responsibility for their actions. It is interesting that Fisk seems to be more anti-British than the Iranian government, which opted to release the British hostages fewer than 72 hours after Fisk wrote his words.
I recently read an essay arguing that many of the tropes that Fisk and others use have their origins in Cold-War-era Soviet disinformation campaigns. What do readers think? Is it plausible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)