re: Tourism and Rip-Offs; “Easyjet”? (Henry Levin, US)

Henry Levin sends this story from the Trenches of Budget Travel:

Last summer we took a bargain fare airline from Barcelona to Madrid when we visited our relatives in Aranjuez. I think it was called Easyjet. The trip there was fine. However, when we got to the airport for our return, they told us that they had changed our reservation and that we had been informed by email that we had to take an earlier flight. We told them that they had our cell telephone number in the reservation and that we could not check our email. Their answer was “too bad,” and they wanted $159 each to fly us back to Madrid after waiting an hour on a very long line of backpackers. We filled out a complaint form and took the train back. We never heard from them on our grievance.

JE comments: Is anyone listening at Easyjet? Send Hank Levin his refund! Did you know that Cameron Sawyer (23 November) has a different name for you guys?

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs; on Budget Airlines (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

Cameron Sawyer responds to John Heelan’s post of 22 November:

What a harsh judgement of budget airlines.

I am (unfortunately) a very frequent business traveler, but my judgement of budget airlines, and of air travel in general, is quite different.

First of all, I could hardly get by without budget airlines, as they sell one-way tickets for reasonable cost, unlike the regular airlines. My trips often involve multiple destinations which are not really practical with regular airlines. The transparent and reasonable pricing of budget airlines is far better for consumers than the complex and obscure “yield management” practiced by regular airlines. I believe that eventually the budget airline model will take over the industry, and that will be a good thing.

The best budget airlines are in the US (where you have the worst regular airlines)–Southwest and Jet Blue. Southwest is a superbly run organization; possibly the best airline in the world. In Europe, Easyjet (we like to call it Sleazyjet, but only in good fun) is quite acceptable. I wish they would learn something from Southwest about organization of the boarding process, but at least you can buy the right to priority boarding. Ryan Air is less acceptable, but that is not really typical. In Russia, Sky Express is doing a good job. In more than a million miles of flying over the last ten years, I have not had any serious problems on any budget airline flight.

Among regular airlines, I mostly patronize Aeroflot, which has a fleet of new Airbus aircraft and which is excellent. Aeroflot, like Southwest, has an extremely good on-time performance record, and in decades of flying has never (knock on wood) mishandled a single bag of mine. Aeroflot has a real business class with big seats on European flights, where European airlines merely set up a curtain in the middle of the cabin and serve slightly better food. A disadvantage of Aeroflot is a zero tolerance policy on exceeding baggage weight limits; also it is fairly expensive. I have been perfectly happy with British Airlines, except for the fact that they will refuse to board you if you are even a minute later than one hour prior to the flight in checking in, even when that results from long check-in lines due to too few agents. John Heelan complains that budget airlines are almost as expensive as BA–well, that is because of competition from them. If they did not exist, the pricing would be different. Air France, affectionately called “Air Chance,” is also good always. I avoid Lufthansa and Swiss because of chronic mishandling of luggage.

I think air travel is much better in general than it was a decade or two ago. It seems to me that on-time performance is better and bag mishandling has become rarer. Airports are getting better, too, although in some cases they are getting too big to be convenient. Perfect example of that is Heathrow Terminal 5, where you have to take a train (!) to your gate after checking in–within one terminal! I much prefer the old Terminal 2, used by Aeroflot, which is not very pretty, but is compact and extremely efficient. I don’t understand why so many Londoners curse Heathrow; it’s not at all bad, certainly much better than Gatwick. A really disastrous airport, and the best example of an airport which is too big to be convenient, is Atlanta. This airport, it is true, is a horror. It can take an hour and a half (!) from landing to getting into your car, when you arrive on an international flight. That is because they moved international flights to a new terminal at the very end of the airport so that you have to go through a secure area before getting out to the street. So you stand in line for passport control, then collect your bags and stand in line for customs. Then, you have to re-check your bag, and go through security control, shoes off, laptop out of its bag, no liquids etc., as it you were getting on another flight. After that you take a train to main terminal, and wait to collect your bags yet again. Awful!

In the former Soviet Union, airport development lags behind the rest of the world. Many cities are still served by primitive Soviet-era airports where it is the norm to board by bus and stairs, instead of by jetway. In Krasnoyarsk, a prosperous million-plus population city in Eastern Siberia, there is not even an arrivals terminal at all–the bus dumps you off at a gap in the fence. You go through and collect your bag from a pile on the ground. This is fun when you arrive at 04:00 in the morning after a six-hour flight from Moscow, in the winter when it is -30 Centigrade outside. Notable exceptions are, of all places, Tbilisi and Yerevan, which both have beautiful, state-of-the-art airports complete with jetways, retail plazas, and so forth, and Yekaterinburg in the Urals.

re: A Community of Scholars; on Veritas (Gilbert Doctorow, Belgium)

Gilbert Doctorow writes:

I am pleased that my Community of Scholars posting (19 November) resonated with folks. But there is another level at which the issue should be addressed besides the personal one of loneliness or unsatisfied yearning for recognition by one’s peers. The other dimension is veritas, which is ill served by the division of turf and closed-door policies of academics in some fields.

I am not intending to generalize about the whole of higher education. I firmly believe in sticking to one’s knitting and my observation comes from the area where I have set up shop.

The thrust of the book I am now writing on post-Cold War US thinking about international relations is that there is no real intellectual ferment going on. What I see is a lot of back scratching and mutual exchange of quotes for book dust jackets or, in the opposite case, blanket condemnation without going through the mental exercise of detailed rebuttal.

The net result in the particular field I am investigating is some astonishingly shoddy work by some of the profession’s best-known and best-selling senior scholars, all of whom should know better. I am not talking about typos or factual errors here or there for the nitpickers. I am talking about gross methodological hanky panky, about indiscriminate use of sources, about epistemological over-reach, about the farming out of not only research but also conceptualizing to hired hands.

People at this level are not stupid. On the contrary, I take off my hat to some of the authors I am critiquing and give them full credit for brilliant minds, great erudition and/or vast relevant life experience. But we all can become lazy and complacent. And that is precisely where a genuine community of scholars should keep everyone on his toes and its passing, as confirmed by several of the write-ins thus far, must be lamented.

JE comments: A powerful appeal for veritas, the last of the hallowed “three (Latin) names of WAIS.” Veritas may be even more fundamental than “pax,” as the latter cannot exist without the former.

re: A Community of Scholars (Tor Guimaraes, Brazil/US)

Tor Guimaraes responds to Gilbert Doctorow’s post of 19 November:

I share much of Gilbert Doctorow’s opinion about the “community of scholars,” but on the other hand, I must add that much of my research/publications could not have happened without the incredibly knowledgeable, talented, and cooperative partners I accumulated over the years. In some studies of new technologies on which I had practically no prior knowledge, I was totally dependent on an expert partner. At the end of the project, these wonderful people had shared so much knowledge that I was able to understand the technology, its economic/managerial strenghts and limitations, and make practical recommendations for managers and other researchers to proceed. After doing a few projects I learned some critical lessons about team efforts such as the importance of personal “chemistry” in the very early stage of a project. If the “chemistry” is right, trust will develop and team productivity will soar. Poor “chemistry” or none usually lead to stupid behavior sooner or later. After a few projects, I established a strict policy of no engagement if the first few face-to-face meetings with a new partner did not produce good “chemistry.” My great research partners and I have published over 200 research reports regarding business innovation and technology management, mostly in blind-refereed journals. I literally could not have done that without their sharing and cooperation.

JE comments: Chemistry is important, which gets me thinking: why are there so few WAIS collaborative efforts/publications? The Middle East Peace Plan authored by Istvan Simon, Siegfried Ramler, Gene Franklin and Michael Sullivan is the only example from the last two years I can think of. Despite our family bickering, we have established an excellent chemistry–so let’s do more! Thoughts/suggestions?

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs: World’s Favorite Airline? (John Heelan, UK)

Eugen Solf wrote on 21 November:

Whilst I sympathise wholeheartedly with John Heelan, it must be said that the “world’s favourite airline” is no more that and unltimately John is in the driver’s seat, because the airline will have to pay for those pricing issues (see share price). (I realise this is of no help for what happened to him in Madrid…)

Maybe an economist can explain all this better than I can?

John Heelan comments:

My thanks to Eugen for his empathy. He is correct in that if a passenger wants to travel to an airport notionally within a hundred kilometers of a regular airport, wants to travel with no baggage, wants to scramble for seating, wants to pay for inedible in-flight food, wants to risk a no-show of the aircraft “for operational reasons,” wants to accept a “take or leave it” customer service (sic) operation, wants to accept “no refunds ever for whatever reason,” wants to risk that your baggage does not travel with you, wants to be subject to intensive in-flight selling by poorly paid cabin staff part of whose salary has to depend on sales commission, then the (alleged) low-cost airlines are a good option.

“Alleged” in my experience because when you add up all the extra charges the net cost is not much different from that of scheduled airlines. (I recently planned a golfing holiday to northern Italy, but by the time I added up the extra charges for taking baggage, golf clubs, credit card charge, check-in charges and so on the end price was similar to those of Alitalia and British Airways travelling on scheduled flights to major airports from airports near where I live.)

Although not an economist, I do have some experience of substantial worldwide flying over my lifetime, running major businesses and am thus fully conversant with the concept of making additional marginal profits on otherwise unused assets. My experience with BA in Madrid demonstrated that it is apparently prepared to fly with empty seats at a total loss rather than garner a 100% marginal profit on whatever reasonable price it might offer.

The whole concept of “standby fares” was based on the concept that airlines make additional profits from “bottoms on seat” once the break-even point of passenger numbers has been reached. Had BA offered me a standby ticket at 100-200 euros I would have taken it and BA would have made an additional 100-200 euros straight profit. In the end it apparently chose to fly with loss-making empty seats.

My hitherto preferred “favourite airline” has lost its halo (and my future business).

JE comments: One’s “favorite airline” usually works like British football–the least favorite du jour gets relegated to a lower division, and the other carriers move up by default. “Favorite” therefore equates to the one that has offended the least, or even more accurately, the one you haven’t flown in a long time. My present favorite is Continental, as it offers free food on its flights–or at least it still did when we flew Continental to San Francisco in August.

re: Religion: Islam and God (Vincent Littrell, US)

Vincent Littrell writes:

This is a response to David Gress’s post of 12 November:

Much of David Gress’s post is in my view the type of material al-Qaida ideologues utilize to bolster their own arguments. It is interesting to note that the kind of arguments al-Qaida ideologues use to attack or to undermine the positions of the many Muslim intellectuals who disagree with the al-Qaida interpretation of the Qur’an as it relates to non-Muslims and war, Christian/Jewish anti-Muslim polemicists use to attack all of Islam and to undermine Muslim protestations to the contrary. Fascinating and sad indeed. One can read the Raymon Ibrahim-edited The Al Qaeda Reader, which is a collection of al-Qaida justification essays, to have this point driven home. This collection provides grim but enlightening reading. One thing comes clear from this book: Puritanical Salafist intellectuals do read Western anti-Islamic polemic as well as Christian intellectual communications towards the Muslim community in general. Puritanical Salafists use statements similiar to the ones of David Gress for fuel to underpin their murderous activities. David’s post ignores basic principles of interfaith dialogue as well–a fact that increases its problematics. His post is representative of a type of polemic common to Christian/Jewish anti-Islamic polemicists, who fail to study or give credence to the copious amount of Muslim spiritual writings regarding appropriate and highly spiritualized/altruistic views of and approaches to non-Muslims; much of it based in the Qur’an itself.

David’s post is a type of polemic anathema to those of us (to include Catholic scholar Hans Kung, a leading proponent of interfaith dialogue on the global stage) who recognize the necessity to uphold Islamic spirituality and ethics as having deep commonality with and spiritual resonance with the most altruistic of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Baha’i and other world religions’ teachings. Great writers like Hans Kung, Hindu thinker Sarvapelli Radakrishnan, Sufi Master Frithof Schuon and Baha’i leader Abdu’l-Baha fully support this thinking of Islam’s spiritually high altruism and powerful, life-affirming resonance, a resonance and beauty that embraces all of human kind. There are numerous Christian scholars as well who support this thinking, to include writer on Christian mysticism Richard Smolens, the great scholar of Western mysticism Evelyn Underwood, and Emory University Professor of Religion John Witte Jr. David’s assertion that Muslim focus on compassion only focuses on Muslims is simply outrageous for one who has read so much of Islamic scripture and commentary as I have. Of course Islamic spirituality and high altruism encompasses all humanity. David’s thinking here does dovetail nicely, however, with al-Qaida views on the matter.

To address some of David’s specific points:

DG: I respect Vincent’s very eirenic understanding of Islam and of politics generally. Unfortunately, many people do not share either.

VL: I am glad David respects the concept of an eirenic view of Islam. However I like to think my view is a bit broader than that. I recognize Islam is not pacifistic. It is fortunate however that many millions of people do have an eirenic view of Islam and God in Islam.

DG: It is, in a way, a pointless undertaking to ask if [Ft. Hood shooter] Hasan was acting as a righteous Muslim or not. Fact one: he believed he was. Fact two: he has ample justification for that belief, not only in the Quran and several hadith, but also in many decrees issued by numerous authoritative imams over the past many decades, not to mention centuries.

VL: It is not pointless to reject Hasan’s association of his actions to Islam. I don’t accept that Hasan had ample justification and certainly not proper Qur’anic justification for that belief, though I accept that he had plenty of resources to draw from. The fact that he believed he was in concert with Islam doesn’t mean he was. I reject the notion that the Qur’an supported his behavior and DG’s Hadith comment is indicative of the problem of Hadith credibility and research methodology that has existed in Islam since the Ummayyads. David’s comment about Hadith very much points to the problem of false or extremely weak Hadith being accepted as authoritative at varying levels of the Islamic and non-Muslim worlds, a problem acknowledged by serious scholars of Islam from most backgrounds I’m aware of.

DG: For one thing, when wahhabi-salafi or what you will Muslims appeal to e.g. the verse of the sword or other verses that command the assault on, subjugation of, and murder (unless they convert) of infidels, they cannot be said to be wrong. The peaceful interpretation of the (to Muslims) divine message is unfortunately rather in abeyance these days.

VL: When Muslims refer to the Sword Verses (almost all the experts I’m aware of, and there are many, on the subject agree that puritanical views towards jihadism reside in a minority viewpoint, however these positions are growing and are generally focused on by the Western news media and non-Muslim religionists who engage in anti-Islamic polemic), many recognize that those verses have a specific historical context and must be read in holistic concert or synergy with the multitudes of other verses enjoining tolerance, love, forgiveness, mercy etc. I’ve written on this at length in this Forum before and quoted from the Qur’an. No need to repeat here. I reject the notion that peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an is rather in abeyance these days. Publicity of ignorant and murderous acts in the name of Islam however is rampant to be sure.

DG: When Muslims hear Allah (who has very little indeed in common with the God Jews and Christians worship) declare himself to be the compassionate, the merciful, it is understood that this refers to compassion and mercy to those who believe, that is, Muslims. It is by submission (islam in the true sense of the word) that men deserve the compassion of the otherwise arbitrary and cruel Allah. All others are excluded from this compassion and mercy.

VL: The entirety of this particular statement is to be utterly rejected. I have written at length in this Forum and quoted scholars who provide ample evidence in their treatises on Muslim love and respect for the humanity of the other (non-Muslim). It is this kind of writing that stands opposed to basic principles of necessary interfaith dialogue and is the kind of statement that makes working towards complex problem-solving as it relates to violence and religion a very difficult thing. I could wax poetic and go on and on about the powerful love and moral beauty reflected in the Qur’an, actual Hadith, and centuries of Muslim commentary on Islamic scripture and I will elaborate further here. David Gress’s simplistic commentary in this public Forum on the Qur’an’s depiction of God, resulting in the appellation of “cruel,” is problematic in the extreme and potentially harmful.** There are certainly enough scholars of religion of Jewish, Christian and Muslim backgrounds to credibly reject David’s belief that the God of the Qur’an is not the God of Judaism and Christianity. For that matter the Baha’i doctrine of progressive revelation also runs counter to such a notion.

David Gress’s comment to the effect that God in the Qur’an is cruel is essentially incorrect, though general Muslim understandings of the Qur’an bring forward the well-disseminated idea that God does have 99 names (or attributes), some reflecting what some people might think of as appropriately fearsome (as opposed to cruel) aspects of divine justice. Those who reference God’s cruelty throughout the Qur’an and Hadith don’t paint a correct picture of the many facets to the “naming of God” and descriptive of divine attributes to be found throughout the massive body of scripture and literature associated with multiplicitous strands of Islamic spiritual thought. Moreover, David very much ignores the practically countless references to God’s merciful and benevolent attributes (that are not just focused on Muslims alone) also to be found throughout the Qur’an and Hadith that are the root to countless Muslims’ benevolent and altruistically spiritual understanding and practice of Islam (if, for example, Islam is inherently violent, I’d be interested in an explanation as to why many Sufi, Sufi influenced orthodoxies and Ahmadi interpretations of Qur’anic revelation lean strongly towards pacifism or have strong peace-oriented strands.

It seems to me that David accepts Puritanical Salafism as authority for pointing to what Hadith or Hadith interpretation is credible as authoritative reflection of Islamic thought. For many respected scholars in Islam, what is actually happening is that Puritanical Salafists use “false hadith” to support concepts that are in reality anathema to higher moral thought, which begs the question: Why do so many non-Muslims who are willing to engage in anti-Muslim polemic not give the appellation of “false hadith” to these erroneous constructions of supposed “true” Islamic theology? More widespread education and enlightenment on the subject is a strategic necessity as a coming cornerstone of peace.

Generally speaking, it appears to me David Gress’s comments in WAIS on Islam reflect some Christian clerical anti-Islamic polemic I’ve been exposed to, a common polemic being something like “the Christian God is a God of love, whereas the God of Islam is one of cruelty and power.” In today’s highly interconnected “global village,” such commentary is archaic and unnecessarily provocative, especially because from countless Muslims and others who study Islamic spirituality perspectives, such a statement is incredibly myopic as a descriptive of the Almighty in Islamic thought and scripture. Throughout a massive body of Muslim commentary on the Qur’an and Hadith one finds multitudes of odes to and analysis of God’s loving aspects, and one finds plenty that is respectful and loving towards non-Muslims (see the writings of Jalaluddin Rumi as an example of this, where he prostrates himself before a Christian, not to be outdone in humility because a Muslim’s duty is to be humble).

In the Mathnavi of Jalaladdin Rumi, who is one of the most famous writers and brightest lights of Islamic spiritual thought, it is stated, “Love is the astrolabe of God’s mysteries.” In Letter 53 of the Nahj al Balagha, a document I’ve written about or drawn from several times before in this Forum because it is one of the Islamic world’s most thoughtful treatises reflecting heights of Islamic altruism, Imam Ali (Spiritual successor to Muhammad in Shi’a theology and one of the four “rightly guided” Caliphs of Sunni Islam) states the Qur’an is a code written “ to establish a kind and benevolent rule, throwing light on various aspects of justice, benevolence and mercy, an order based on the ethics of Divine rulership where justice and mercy are shown to human beings irrespective of class, creed and colour, where poverty is neither a stigma nor a disqualification and where justice is not tainted with nepotism, favouritism, provincialism or religious fanaticism; and, on the other hand, it is a thesis on the higher values of morality.” (Ali b. Abi Taalib, Letters from Nahjul Balaagh)

I present the Yusuf Ali Translation of Surah 1:

“Al Fatihah (The Opening)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.”

I’ve said it before in this Forum, I’ll say it again:

An erudite scholar of Islam once told me (and I paraphrase from memory):

“To understand the Qur’an one must understand the first Surah of the Qur’an, in order to understand the first Surah of the Qur’an one must understand the first line of the first Surah of the Qur’an, which is ‘In the name of God, The Compassionate, The Merciful (or Most Gracious, Most Merciful depending on translation of course—VL). Those who have failed to understand the first line of the first Surah and the first Surah itself will fail to understand the Qur’an.”

Inculcation and internalization of mercy and compassion are integral to full holistic understanding of the Qur’an. How then is God to be labeled as cruel, when the very first Surah which requires comprehension to understand the Qur’an sets the stage for that understanding by underpinning future Qur’anic/scriptural descriptives of divine attributes with the concepts of divine graciousness, mercy, and the cherishing and sustaining of the worlds of creation? When Surah 1 informs the reader that we humans seek God’s aid and asks for Him to show us the straight path, we are not asking for such from a cruel God. An all powerful , all loving, all merciful, absolutely just and supreme Lord of all creation is in part how God is reflected in Islam, and that is who humans ask for guidance from in Islamic thought.

It is always saddening to me that those who reflect abhorrence of evil threads in Puritanical Salafist and even conservative orthodox thought do the Salafists the service of supporting those many furiously erroneous and even cruel interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith/false Hadith by upholding those same interpretations as reflective of all of Islam; an appellation that might be correctly said to derive from Puritanical Salafist/Kharijite/conservative orthodox interpretations whilst ignoring countless key pointers to high altruism and spirituality (this problem of similarity of Puritanical Salafist and Christian Polemicist interpretation of the Qur’an might be linked to the deeply problematic and much written about divorce of juristic from theologic and of course mystical/spiritual from both juristic and dogmatic thought in Islamic history).

David Gress is certainly not alone in his myopic anti-Islamic polemic, and it is this line of behavior that actually supports Puritanical Salafism because the Salafists can say when they see writings that have the tone David seems to reflect in this Forum. “See our enemies (infidels) know the truth and reject that truth! They deserve to be conquered, to be defeated, and must be forced to submit!” In other words, when al-Qaida ideologues intellectually justify their actions to convince moderate Muslims of the “rightness” of their murderous actions, they draw on Western polemics like David’s here in WAIS to support their arguments and further fuel the fires of violence and war/jihad against “crusaders .” Our enemies do read and quote and incite violence against us from writings in the media and from the Internet. Until responsible-thinking non-Muslims begin to take interest in the concept of ideology/doctring derived from “false hadith”–and can discuss with each other (i.e., interfaith dialogue) the Writings/Divine Directives/Laws to Obey (from our various religions) that enjoin love, peace, justice, tolerance or all–the search for world peace will remain elusive as has been the case to now. Thus, I am repeatedly saying that it is a strategic necessity to accurately and respectfully engage in interfaith dialogue as a necessary and strategic component to “winning the war” against fanaticism and religious based violence…even in this Forum.

**The works listed below provide nice variations on Muslim views towards non-Muslims, human rights, God’s love, power and beauty, rejection of extremism, use of intuitive intellect, phenomenological experience that transcends the confines of human earthly existence and provides insight into spiritual realms also implicitly available to non-Muslims. Works on Muslim views towards pluralism, like Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values For Humanity are important, as well as Reza Shah Kazemi ‘s The Other in the Light of the One: The Universality of the Qur’an and Interfaith Dialogue, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim’s Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law, Roy Mottahedeh’s The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai’s Kernel of the Kernel: Concerning The Wayfaring and Spiritual Journey of the People of Intellect, the copious writings of Jalaludin Rumi to be found in English to include the Coleman Barks-translated The Essential Rumi, Khaled Abou El Fadl’s The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists, and Fazlur Rahman’s Major Themes of the Qur’an all in different ways reject Mr. Gress’s myopic statement.

JE comments: Speaking with him at the WAIS ‘09 conference, I was awed by Vincent Littrell’s drive to read every scholarly book published on Islam. In this exhaustive and passionate posting, Vince demonstrates the depths of his erudition. An important rebuttal to those who dismiss Islam as a religion of violence.

re: Economics: Self-Sufficiency vs. Globalization; on Immigration and Unemployment (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon (IS) responds to Jon Kofas (JK)’s post of 19 November:

(JK) If indeed the countries of origin would be developed on “self-sufficiency” models instead of globalization rooted in draining their resources and keeping them perpetually underdeveloped, then I would agree with the argument some WAISers have advanced against “temporary immigrants.”

(IS) This sounds like Marxist propaganda, which has been around for at least the past 50 years, and is designed to make populations feel like permanent victims of diabolical external forces, thereby freeing them of the responsibility for their own destiny.

Mr. Kofas’s championing of the self-sufficiency model versus globalization seems misplaced. Self-sufficiency was tried by both Mao Zedong in China and Gandhi, Nehru and successors in India, and the attempts failed miserably. What is more interesting than these failures is the fact that more recently both of these countries started a period of sustained and extraordinarily successful development by reversing those policies, and joining the globalized world. So this experience does not support Mr. Kofas’s position: Globalization 2, Self-sufficiency 0 .

But the score actually is much higher if one examines the countries which have been successful in development over a number of years before these latest two examples, and compares them to the countries that have not. Such comparisons were made in the excellent speech delivered by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica on April 18, 2009 to his Latin American colleagues.:

http://www.boliviabella.com/we-did-something-wrong-speech-by-oscar-arias-president-of-costa-rica.html

or in the original Spanish:

http://mabb.blogspot.com/2009/05/latin-america-oscar-arias-words-to.html

Three months ago WAISer Joe Listo sent me this speech in Spanish in private correspondence. I thought it was a historical watershed speech because one hears far too little of these thoughts articulated in Latin America, where instead the tired, old, obsolete Marxist rhetoric is still quite in vogue. So I translated it into English, and suggested to him that he forward it to WAIS with his comments. He did so, but unfortunately J.E. never published it. This speech also came up during the WAIS ‘09 discussion of the China panel, because I mentioned it, as it fit perfectly with Bill Rattliff’s excellent in-depth paper.

Being an immigrant, I tend to sympathize with them, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with the remarks recently made by David Gress. There are many people in the United States too that blame hard working immigrants for our ills. I do not agree with them. They say that Latin American immigrants do not contribute to our economy, consuming more in government services than they contribute in taxes, which may or may not be true, but in any case the same would be true of non-immigrants in similar situations. For the most part, I see immigrants as working hard just like everyone else, and with many contributions to our economy. The whole building industry is mainly manned by immigrant labor, and so is farm labor. When there are crackdowns on illegal immigration, fruit and produce often are left not harvested, rotting in California fields. This waste seems to show that the economic value of these crops does not support higher wages on the one hand, which might attract other workers to do the hard work necessary that currently only immigrants are willing to take.

But on the other hand, I disagree again with Jon Kofas who said that these workers are “terribly exploited.” If their working conditions are so appalling and they are so exploited, one has to wonder why do they pay large sums to smugglers, and endure the perils of being smuggled into the country, often risking death to come here? It is obvious that farm labor in the United States fills a major need in Mexico and other Latin American countries for jobs, while at the same time produces important economic benefits for the United States. It is a match that produces a win-win situation and it is futile and unwise to try to stop it. The attempts of our government to legalize this migration with temporary work visas unfortunately have been an utter failure so far, because it neither answered the needs of farmers and other employers for the labor, nor has it been able to curb illegal immigration.

However, there is also truth in what David Gress says. Muslim immigrants in Europe might indeed be taking advantage of the welfare state. Worse, there seems to be a major problem of assimilating these immigrants into European culture. Who is to blame for this lack of assimilation for several generations and consequent buildup of resentment on both sides is not my point here. I merely point out that the problem exists and is a dangerous situation that should be addressed. The murder of Theo van Gogh and countless other incidents all throughout Europe point to this. It may be incorrect to fix the blame on either “lazy immigrants” or on “racist natives,” but the problem is very real. Perhaps it would be more productive to try to propose solutions. I have noted before that this problem seems to be much more characteristic of Europe than the United States, so studying this difference may be useful in proposing solutions.

Tor Guimaraes (21 November) mentioned U-6 as a broader measure of unemployment. But this is somewhat inaccurate. The definitions of what the various measures of unemployment and underemployment used by the Bureau of labor Statistics are given in

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

U-6 includes not only the unemployed but also people who are under-employed, that is workers who are employed in two categories of jobs, but which are considered as temporary until they find better ones more suitable as replacements for the jobs they lost. I quote the definitions given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the above document:

• U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers

I think that Tor is correct in concentrating on jobs, because unemployment causes the most suffering in a recession and no doubt when it starts decreasing significantly consumption, which fuels 2/3 of the economy, will soon follow, further accelerating the recovery. But one should not forget that the unemployment rate tends to decrease last in a recovery, well after the recovery has been under way for many months, because employers quite naturally delay hiring new workers when demand picks up, gaining from the improved productivity that recessions produce. When unemployment starts decreasing the Fed will switch to increasing interest rates, otherwise inflation will result in a superheated accelerating economy. Judging from the graphs of the present and past recessions and recoveries, we seem to be halfway through the current one. Unemployment rates always increase in recessions, and then decrease about approximately the same speeds that the increase occurred, forming a U shaped symmetrical curve. If this is true, that is if we hit the bottom of this U-shaped curve, we will soon see a decrease of unemployment rates. Furthermore, as I said the decrease in unemployment rates tends to occur with the same inverse speeds that the increase occurred, and if this is true in this recession as well, we can expect another two years before the unemployment rates decrease to the levels before the recession started under the Bush administration. This would put it right before the last year of the Obama administration, which perhaps could help re-elect president Obama for a second term.

JE comments: My apologies to Istvan Simon for failing to post the Arias speech; I don’t recall receiving it. (I am occasionally guilty of overlooking a post when the volume is large.)

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs: Mexico (Henry Levin, US)

Henry Levin responds to Richard Hancock’s post of 21 November:

My youngest son went to the University of California-San Diego, and, perhaps, because of his Spanish heritage and blood was an aficionado de los toros. On Sundays he and three student colleagues would go to Tijuana (the site of one of the larger bullfighting stadiums in the world) to watch the contests. They bought the cheapest seats, and after the first fight the tourists who were disgusted with the gore would leave and the students would descend to the costly seats.

In any event, there was nary a time when they were not stopped by the police as they motored out of Tijuana to return to La Jolla. They were typically accused of having marijuana, which they denied. But, after each was positioned against a wall with hands raised and strip-searched, the police “found” a bag of marijuana in someone’s pocket. Then they were threatened with jail where they would be subject to beatings and gang-rape unless they paid their “fine.” Fortunately, these attentive guardians of peace and justice gave them the convenient option of paying the fine on the spot, and they were released. This became a Sunday ritual which was a bargain at that time of $20 shared four ways, just a cost of going to the bullfights.

JE comments: That’s quite a brush with justice; it takes guts to go back week after week for the same treatment! I’m glad I’m going to spend most of this Sunday WAISing…

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs; on Cheap Airlines (Eugen Solf, Germany)

Eugen Solf responds to John Heelan’s post of 21 November:

This is a rather general remark about the cheap airlines (”no frills”), a business that sprang up in Europe maybe 10 years ago and which inevitably will be quoted in the context of rip-offs. And I do not want to let anyone forget that I also have been furious about their business model. I also had to rebook and pay “over the top” in urgent cases.

In simple terms we can describe the example of Ryanair as someone who has completely redefined the art of travel and has created a whole new market and has shaken up existing market participants. This led to the education of customers, people who did not want to be educated and who have had to come to grips with changes in prices according to supply and demand of a product (the seat on a plane that flies today as opposed to tomorrow). Let us not forget that the shelf life of a seat on a plane is one day–today’s flight to somewhere is no longer available tomorrow, the seat tomorrow has to be sold anew.

So someone like Ryanair roughly said the following: I invent a new game and you are invited to play with me but only according to my rules. If you do not like them you are free to go elsewhere (i.e. take some other airline’s seat). So suddenly two groups of people bumped into each other: those whose bottleneck factor was money and not time and who happily spent ages waiting for their planes at far-away airports, euphemistically named after world airports and those who were used to travel on world airlines and suddenly had to pay for all sorts of things which they hitherto had taken for granted. You have to pay for luggage (never heard of this!), you have to pay for a sandwich (same), you have no assigned seat (what a scandal!) and you are subject to advertising in planes for products you probably never heard of.

But look at it from the other side: It is now possible for me, with careful planning, to take my (minor) child to Italy to spend the holidays by plane–fly with her down there, fly back the same day and after two weeks fly down again and pick her up by plane. So a total of six flights (4 for me and 2 for her) cost maybe 200 Euros and are the fastest and safest way to get there and gives me a 2-day holiday in Tuscany.

And somehow the success of some of those airlines confirms that the business model is viable–again look at it from the other side: if it wasn’t viable the share price would reflect this immediately.

Whilst I sympathise wholeheartedly with John Heelan, it must be said that the “world’s favourite airline” is no more that and unltimately John is in the driver’s seat, because the airline will have to pay for those pricing issues (see share price). (I realise this is of no help for what happened to him in Madrid…)

The fact that consumers are being educated (see above) and hence feel ripped off in some cases has ultimately its good sides: consumers are better aware of pricing differences of similar goods in different markets and ultimately can get better deals. I dare say that with the rise of the internet (yes, I am aware that there is fraud too) the consumer gets in the long run the better deal.

Maybe an economist can explain all this better than I can?

JE comments: I think you’ve explained it perfectly, Eugen. I recall just a decade ago telephoning airlines in the hope of getting a good deal on specific flight dates. Now we have Kayak.com and the like. This in itself, it would seem, drags down prices.

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs: on Ryanair (Jordi Molins i Coronado, Catalonia)

John Heelan wrote on 21 November:

I needed to get back urgently from Madrid to London last month for a family matter. As my ticket was a “no-change” variety, I went to Madrid’s Barajas airport to buy a single to Heathrow. I was staggered to find that a ticket for that day would cost me 900 euros (about £890)…

Jordi Molins replies:

This situation sounds familiar to me! However, there is a solution for that problem: Ryanair. Ryanair has prices dependent on how many seats are available, and not depending on how close the departure time is (or at least, this is not a very relevant variable in their pricing). As a consequence, if one needs to fly today or tomorrow, and the date is not a “prime” one (i.e., Friday evening or Sunday evening), there is a very high likelihood one can find a relatively cheap ticket with Ryanair.

JE comments: When I inquired, Jordi assured me off-line that he does not work for Ryanair! Eugen Solf has also sent a posting on cheap airlines (next in queue).

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs: Mexico (Richard Hancock, US)

Richard Hancock writes:

I could write a catalog of being ripped off in Mexico. I will just cite a couple of incidents. When I was a student at New Mexico A & M in the 1940s, I spent a night in a Juarez jail because four of us were out nightclubbing and we got into a fight with taxi drivers over the excessive fares that they claimed that we were committed to pay. A Hispanic member of our group challenged them to come up to the bridge and settle this problem with fisticuffs. We had a large, six-foot-six man on our side so we were fairly confident, but we were no match for taxi drivers who used black jacks. Of course, we were arrested. I was already in the police van nursing an enlarged ear from a black jack when I heard someone say, “Get in there, Shorty,” and our over-sized champion was flung into the van.

The following morning, I had to beg the jailer for 50 cents to call my grandmother who lived in El Paso and whose number was the only one that I could remember. My disgruntled uncle came down the following day and bailed us out. As I recall, we were fined for “insulting the Mexican race.”

This was a good lesson for all of us. Nightclubbing always leads to disagreements over the outlandish bills that the unsuspecting tourist feels compelled to dispute. I think that was the last night-club tour that I ever took in any country. Moreover, it is a good lesson to experience the feeling of being down and out in a strange city. I hesitated to call my aged grandmother but I thanked God that I did have someone to call.

It was January and the drunk tank had a concrete floor and un-glazed, barred windows. We spent a cold, sleepless night. We were the only Gringos among about 100 other prisoners. The Mexican prisoners treated us well. One of them even offered to let me sit on his battered old hat. Of course, I refused with thanks. One prisoner was very ill, and other prisoners kept calling for the guards but no one responded until dawn when they instructed the other prisoners to take him out in the yard and lay him in the sun. He seemed to be paralyzed and we doubted that he survived.

When we were lined up to see the judge, one peasant failed to remove his sombrero, and a hard-looking guard rabbit-punched him, knocking him down. That was an experience that caused each of us to “look at his hole card.” We were greatly relieved to see my uncle arrive on the scene.

I took a great many young people to the University of Oklahoma’s Hacienda El Cobano when I worked for OU. In every group of young people, it seemed that at least one would lose their tourist visa. The standard action to take in this respect was to go to the tourism in Guadalajara to obtain another visa. Of course, the loss of this visa was not discovered until our group was boarding the airplane so there was no chance to go to this office, so a bribe to the Immigration official was the only alternative. This bribe was standardized at 500 pesos per person.

On one occasion, a beautiful sixteen-year-old highschool girl found that she had lost her visa just as we arrived at the Immigration station. I was prepared to pay the bribe when this young lady said, “That’s OK because I really wasn’t ready to leave Mexico, so I will just stay here.” I immediately fell in with this play and asked the official if he could guarantee that this teenager could stay with a reliable family. I told him, “I am personally acquainted with this young lady’s family and they are very high-quality people, I expect you to arrange a home stay for her that is up to their standards.” After about 10 minutes of this type of conversation, he finally told her to just get on the plane. This ploy was totally unrehearsed, and I never would have believed that it would have worked but it did.

JE comments: A WAIS jewel–we’ve never aired “night in jail” postings before. I’m grateful to Richard Hancock for leading off.

I fear that a stay in a Juarez jail these days wouldn’t be as friendly as it was during the 1940s.

re: Tourism and Rip-Offs: British Airways (John Heelan, UK)

John Heelan writes:

I am still fuming about a attempted (but legal) “rip-off” by what claims to be the “World’s Favourite Airline”!

I needed to get back urgently from Madrid to London last month for a family matter. As my ticket was a “no-change” variety, I went to Madrid’s Barajas airport to buy a single to Heathrow. I was staggered to find that a ticket for that day would cost me 900 euros (about £890), although my return ticket booked previously had cost me only £150! I declined the offer.

The same high price would have been demanded on the day I took my originally booked flight to Heathrow. That flight travelled with several empty seats that no doubt could have been filled at 100% marginal profit had a reasonable price been available.

Attempted rip-off? Sharp practice? Or just incompetent business management? BA’s business results tell their own tale.

JE comments: “Legal,” sanctioned, and codified rip-offs make the blood boil more than a rogue taxista trying to squeeze out an extra buck, euro, or dinar. John Heelan’s story reminds me of Cameron Sawyer’s report some months back on the $800 one-way luxury train from Moscow to St. Petersburg. “World’s Favorite Airline”? In this age of non-service and add-on fees, it’s hubris for any carrier to bill itself as such. In our flight to WAIS ‘09, we paid an extra $80 for the privilege of having our bags travel with us.

re: Economics: Unemployment and Leading Indicators (Tor Guimaraes, Brazil/US)

Tor Guimaraes writes:

Mike Bonnie (20 November) brings up a good point. The 10.2% unemployment figure is what economists call U-3. Nationally, the latest figures say U-6 (a broader measure) is 17.5 percent. 30 percent is an educated guess of what the level would be if the US government did not bail out or artificially stimulate the economy.

Regarding leading indicators, there is a large collection besides cardboard box production. A widely used indicator is the level of Baltic shipping, or other measures of transportation activity. I suppose there is nothing better than actual sales. As I said before numerous times, presently I reduce all indicators to one: jobs, jobs, jobs.

JE comments: Jobs, indeed! Many pundits with their slide-rules (so to speak) say the recession is over. Too bad the folks on Main Street haven’t yet noticed…

re: A Community of Scholars: Stanford (Henry Levin, US)

Henry Levin responds to David Gress’s post of 20 November:

I was at Stanford from 1968-1999, going from an assistant professor of education and economics to an endowed chair. The faculty that I joined in 1968 was far more convivial than the one that I left in 1999. Oh, don’t get me wrong. Everyone was cordial and friendly in a casual way. But, by the eighties it was clear that culture was highly individualistic. Even when faculty work together, they divide the courses and research into separable modules rather than interacting very much. The reward structure favored individual accomplishment and fame.

I was also a member of the Academic Senate, Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies of the Graduate School, Chair of Search Committees, and a member of the President’s Advisory Board (an elected member from one of the seven units–mine being Business, Education, and Law), who are the key entity reviewing recommendations for appointments and promotions throughout the university for approval before the President, the final stage.

As I look back, I found more intellectual exchange in these committees than in my role as a faculty member. We also formed the Committee on Social Thought and Social Action to maintain the active intellectual discussions among faculty that had been established during the Vietnam War. These consisted of notable faculty such as Clayborne Carson and Bart Bernstein in History or Martin Perl, Nobelist and discoverer of the Psi particle, Hal Holman, Chair of the Department of Medicine, and other serious thinkers. The 30 or 35 of us would prepare for the meeting by reading a specific article that was sent out in advance and presented by an advocate at a two-hour free-exchange discussion. It was strong and hard-hitting in terms of what was shared, and there were agreements and disagreements. Then we would adjourn to a member’s home to continue discussions at more of a small group level with families over a pot-luck lubricated by spirits. It was the best intellectual exchange that I experienced at Stanford.

But, then there was business as usual which meant back-to-the-silos. At some point I will tell you about the eleven years I have spent at Columbia, in the academic abode of Teachers College, where John Dewey served and dominated intellectual life from 1904 until his death in 1952.

re: A Community of Scholars (David Gress, Denmark)

David Gress responds to Gilbert Doctorow’s post of 19 November:

I wonder who that professor at BU was; I am sure I know him. Is he by chance the author of several well-regarded textbooks?

In general, I sympathize with the lament that there is really very little in the way of scholarly culture in most of higher education. In my experience, the comfort, energy, and commitment one might feel in a scholarly community communing outside class hours and faculty meetings is these days mostly found elsewhere, and this is sad. I recall a conversation at Stanford about 20 years ago where the great and lamented Gordon Craig told my wife and me that when he came to Stanford in the 1960s, faculty would often meet socially and talk shop in the best sense of the word. By the ’80s, for some reason, everyone had become too busy. I can imagine several reasons: martini parties went out of fashion; people became too serious; all spouses are employed, taking energy from planning and having cocktail parties; the general over-burdenment of faculty by bureaucracy.

It’s a paradox. Allegedly, we were richer in the ’80s than in the ’60s, yet had less time and energy for socializing intellectually. When I read of the famous martini parties that Benny De Voto and Garrett Mattingly (two of the greatest American historians ever) used to treat their Harvard colleagues to back in the 1950s, I become envious. Nowadays, you have to make appointments weeks in advance to socialize with a colleague, and even then it’s often forced and artificial.

One reason, in addition to those I’ve mentioned, may be that so many academics nowadays are less interested in proclaiming their enthusiasm for their subject than in protecting their little space of turf. I see this as a sign of decadence. If we’re not bursting with desire to tell people why what we do is so fascinating, or in arguing with opponents on a high verbal and mental level, what’s the point of being a scholar?

JE comments: I am reminded of the 1950s academic social scene so amusingly described by Nabokov in Pale Fire. Now the biggest social interaction among academics occurs at conferences, often with near-strangers, who for this reason (I suppose) are no danger to one’s little space of turf. And then there is virtual socializing of the type we have chez WAIS–is WAIS so dear to us because we have little opportunity for face-to-face interaction?

I’d like to hear more views on the “Community of Scholars.” I’m grateful to Gilbert Doctorow for bringing up the topic.

re: Immigration (Tim Brown, US)

Tim Brown follows up on his posting of 19 November:

Truth is, at some time in history everyone was a migrant. Even Adam and Eve migrated from the Garden of Eden, Muhammad took off across the Arabian peninsula, Buddha wandered around as did Jesus. Go far enough back in time and there is no such thing as a original American and probably no such thing as an original European or Asian. I fail to see why “first invaders” were more innocent than those that invaded later. How, for example, is a 9th-century Aztec invader of Central America somehow less “guilty” of aggression than a 16th-century Spanish “Conquistador” just because they invaded first? Modern Iberia has been fought over so often there is probably no such thing as someone living there whose ancestors sprang from its earth tabula rasa. I suspect every country/nation/people in the world has or can invent a historical revisionist dialogue that points the finger at “them” as being the bad guys while claiming “we” were the victims. I doubt there is a single member of WAIS whose ancestors are free from sin. So where does that leave us besides stuck in a sterile dialogue in which the pots are busily calling the kettles black?

JE comments: Yes, pointing one finger at sundry “invaders” leaves you with three pointing back at yourself. I speak as an immigrant to Michigan, c. 1986. Like many migrants, I never thought I had come here to stay.

re: “Nativist” Politics, Immigration and Globalization (Robert Whealey, US)

Robert Whealey responds to Jon Kofas’s post of 19 November:

The globalization of the investment banks and about twelve
stock markets is real. The talk about a global religion and a global
state, or a global army is mostly hot air.

Immigration is a second-rate issue. The majority of Americans and
Europeans still believe in the sovereign nation state. The multinational
corporations want immigration to keep their labor costs down and maximize
profits.

NATO is trying to become an “Eurasian Treaty Organization” under the
incoherent plans of the State Department attempted by Clinton and Bush 43.

Obama will probably have less power than Bill Clinton whether he gets
re-elected or not. To elect a know-nothing Republican just because he is
not a Democrat, will only speed up the inevitable decline.

Apparently, Obama is a figurehead President like Ronald Reagan. He is no
second FDR. He has very little power. The Federal Reserve Bank and the
Pentagon tell him his limits.

JE comments: We’ll see how much power Obama holds by the outcome of healthcare reform. The Senate is discussing the issue as we speak. So far, I don’t see him as a figurehead at all.

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (Mike Bonnie, US)

Mike Bonnie responds to the recent exchange between Istvan Simon (IS) and Tor Guimaraes (TG):

IS: Tor Guimaraes is not only wrong in continually referring to the
current crisis in emotional, almost hysterical, apocalyptic terms, like
“economic terrorism,” and other similar meaningless rhetoric, but he
fails to account for the fact, as Cameron Sawyer correctly pointed out,
that even in the current crisis, and in spite of the unemployment rate
having reached the very uncomfortable level of 10%, still 90% of the
employable people continues to be employed…

TG: I am pleased that the US unemployment rate is around 10 percent
rather that 30 percent which is where it would probably be without the
enormous American people bailout of the great capitalists, massive
economic stimuli, and crippling government deficits. Unemployment in
building trades

Mike Bonnie: I’m not certain where Istvan and Tor are getting
their numbers or what segment(s) of employment they’re looking at.
Perhaps 10% is a national average unemployment for all workers or a
government number that selectively reports to minimize political damage.
Unemployment is not looking positive from my point of view. Wisconsin
usually has a relatively stable economy in downturns. This year, however,
home and business construction season declined sharply. Here’s a report
from one group of workers in Wisconsin:

“The recession has put the brakes on new construction throughout
Wisconsin and that’s meant a lot of time sitting at home for some of the
state’s 45,000 union tradesmen. Lyle Balistreri says unemployment in the
construction trades is running about 25 percent and will likely go
higher. Balistreri heads up the Milwaukee Building and Construction
Trades Council. It negotiates project agreements on behalf of union
workers. ”

The entire discussion of building trades employment can be found at:
http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=5406

Is it still true that to get a true indication of the direction of the
economy, leading economic indicators such as, cardboard used for
shipping appliances to furnish new home construction, is one direction
to look? If shippers are producing materials, that must mean the
refrigerator, washer and dryer manufacturers are planning for increases
in home construction.

JE comments: Current unemployment figures in my hard-luck state: 19% for Lenawee County (Adrian), and a whopping 28% for the city of Detroit.

re: Immigration and Street Crime (Richard Hancock, US)

Richard Hancock responds to David Gress’s post of 18 November:

I disagree with David Gress’s assertation that immigrants do little good in our country. A prime example is seen in the 19 November WSJ, where Neil King Jr. and John Hechinerer report, “D.C. Schools Chief Targets Tenure.” The school chief, Michael Rhee, happens to be a 39-year-old Asian woman. The Washington, D.C. School System is the highest cost school in the US, at $14,000 per student and the drop-out rate is 40%. Ms Rhee has offered teachers a voluntary program featuring much higher wages with performance bonuses in exchange for teachers giving up tenure. “The union, The American Federation of teachers, soundly rejected it and went ballistic.”

Ms. Rhee is Asian, but the article didn’t state from which country or when her ancestors came to the US. In Norman, Oklahoma, whenever the list of honor students comes out, East Asians and Indians (from India) are prominent although their percentage of the population is tiny. It is obvious to me that Ms. Rhee is persuing the level of exelence that we all come to associate with people of her race.

I have never favored tenure in the public schools. I think that the fear that lack of tenure will result in good teachers being fired is overblown. The reason that we have a School Board and newspaper reporters is to prevent such abuses by an overly authoritarian administration.

I have no problem with Latin Americans emigrating to the US. Like any social phenomenon, this immigration should not be left unregulated. Nancy and I rent a small apartment in Norman which backs up to a creek which offers a park-like appearance from our back door. That park is maintained by the neighborhood association. For several years I have watched these 100-per cent American mowers avoid any semblance of common labor. Instead of picking up a fallen limb, they would simply mow around it thereby leaving a wild, over-grown island in the middle of our park. Likewise they failed to mow the banks of the creek, leaving a growing encroachment of a scrub forest.

I complained mightly to the homeowners association and received mostly excuses. This 83-year-old man got out and cleared 130 yards of the creek and picked up all the fallen limbs. I received no acknowledgement of my good work but I noted that the crew of white men had been replaced by a Mexican crew and once again we are enjoying the beautiful park-like quality of the area that encouraged us to rent this property in the first place.

People say that the Mexicans take jobs that patriotic American should have. I have never seen this happen. I am thrilled to have Mexicans replace these lazy scalawags.

JE comments: Pablo Swedberg (18 November) debunked the hoary lament heard everywhere that immigrants “take jobs away” from God-fearing locals. Richard Hancock gives further evidence that this is a myth. It is interesting, however, that the argument will not go away.

We’ve discussed the topic of teacher tenure before. I’ll plead the Fifth for now, except for the comment that teachers are justifiably wary about leaving their job security in the hands of often capricious administrators.

re: Tourism and Getting Ripped Off: More on Taxis (Eugen Solf, Germany)

Eugen Solf writes:

During my travels I have come to the conclusion, especially in far-away countries, that being “ripped off” is part of one’s everyday life and should be factored into any travel budget, especially when using a taxi. Sometimes negotiations or bargaining helps; sometimes it does not. Also given that especially taxi fares are comparatively cheap and one must get used to the fact that foreigners pay over the top. One other lesson to learn is to try to always have small change with you as the taxi driver pretends not to.

In Bahrain the taxi meter was virtually unheard of and the trip suddenly cost double the usual amount, with the argument that the driver had 4 kids (not a good argument since I have 6!). The double however still amounted to 4 USD only.

In Jeddah the fare was 12 USD (in Riyals of course) but only after some negotiations (the hotel receptionist told me later the trip should have amounted to 15 USD!)–nice try!

In Tel Aviv the receptionist told me the fare to the airport would be 120 Shekels if ordered before 6 AM, and 100 after 6 AM. I of course ordered the taxi for 6.05am, it arrived of course at 5.50 am, I waited until 6.10 am, asked him what the fare was, he said 120 shekels–I of course said “no.” He accepted, but only to demand an additional 5 USD (!) for luggage once arrived at the airport. Since we had our luggage in our posession I politely declined which he very unpolitely accepted.

In Santiago de Chile I admired the Stock Exchange when someone came from behind (presumably a kid) and grabbed what was in the pocket of my trousers (200 USD!) and very expertly distracted me while running away. A bit of a frightening experience really and a total loss merely 3 hours after I had entered the country. The Police stood by, watched calmly, assured me of vigurously pursuing the culprits. I of course nodded and that was that as we all knew.

In New York City the driver would only drop me blocks away from my destination (a bit of a problem since I had a flight to catch) and after a shouting argument at least offered to cut the fare by a third. I just caught my bus as I had to walk 2 or 3 blocks.

In Buenos Aires I paid nothing but only because the driver threw me out of his taxi halfway through the trip as I told him I was not prepared to pay a higher fare. Result: nothing paid but an hour late as I had to walk.

In Riyadh I always asked the hotel to write down in Arabic the addresses of my business contacts as well as the hotel. No help since at least one of the taxi drivers could not read nor write, and of course my Arabic is zero. Result: Cost of trip 5 Riyals (1.25 USD), length of trip: 30 minutes, distance from destination: 60 minutes. The good news in that case was I walked into the branch of the bank I wanted to see, spoke to one of the managers who laughed heartily, rang my contact and got me a limousine so I was only about 45 minutes late.

All in all very interesting experiences!

JE comments: Eugen Solf gives us the WAIS World Travel Tip of the Week–always carry small bills. I’ve learned to (politely!) demand fistfulls of the small stuff at the airport currency exchange booths. Perhaps because it’s easier, they like to foist off the largest denomination possible. Since your next stop is the taxi, you’re probably going to face a situation where the driver has insufficient change. My gut instinct in many developing and not-so-developing countries is that the driver honestly doesn’t have change. Mexican cabbies tend to stock no more than 4-5 liters of gasoline in their tanks, and periodically buy additional liters as they go about collecting fares. That’s just-in-time inventory, and since there’s no discount to be had by filling up, a wise business decision.

re: Tourism and Getting Ripped Off (Les Robinson, US)

Les Robinson writes:

Once in London, I was still confused about the exchange rate for the dollar and left too much change for the tip. The waiter chased me out of the restaurant to inform me that I had left too much money. That was scarcely a rip-off. On the other hand, at the Mexico City Airport, where I was once waiting for a connection to Yucatán, I was told I owed an airport landing tax (even though I had been told I should pay no such tax since I was merely in transit to another city). An inspector was called who told me I still owed such a tax. “Americans have plenty of money; surely that’s not such a hardship,” I was told. Other than that, I don’t recall any rip-offs abroad. (I assume my experience in the DF was a rip-off.)

JE comments: The dreaded airport tax–I’ve had to cough it over in Australia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile and (in the old days) Mexico. Perhaps because it makes tourists angry, Mexico now folds the “tasa de embarque” into the price of your airline ticket. They still pay it, but now they don’t notice. Chile charges an exorbitant $100 “visa fee” for arriving US citizens–I learned from a sympathetic customs official that this is in retaliation for the fee Chileans are charged for US visas. EU citizens are let in for free.

re: Tourism and Getting Ripped Off: Taxis (Robert Crow, US)

On getting ripped off abroad, Robert Crow writes:

In quite a bit of traveling, the only rip-offs I can think of have
occurred in taxis. In Paris and Quito, drivers took me all the way
around Robin Hood’s barn, claiming that they did not understand where I
wanted to go. I did not sense that they were sincere. I should point
out, however, that you do not have to go abroad: local cabbies in
Burlingame have tried to take me to the airport via freeway, a route
that is more expensive and takes more time than surface streets. In
Bangladesh, “no change” is pretty common.

As an economist, I cannot resist. On the other hand, I have experienced
the anti-ripoff. My wife and I are absent-minded about cameras. In
Paris, we realized that we had left one at the Musee d’ Orsay. Our
cabbie took us back, it had been turned in, and the staff returned it to
us cheerfully and promptly. The cabbie refused to take payment for
returning to the museum and waiting for us. In Nanjing, we left one at a
small dumpling restaurant, not realizing it until we were leaving early
the next morning. We got the owners out of bed (they lived in the
restaurant), and they immediately returned it to us (it was probably
worth several months of their family income) and refused to take a
reward. When we lost another one at the Tech Museum in San Jose, we
never saw it again.

JE comments: Yes, that’s a lot of cameras! I am heartened by how many times WAISers have experienced beyond-the-call-of-duty honesty in different countries. Les Robinson has a similar story from London (next in the queue).

“Nativist” Politics and Prejudice of Immigration (Jon Kofas, Greece)

On the politics of immigration, a recent WAIS hot topic, Jon Kofas writes:

“Nativist” politics and prejudice of immigration are very old in both US and Europe, as are the arguments against immigration. The irony of all this is that the American colonists were invaders and destroyers of native cultures, as were the European Barbarians who migrated from Central Asia to colonize the continent.

But that is far too distant, far too historical and unemotional to have any relevance in the present. If indeed the countries of origin would be developed on “self-sufficiency” models instead of globalization rooted in draining their resources and keeping them perpetually underdeveloped, then I would agree with the argument some WAISers have advanced against “temporary immigrants.” The fact that there is “permanent and temporary foreign labor” is proof that the countries of origin are not developed in large measure because they exist under exploitative models of integration. This is not to excuse the utterly corrupt public and private sectors of the “countries of origin” (invariably underdeveloped in Africa, Asia, and Latin America), but they do not operate separately and distinctly from the world capitalist economy.

Regarding the impact of private remittances [see Tim Brown's post of 18 November--JE], I agree about their positive value to the country of origin, and thank God remittances are something although they come with the hard work, deplorable living conditions, and exploitative wages of legal and illegal immigrants in the advanced capitalist countries. Be that as it may, are remittances a structural solution to fix the chronic problem? Nor do I believe that trickle-down economics, as the great John Kenneth Galbraith noted during the Reagan-Thatcher decade, works to do much for the lower classes of either poor or rich nations.

And please let us correct the record: I am not one of those who has ever advocated, either in WAIS posts or in my publications on IMF and World Bank, that “trickle down economic development” works. And I think it is an insult to the millions of Mexicans in the US who have helped build the US economy in the past 200 years to dismiss them as gardeners and swimming pool cleaners for the rich, and to limit their vast and multifarious contributions to the US economy and social fabric. I believe kind well-intentioned people–whether politicians and intellectuals, including WAISers–or the corner drug store pharmacist in Cleveland or Paris, feel less secure when they see or hear about waves of immigrants threatening the status quo. I am not sure why people find it extraordinary that the poor–in this case poor immigrants–commit crimes, given that poverty is the real crime that capitalism precipitates. And I am seriously concerned when people single out Muslims, Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, or any other group to prove their point about the evils of immigration, and then they ask for empirical evidence to prove that higher percentage of crime is caused by natives instead of immigrants. All of this implies there is something in the DNA of the immigrant that causes him to commit crimes, and that the environment is free of any responsibility. As an emotionally charged issue, especially in this decade after 9/11 and the US-western-led wars against Muslims, immigration on the surface is an easy target for all calamities people believe befall their country, not realizing that as “established natives” they are descendants of immigrants.

JE comments: Agree with his economics or not, Jon Kofas’s viewpoint has been lacking on WAIS for the year of his “sabbatical.” Jon now joins Alain de Benoist as the principal WAISer non-apologists for globalization. (On a related note, I’ve just realized that the work to redesign the WAIS website is being carried out simultaneously in Germany, China, India and the US. Is there any reality other than globalization these days?)

Glad to have you back, Jon.

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (Rodolfo Neirotti, Argentina)

Istvan Simon wrote on 16 November:

The bubbles and periodic failures of market economies show that they are not perfect. But so do forest fires, and yet they have been shown to be essential in ecosystems. Likewise, periodic failures give opportunities in market economies for the emergence of new technologies and a better and more productive economy. Crisis also equals opportunity.

Rodolfo Neirotti responds:

I believe we should distinguish the efficient controlled fires used by the Native American from the massive forest fires that result from the current policies of the Forest Service, burning large areas with damage to the ecosystem and significant expenses in fire management. I see some similarities with the unregulated market economies (reactive) vis à vis free markets with intelligent regulations (proactive) which are enforced, as suggested by the recent postings of Tor Guimaraes.

re: Europe: Immigration and Street Crime (Tim Brown, US)

Tim Brown responds to Carmen Negrín’s post of 18 November:

Have I missed something? As a specialist in Latin America with particular expertise in the conduct of the Spanish Conquistadores, especially the mass rape that produced those we now call mestizos (literally mixed breeds), wholesale pillage and destruction of entire nations, slaughter and enslavement of tens of millions of “American Indigenous peoples” by the Conquistadores, I’m asked to condemn only the Pilgrims as “invaders” and see the Spanish as victims of the French?

JE comments: I cannot speak on behalf of Carmen Negrín, but I believe she was only citing two (not all) examples of the changing dynamics of who is labeled “foreign” and “native”–and by whom. The Pilgrims in the US are considered the “First Americans” by definition, especially around Thanksgiving, but once upon a time and for a specific population, they were nothing but invaders. Moreover, I am certain Carmen was not implying by omission any apologies for Spanish behavior during the Conquest of the Americas.

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (Tor Guimaraes, Brazil/US)

Tor Guimaraes (TG) responds to Istvan Simon (IS)’s post of 16 November:

IS: Tor Guimaraes is not only wrong in continually referring to the current crisis in emotional, almost hysterical, apocalyptic terms, like “economic terrorism,” and other similar meaningless rhetoric, but he fails to account for the fact, as Cameron Sawyer correctly pointed out, that even in the current crisis, and in spite of the unemployment rate having reached the very uncomfortable level of 10%, still 90% of the employable people continues to be employed…

TG: I am pleased that the US unemployment rate is around 10 percent rather that 30 percent which is where it would probably be without the enormous American people bailout of the great capitalists, massive economic stimuli, and crippling government deficits.

IS: If a system in crisis is able to perform relatively so well, surely it is a system worth greater respect than the excessive rhetoric exhibited by Tor Guimaraes.

TG: I hope in the future Istvan reads other people’s postings more carefully before levelling unfounded criticism. I have great respect for capitalism but have even greater respect for free and orderly markets. As I said several times in previous postings, all parties must ensure free markets through intelligent regulations which are enforced, otherwise capitalism will lead to disasters as we have today. That is not disrespect, it is a fact which has been observed numerous times in history.

IS: The bubbles and periodic failures of market economies show that they are not perfect. But so do forest fires, and yet they have been shown to be essential in ecosystems. Likewise, periodic failures give opportunities in market economies for the emergence of new technologies and a better and more productive economy. Crisis also equals opportunity.

TG: So was the 9/11 terrorist attack. Would you like to have more of those? America had a unique oppotunity to show how tough, brave, and resilient we are. Similarly, market bubbles are created through market manipulation and many times outright fraud such as the latest subprime mortgage disaster. Do you like to see innocent people being hurt financially, losing their homes, their retirement accounts and pensions just before they were planning to retire? Forest fire indeed.

re: A Community of Scholars (Gilbert Doctorow, Belgium)

Gilbert Doctorow writes:

I would like to add a follow-up comment to Charles Ridley’s posting of 18 November. In the broad order of things, the self-imposed isolation Charles describes is merely building walls in a desert. What he is missing is that by and large everyone in the scholarly world, or at least the political sciences and humanities world, is working in isolation like it or not because there is no great community, only private circles and the odd group of activists like WAIS where people do jump into the debate and speak their minds in a reasoned way as opposed to the one-liners, often scatological, that pass for chat in most of the blogosphere.

This is a reality which I knew once upon a time when I was a postgraduate fellow in the mid-1970s at Harvard’s Russian Research Center. Professors were unwelcoming. Fellow fellows were arch competitors for the few teaching or research appointments available. You fell back on spouse and friends outside your field or outside of the university for social contact. And I don’t think it was unique to Harvard. Scholars tend not to be team players. At best they are talented prima donnas.

But we tend to forget. My long sabbatical from the academic world stripped away those painful memories. I was given a friendly reminder of the facts of life last June when I was welcomed for a chat by a professor of diplomatic history at Boston University who came to scholarship fairly late in life from a career where teamwork and getting along with your colleagues was vital. When I said that my objective in writing the book I have now underway and which he expressed a willingness to look over was to gain entry to a community of scholars, he looked at me sympathetically and knowingly. “Forget it,” he told me. And he went on to explain that despite all of his speaking engagements at campuses around the country and his publications, he can count on one hand the people with whom he has real exchange of ideas and fellowship.

My own experience in the half year since then, while my blog on US foreign policy has doubled and tripled in readership, is that I have a total of 3 comments from viewers worth leaving on the site plus a nonsensical one-liner from some Italian screwball and a note in Japanese which no one in a local Japanese store would translate for me because it was just 4-letter words–both entries since deleted.

In this context, I quite enjoyed the well-argued push-back I got at once from WAISers on the several occasions I have written in.

JE comments: I’m always glad when WAIS is of use! And we truly are a community of scholars based on respect and on taking each others’ ideas seriously. I’ll file Gilbert Doctorow’s post in the “WAIS value” drawer. Thank you for your thoughts, Gilbert.

re: Immigration and Development (Tim Brown, US)

Tim Brown responds to Jon Kofas’s post of 17 November:

Mr. Kofas misses what for me are two important pieces of the equation–the difference between permanent immigration and temporary foreign labor. Making temporary workers permanent, in the name of compassion for their “plight,” undermines and eventually destroys the best hope to develop of their countries of origin.

Speaking as someone that has both managed foreign aid programs and done in-depth economic studies of direct foreign assistance (ODC–government-to-government) and remittances (people-to-people fund transfers), what I have found is that the economic development impact of remittances sent home by temporary foreign workers is by several orders of magnitude the single biggest and most effective source of bottom-up versus top-down development funds reaching the poor in developing countries. In 2006 remittances were estimated to have totalled $350-400 billion, of which about 90-95% went directly into the hands of the poor in developing countries. By way of contrast, total world-wide ODC via bilateral and multilateral channels totalled about $40 billion, with perhaps 10% of that actually reaching the poor. That makes remittance about 100 times more important to the poor in developing countries than ODC, an extraordinary difference. Further, remittances were used almost entirely to improve the living standards of the poor because their recipients spent them on education, health, housing and to capitalize small businesses.

I find it fascinating that those that condemn trickle-down economics at the national level as a farce are the same people that insist that, overseas, trickle-down economic development is the only possible approach to foreign aid. The kicker comes when, usually in the name of “compassion for poor immigrants,” these same people also demand that temporary migrants be given permanent status by the country where they’re working. At first this may have little or no impact on the level of their remittances to those they left at home. But as they, and later their children, settle in to their new permanent status their ties to their country of origin gradually weaken and their remittances eventually slow and even stop.

Those who actually care about world poverty should oppose not support the mass legalization of temporary workers in favor of harnessing them to the economic development of their countries of origin.

JE comments: For further thoughts on this topic, I refer WAISers to Tim Brown’s article, “A Business Model for Foreign Labor,” which was published in the Hoover Digest (2007) and reprinted some time ago on WAIS:

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/09timbrownimmigration.pdf

re: Immigration Costs and Benefits (Pablo Swedberg, Spain/Sweden/US)

David Gress wrote on 18 November:

The costs [of immigration] are huge, on the order of several thousand dollars per taxpayer per year. And they grow, yearly. In much of Europe, most immigrants do not contribute to the labor market, but receive benefits provided by productive taxpayers.

Pablo Swedberg responds:

David has been very clever in choosing George Borjas and Michael Mannheimer as a reference for blaming immigrants for the enormous costs derived from the generous welfare systems in Europe. It’s always easy to find research and evidence that supports one’s own thesis on different topics. I have been working on immigration for the last couple of years, and reality proves to be much more complex than a few papers and several anecdotes.

On the labor market consequences of immigration, even Borjas argues that immigration has a weak impact on the employment of natives (I can provide the paper). As long as native workers and firms respond by moving to areas that offer new and better opportunities, the impact of immigration on salaries and employment opportunities will remain small. In fact the literature has proven it very difficult to find evidence that supports the hypothesis that states that an increase in labor supply due to immigration reduces native wages. Empirical evidence seems to be very time- and country-sensitive. The problem is that since production inputs (capital and labor) are mobile across local labor markets, correlations will fail to capture the degree of substitution between immigrant and native workers.

Another important consideration is the effect of immigration on public finances. In other words, it is crucial to determine the impact of immigration on government revenues and expenditures. With regard to government revenues, immigrants pay taxes, and the amount paid will depend on the host country’s tax system and the socio-economic characteristics of the immigrants themselves. The government expenditures will depend on the generosity of the welfare system in the host country, the costs of the services provided by the government, and the proportion of immigrants that use these services determined by their socio-economic status. Of course, the time horizon used becomes very important in determining the net impact of immigration on public finances as well. The evidence shows that more recent immigrants have lower wages and are more likely to be unemployed, and this reduces the taxes paid and increases the expenditures they generate. The costs of education for their children, and an eventual retirement in the host country are important considerations as well. Immigrants may have a negative impact on government finances in the short run, but a positive impact in the medium and long-run. So it always depends on how you analyze these issues.

Another potential cost of immigration that is particularly prominent in the recent policy debate in Europe is the impact of immigration on crime. The immigrants may commit crimes themselves or contribute indirectly by increasing group conflict or social tensions. However, it is an open question whether concerns over the effect of immigration on crime reflect rational calculations, since the literature is not conclusive on this issue according to Card, Dustmann, and Preston.

Of course there are also many positive economic and cultural contributions of immigration that are not mentioned usually (guess why), like the supply of skilled workers in key industries, the relief of strains on tax/funded pension system that threatens an aging population in Europe, and the new artistic, intellectual, gastronomical, and cultural life in the host country.

Finally and according to Dani Rodrik, a prominent economist from Harvard, “the gains from liberalizing labor movements across countries are enormous, and much larger than the likely benefits from further liberalization in the traditional areas of goods and capital. If international policymakers were really interested in maximizing worldwide efficiency, they would spend little of their energies on a new trade round or on the international financial architecture and be busy at work liberalizing immigration restrictions.”

JE comments: I’d like to extend a warm “WAIS welcome back” to Pablo Swedberg. We haven’t heard from him (if memory serves) in over a year. Very informative posting, Pablo: please write us more often!

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon writes:

On 16 November, John Heelan said that capitalism under Salazar, Franco and Pinochet was “rampant” without political freedoms.

I did not say otherwise, and perhaps John misunderstood my argument with this response. I did not say that capitalism cannot co-exist with dictatorial governments, provided some minimum freedoms are allowed, as they had been in the three cases cited by John. Clearly, it still coexists with it in China and Vietnam today. What I said is that economic freedoms lead to political freedoms as well, which is different. Indeed, not only democracy followed the Franco, Salazar and Pinochet governments, but capitalism flourished even better under the subsequent democratic governments in all three cases. Chile is undoubtedly the most prosperous Latin American country. Portugal’s economy is in far better shape than it had been under the “rampant capitalism” of Salazar, and the same can be said about Franco’s Spain. So, notwithstanding the truth of John Heelan’s statement, the there countries are good examples for the argument I made in my previous post.

Books: David Westbrook’s *Out of Crisis* (David Westbrook, US)

David Westbrook sends this excellent news:

My latest book, Out of Crisis: Rethinking Our Financial Markets, is
out. The book is based on my years of teaching, and lectures at LSE, in
China (with the sponsorship of the State Department), and elsewhere over
the last year or so.

The book may be ordered from the publisher, website below, from
Amazon (ignore “ships by”), or at better bookstores.

http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=215115

JE comments: Congratulations to one of the most prolific WAIS authors, David Westbrook, on the appearance of this timely book. I already have three of David’s books in the WAIS HQ Library, and plan to get my copy of Out of Crisis in time for the Holiday Season! Hope the book is a huge success.

re: Europe: Immigration and Street Crime (Jon Kofas, Greece)

Jon Kofas responds to Robert McCabe’s post of 17 November:

Immigration is an easy target for fear-mongering, as it always has been in the US and Europe. As we move toward an increasingly mobile labor force and open borders under a globalized economy, there will be polarization in this issue precipitated by economic forces. Reviewing stats on the cost/benefit of immigrants, it becomes obvious that the economic benefits from immigrants whether in EU or US are far more significant than the inevitable costs of social crime. American and EU consumers enjoy the benefits of cheaper products and services because of immigrant labor. Crime stats tend to accentuate crime by foreigners, because it makes for more exciting and politically charged news coverage. “Natives” will always feel that they are threatened by foreigners, not realizing there are no natives and no foreigners on this planet.

re: Great War and Its Causes (John Recchiuti, US)

John Recchiuti responds to Nigel Jones’s post of 16 November:

I’m lecturing today at my small liberal arts university in the Midwest
on the origins of the First World War, and, no expert on WWI, I was
going to present the German militarist perspective, but, having read
the postings of Nigel Jones, Cameron Sawyer, and Alain de Benoist–and
drawing on my discussions with John Eipper following his visits to the
battlefields of the Western Front–I’m going to amend my lecture, and
present the debate as Jones, Sawyer, and de Benoist have helped frame
it.

JE comments: I’m happy my old Ann Arbor friend, historian extraordinaire John Recchiuti, has written the Forum for the first time in over a year. John teaches history at Mount Union College in Alliance, Ohio, which is best known for having the most successful college football team in US history–the fabled Purple Raiders. For years MUC has dominated Division III football (this is the league for the smallest colleges and universities–Adrian also plays in D III), and they have just completed their fourth undefeated regular season in a row. Oh–and I nearly forgot! Mount Union also has an eminent historian of US Progressivism, John Recchiuti, on its faculty.

Great to hear from you, John. Glad to learn that our discussions are going to inform your classroom discussions. That’s WAIS value!

Society: Superstructures and Substructures in the Age of Atomism (Jon Kofas, Greece)

Jon Kofas writes:

Does widespread cynicism throughout the world in the early 21st century about political, judicial, business, religious, educational, social and cultural institutions widen the gap between the individual and the community, thereby contributing to deteriorating societal conditions and erosion of “humane” individuals in an immoral society?

Superstructures reflecting the interests of the financial, political, and socio-cultural elites in every society mold the individual who must conform to the immoral system out of necessity for survival and thus be a part of substructures. While critical of the corrupt and decadent superstructures, the individual follows similar patterns of behavior in everything from substructure involvement to personal conduct in relationships ranging from personal to business and public transactions. The hypocritical aspect of the individual is a reflection of the hypocrisy in the elite-dominated superstructures held together by the pyramid of decadence.

To many citizens, politicians are unrelentingly deceitful and manipulative because they get away with distortion of reality owing to PR and populist skills, combined with a well-orchestrated media machine behind them. Similarly, individuals in their own microcosm, especially individuals who wield power in the private sector, adopt patterns of behavior intended to achieve success through manipulation and deception, regardless of the impact on individuals and social welfare. Shallowness and superficiality prevalent among guardians of superstructures permeates throughout society and it is the dominant mode of communication between individuals mistrustful and fearful of the other who in turn never goes beyond appearances, beyond fear, beyond the apparent self-interest of survival.

Young people have the option of pursuing the conformist route of decadence as carved out by existing superstructures, or they can suffer the multifarious consequences of socio-political alienation by following a path of idealism intended to create a more humane society. The existing amoral at best and immoral more realistically superstructures reinforce atomism and suppress collective consciousness and communal dynamics.

JE comments: Lots to chew on here. My first response would be: is it really that bad? If so, has it ever been any different? Elites have always run the show, because, well, they’re elites. I would counter with the modest suggestion that Internet access (Pres. Obama’s topic in his China speech yesterday) gives ordinary folks something of a voice. Large parts of the world are protected from the most egregious injustices because the world is watching. Or am I putting too much faith in the egalitarianism of the Information Age?

re: UK: on Sharia Courts (John Heelan, UK)

Randy Black wrote on 16 November:

In his 15 November post, John Heelan corrected my position that Sharia courts in England have judicial powers, when he stated that Britain’s Sharia courts are only arbitration courts and have no real judicial powers. It would appear that John Heelan’s position rests on the definition of the word arbitration. Apparently, the British media’s position is at odds with John’s position.

John Heelan responds:

Perhaps it is better to trust the actual opening words of the Arbitration Act 1996 rather than media interpretations (which might conceal a tinge of bias–none of Randy’s media offerings comments that Sharia Courts will carry out identical functions to those carried out by Jewish Beth Din religious courts for the last 100 years).

General principles

The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly–

(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;

(b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

(c) in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part.

[Part 1 (1) Arbitration Act 1996- http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/]

The arbitration tribunals are limited to civil (not criminal) cases dealing with financial disputes, community matters, divorce and there have been some potentially criminal cases of domestic violence whose victims withdrew their complaints to the police after a tribunal decision. Previously tribunals decisions could not be enforced legally. The Arbitration Act 1996 now permits legal enforcement via the UK court. (A pedant would say that the Tribunals have no “judicial” powers per se, but their decisions can be subsequently enforced via the normal UK courts, with the proviso that the stipulations of the 1996 Act have been complied with.)

re: Trial of 9-11 Suspects in NYC (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon writes:

On 16 November, John Torok asked me what kind of tribunal I would favor for the 9/11 suspects, and whether I support trying them in the International Court of Justice.

I do not favor trying the 9/11 suspects at the International Court of Justice. They did not commit crimes against humanity; they committed crimes against United States citizens and residents on US soil. Therefore they should be tried by US Courts. I would favor trying them by a US military court. John Torok’s argument that US civilian courts have the most experience in this kind of case is true. But the disadvantages that I cited in my previous post are all there. It can be argued that this case is so important that a US civilian court would be the best venue, and that it does not necessarily open a precedent that all terrorists must be tried the same way. That remains to be seen, and it is unclear to me whether this argument has much merit. My preliminary thoughts on this are that if a conviction results from the trial, it will be used by the defenders of treating terrorism as an ordinary crime to generalize it to every terrorist. And in any case, it is unclear by what method it would be decided which cases to try in US civilian courts and which cases not. Eventually whatever process is decided for that decision will be attacked as arbitrary, or military courts will be attacked as kangaroo courts, which already happened when the Bush administration sought to try terrorists that way. We shall see what happens at the trial to evaluate how much damage trying them in open court will cause to future law enforcement against foreign terrorists.

re: China, Japan and Safety (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

Cameron Sawyer writes:

When commenting Charles Ridley’s post of 15 November, JE posited some kind of correlation between democracy and street crime.

But the safest streets in the world are not in totalitarian countries, but rather in democracies like Switzerland, Denmark, etc. In fact one finds very safe streets almost everywhere in Europe, with the possible exception of southern (not eastern) Europe. Whereas unsafe streets can be found nearly everywhere in America, whether south, north or central.

Speaking of the former Communist world, I think that there was a temporary increase in street crime in cities like Warsaw and Moscow during the chaotic ’90s, but these cities never reached the levels of street crime of American cities. Today they are as safe as any other European cities.

I think it’s not totalitarianism which determines the level of street crime, but probably more factors like (a) the prevalance of poverty, particularly whether or not there exists some kind of underclass; (b) city planning character of a city–do people live and walk around in the centers of cities? Or do they travel by car and live in suburbs?; (c) general level of order in the country; (d) prevalance of drug problems in the city.

JE comments: Hmm, I’m not sure where that leaves Detroit…

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (John Heelan, UK)

John Heelan writes:

Istvan Simon (16 November) wrote interesting comments on the relationship between political and economic freedoms.

[IS] In fact there is ample evidence that economic freedom leads to political freedom. This can be observed in China. No sane person would argue that political freedoms in China today are not far greater than in Mao’s time, or even in Deng Xiao Ping’s time. [...] But China is not the only example where economic freedom and capitalism led to political freedoms as well. A similar evolution happened in Vietnam, Spain, Portugal, Chile, and Brazil.

[John Heelan] I would be interested in the comments of WAIS “China Hands” on Istvan’s comments about China. There are many who suffered under Franco, Salazar and Pinochet regimes who would argue that there was no political freedom despite rampant capitalism under those dictatorships.

re: UK: on Sharia Courts (Randy Black, US)

Randy Black writes:

In his 15 November post, John Heelan corrected my position that Sharia courts in England have judicial powers, when he stated that Britain’s Sharia courts are only arbitration courts and have no real judicial powers. It would appear that John Heelan’s position rests on the definition of the word arbitration.

Apparently, the British media’s position is at odds with John’s position:

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims…Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, added: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.” Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours. It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

JE comments: Do UK sharia courts have advisory or fully enforceable power? After reading John Heelan’s and Randy Black’s conflicting reports, I am confused.

re: McVeigh and Hasan Compared (Robert Whealey, US)

Robert Whealey responds to Massoud Malek’s post of 14 November:

Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer who killed 168
people in Oklahoma. Bombing a building may be a separate crime in
addition to murder, as an expansion of the common-law crime of arson.

Bienvenido Macario’s quote, “One question that came up is why Hasan’s
action was not officially called a terrorist act” adds to the problem. Who
“officially” labels certain killings and bombings “acts of terrorism?”

“Terrorism” like “war,” “revolution,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” are
words of ideologues and propagandists working to spread fear of unknown
enemies. They are not legal or justiciable categories.

Conspiracy is a legal category, but hard to prove in a court of law. Talk
of terrorism and conspiracy does sell newspapers and TV advertising.

JE comments: Who “officially” labels anything? I think that in the Hasan case, it would be some spokesperson in the US government. I am reminded of how the press took note when the Bush White House finally started calling the Iraq violence a “Civil War.” Still, labeling the Hasan rampage “terrorism” (I would) does nothing to change the horror of what took place. The more useful question is whether Hasan acted alone. If so, is it meaningful to speak of a one-man terrorist “cell”?

re: Capitalism, Democracy, Political and Economic Freedom (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon responds to the recent postings of Jordi Molins i Coronado, Cameron Sawyer, Tor Guimaraes and Alain de Benoist:

I have followed the exchange on capitalism and economic and political freedoms with great interest. Cameron Sawyer exposed with great ability and clarity to my mind the essential issues. Alain de Benoist presented a different perspective based on the theoretical writings of Marxists and other philosophers. Alain called Marxist critiques of capitalism an analysis, but it hardly deserves that name. Marxists have always insisted that their theory was science. I am willing to entertain Marxist theories as a scientist, but then they must be evaluated the same way as any scientific theory is evaluated.

A scientific theory is useless if it merely “explains” reality. It only becomes useful when inferences and predictions can be drawn from the theory, and then the validity of those predictions can be tested against reality. Marx’s theories therefore failed on a colossal scale, because his predictions failed. I see no reason to keep citing Marx, any more than citing physicists that proposed theories of the ether. We do not do that in Physics, because we accepted that those theories were wrong, and moved on. It is high time we do the same with Marxism and relegate Marx and Marxism to the giant heap of failed ideas.

Marx’s observations on illimitation are just as false as his predictions that capitalism would collapse and would be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Communism will take over as the most perfect stage in the evolution of socialism, in a perfect, ultimate, scientifically unavoidable system. Rubbish. It was clearly Communism which collapsed instead, and capitalism continues to prosper, even in countries that still are governed by nominally Communist regimes like in China. This is what Cameron very ably pointed out. The failures and bubbles in market-oriented economies in no way negate the superiority of markets, because these systems, though far from perfect, have consistently shown to be able to create wealth for a large number of people over hundreds of years now, and continue to do so in spite of such failures. The Great Depression was no doubt terrible, but it was preceded and followed by an unprecedented long period of great prosperity and growth. Tor Guimaraes is not only wrong in continually referring to the current crisis in emotional, almost hysterical, apocalyptic terms, like “economic terrorism,” and other similar meaningless rhetoric, but he fails to account for the fact, as Cameron correctly pointed out, that even in the current crisis, and in spite of the unemployment rate having reached the very uncomfortable level of 10%, still 90% of the employable people continues to be employed, and continues to live at a rather comfortable level. If a system in crisis is able to perform relatively so well, surely it is a system worth greater respect than the excessive rhetoric exhibited by Tor Guimaraes. The bubbles and periodic failures of market economies show that they are not perfect. But so do forest fires, and yet they have been shown to be essential in ecosystems. Likewise, periodic failures give opportunities in market economies for the emergence of new technologies and a better and more productive economy. Crisis also equals opportunity.

Alain is right that democracy is based on equality–one citizen one vote. But though this is one of the essential features of democracy, it is not the only one, and arguably it is not even the most important one. The protection of minorities from the oppression and dictatorship of a majority is also an essential part of democracy. If the “one citizen - one vote” principle were enough, minorities could be easily oppressed by an intolerant majority. So Cameron is quite right in emphasizing political freedom in democracy, because it is political freedom and pluralism which enable it to be a stable and yet dynamic system which is adaptable, and therefore a system that does and can endure. Merely voting would hardly matter if there were no political freedom that would protect the rights of minorities. Without it, the voices of the opposition would be silenced, like they are in so many Islamic countries or left and right wing dictatorships. With the voice of dissent silenced, new ideas could not ever be articulated, making such a “democracy” a static and ultimately dead political system, as it would be unable to evolve with new ideas and adapt to a changing world.

What I would like to add to Cameron’s analysis and further elaborate on Jordi Molins Coronado’s observations is that it is not a coincidence that democracy and Capitalism flourish together. Slavoj Zizek is just plain wrong. We do not have to fear that economic freedom would work better in a dictatorial system, because it does not. In fact there is ample evidence that economic freedom leads to political freedom. This can be observed in China. No sane person would argue that political freedoms in China today are not far greater than in Mao’s time, or even in Deng Xiao Ping’s time. Though the Chinese are nowhere as politically free as we would like them to be, they are much freer than they used to be. One can go to China today and openly criticize Mao Zedong with Chinese citizens. They are not afraid to express criticism themselves, and for example call the “great Helmsman” worse than Saddam Hussein, as indeed two Chinese citizens have independently told me so five years ago. Clearly they would have been afraid to openly voice such criticism in Mao’s time, before and after the turbulence and frenzied insanity of the Cultural Revolution, but they are no longer afraid today . Mao’s feet are today made of clay. Though many still revere him, perhaps an even larger number do not. The regime in China is still far too authoritarian, but it is not a totalitarian system anymore. A great part of the reason for that is the Capitalist economy, because economic opportunities are no longer awarded to only Communist party members, nor conditioned to a slavish support of the Communist party’s rule. But China is not the only example where economic freedom and Capitalism led to political freedoms as well. A similar evolution happened in Vietnam, Spain, Portugal, Chile, and Brazil. Chavez’s Venezuela is perhaps a counter-example of what I am saying here. It would be interesting to try to analyze why, but in any case it is likely to be just a temporary setback, perhaps made possible by an economy excessively dependent on oil.

One could ask in a deeper sense why Slavoj Zizek is wrong. Why should economic freedom lead to political freedom? I think that the reason is that economic freedom always creates an economy which is invariably more and more complex and diversified, where it becomes less and less possible to make easy choices of what is best for the economy, by a few people and a few planners. This is not the only reason why planned economies always failed, but I think it is one of the main reasons. Planners and governments may desire to make the best decisions for the economy, but they cannot do so, even if they are well intentioned, simply because the economy is far too complex and changes far too fast for them to ever understand what is going on. The “best” for the economy is hardly obvious in such a dynamic environment. The markets do a far better job in allocating resources than the planners do. They adapt to changes far better and far faster. So as economies become ever more complex, ever more freedom is needed to successfully keep such a dynamic constantly changing system going. This is I think why political freedom follows economic freedom. If it did not, economic growth would stall, as more and more cases would occur where political considerations override economic ones, undermining the smooth working of the economy. Political and economic freedom also allows entrepreneurs to start businesses without having to consult the political authorities. Without such entrepreneurs no economy can be healthy for long. Capitalism and freedom, both economic and political, are inexorably intertwined and linked.

re: Trial of 9-11 Suspects in NYC (John Torok, US; ex-NYC)

John Torok writes:

It will not surprise WAISers to learn that in an imperfect world I think the the Justice Department’s decision to try the cases of the five suspected international terrorists and Guantánamo detainees in Manhattan’s federal court is a good one. If the cases are to be tried in the American non-military judicial system, it is worth noting that no other US court has more experience with such cases, including the defendants convicted of the 1993 WorId Trade Center bombing attack. Moreover, as a former court employee, I can say the security infrastructure needed for such an internationally high profile case is clearly in place. A query to Istvan Simon, and to WAIS: If you do not favor US federal court criminal jurisdiction over the five defendants whose prosecutions were announced last week, what would your alternative be? The International Court of Criminal Justice in the Hague? There is an argument to be made, not only from symmetry, that international crimes should be tried in international courts rather than what international lawyers call municipal (national, domestic) courts. Many nation-states however, including the US, see such international criminal jurisdiction as a derogation from national sovereignty.

JE comments: John Torok, a resident of Oakland, California, has requested that his origin be identified “ex-NYC” in the subject line of his postings. I have no problem with this; there’s an argument to be made that New York City has some of the trappings of a mercantile nation-state. There was even discussion during the US Civil War to turn it into a “free city,” along the lines of medieval and Renaissance Venice. More importantly, we must acknowledge, with Billy Joel, that New York State of Mind…

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Bienvenido Macario, Philippines/US)

Massoud Malek wrote on 14 November:

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the first Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.

Bienvenido Macario responds:

McVeigh was not in active service on April 19, 1995, unlike Nidal Malik Hasan when he committed mass murder. The only difference I can think of between Hasan and other terrorists attackers is that Hasan did not committ suicide and he lawyered up. Availing oneself of the services of legal counsel is not exactly the decision of a deranged man.

I have made my anti-clerical sentiments and still stand by those criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines. And as far as the over one billion Muslims in the world who are not associated with Jihadists, like Filipino parishioners and clerics alike, they have made no considerable effort to distance themselves from violent Jihadists or predatory priests. For me it is not enough not to be associated with Jihadists or corrupt and sexually predatory priests. Islam and the honor of the Roman Catholic Church should be defended by its respective followers. They ought to take it upon themselves to purge their ranks before some extremists or corrupt priest bring shame and dishonor to the good name of Islam or the Roman Catholic Church.

One question that came up is why Hasan’s action was not officially called a terrorist act.

JE comments: Bienvenido Macario, whose postings so often inspire much discussion, has put forth a tall challenge worth further comment: why don’t Muslims purge their ranks of the very small yet violent minority of Jihadists who through their actions bring the world’s wrath upon the one billion faithful? Given the various branches of Islam, and the lack of a central authority akin to a Pope, how could such a thing even be attempted?

re: Economics: “The Asian Knout and the European Stock Market” (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

I have read with interest the recent exchange between Tor Guimaraes and Cameron Sawyer about capitalism, its merits and its faults. WAISers will not be surprised that I am more in agreement with Tor’s argumentation. I realize however how difficult it is to criticize capitalism in an “Americanosphere” so closely linked, since its birth, to that system.

Cameron (14 November) wrote: “ The biggest difference between market economics and totalitarian socialism is that market economics does not claim to remake human nature, does not claim to perfect mankind, and does not claim to have all the answers to all human problems.”

This could be debated. I am not sure than any totalitarianism has ever seriously claimed to “have all the answers to all human problems.” Capitalism, on the other hand, does not claim to “remake human nature,” but nonetheless it transforms and shapes this “human nature” by giving priority to exchange and commercial values, therefore to quantity more than quality, which has a clear effect on the collective symbolic imaginary. (In European history, commercial values have been considered during centuries as the lowest values, money being something extremely vile.) Moreover, capitalism is historically linked to the rise of the bourgeoisie and to the ideology of progress, whose main theoreticians (see Condorcet) asserted human nature would be constantly improved as a consequence of “progress” (material progress was supposed to improve the moral nature of mankind, a failed promised among others).

The basic feature of capitalism is illimitation (always more). Marx was very right to say that for capitalism everything which impedes the perpetual expansion of the process of (over)accumulation is an obstacle to suppress. Limits are seen as evil. This kind of illimitation is quite similar to what Heidegger called the “Gestell,” the planetary submission to the forces of technology, calculation and rationalism.

Under capitalism, the relationship between men is slowly evolving on the model of the relationship to things. This is the phenomenon called “reification” (Verdinglichung) of the social relations under the fetichism of merchandise, as analyzed by Marx, Lukács and Heidegger.

About markets: before discussing the merits and faults of the markets, it would be useful to wonder and ask if a “free market” is something which can really exist. Many economists have answered negatively (see for instance the books written by François Perroux). Markets are not abstractions, except in some liberal theoreticians’ writings. In reality, markets have always to take social and cultural specificities, effects of power and domination, influences of all kind, into account. A “free market” is just an idea.

Cameron wrote also that “democracy is nothing but political freedom.” This is the usual liberal and American mantra. For most political scientists, however, democracy has nothing to do with “political freedom,” but rather with equality. But even this view can be discussed. Democracy is actually the regime where the sovereignty belongs to the people (not to its representatives), and where all the citizens have the possibility to contribute to the decisions interesting public affairs (the democratic motto is not “one man, one vote,” but “one citizen, one vote”). Some of these decisions can be orientated toward “political freedom,” some of them can go in very different (even opposite) directions.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Mike Bonnie, US)

Randy Black wrote on 14 November:

I wonder if [Mike Bonnie] might reevaluate his statement about race, rank, religion or ethnic background not being part of the equation involved in the attack at Fort Hood?

Mike Bonnie replies:

I’m grateful for Randy Black’s detailed descriptions of connections and Nidal Hasan’s involvement in radical organizations preceding the Ft. Hood slayings. First of all, I share Tor Guimaraes’s and Michael Sullivan’s anger, frustration, and shock from this great tragedy at Fort Hood presented in the original message I was responding to. My explanation for describing Hasan as representing no one, is rather personal, but I’m not opposed to sharing here, as I have done so on more local levels on occasions in my past.

Back in 1989 I was involved in an office shooting. A man walked into business where I was working, shot and killed the manager; two employees were also shot, one died at Craig Hospital in Denver after being paralyzed from the neck down, the other survived. At the time of the shootings I’d stepped out of the building a moment before and re-entered the building a few minutes later. Twenty years later, I still cannot help but feel moved by reports of such incidents. One expects those sort of things to happen in a war zone; 20 years ago those things were not to be expected in relatively peaceful places. Not to be an alarmist however, unfortunately, with the number of work place shootings that are occurring, people “going postal” (please, excuse any reference to USPS) and the number of veterans returning from war who carry some of the same feelings I carry every day in relatively peaceful settings, the belief that anyone is safe anywhere is not living up to reality.

The shooter who walked into the place of business where I was employee in 1989 believed he was being personally attacked by the media in broadcasts and reporting. He had a list of all the televisions stations in the city, a rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition. It so happened, the place where I worked was on the top of the list. Upon entering the building, he only shot at men wearing dress ties, how a news broadcaster might be seen on television. Thanks to an astute secretary, the police were notified as the shootings took place. The perpetrator, as he drove to the next building on his list, was surrounded by police, where he committed suicide.

Since the middle of this past August following my return from China, I’ve shied away from television, the radio, and newspapers. I don’t consider my change of lifestyle a flight from anything, rather as flight to more comfortable thoughts and feelings. In China, I felt safe despite my lack of ability to read local papers and understand news broadcast. Such news of shootings (which are very rare in China), muggings, robberies, rapes and burglaries are seldom reported in English. I don’t consider the filtering of news a restriction of freedom, rather an effort to maintain a “peaceful society.”

My undergraduate senior college paper was written in the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.” I understand the power of the press in attacking and deterring crime. I don’t understand and refuse to be part of the cliche most attributed to reporting today, “If it bleeds–it leads.” I feel balanced and truly well-conducted investigative reporting is rare and nothing I want to expressly look for in daily reading or viewing.

About Nidal Hasan: It’s great to know all the details of his connections and actions leading up to the shootings at Ft. Hood; however, are all the details truly necessary for everyone (children in particular) to know? I’m not a detective or investigator who needs that information to pursue prosecution or connect Hasan to others involved in plotting another such reprehensible act. I’d like to trust the authorities to do their job. That may mean, as in the days of the Old West, a “fair trial and a hanging.” However, only the parties involved and accused of such crimes need be concerned about a rush to judgment. If Hasan weren’t at the scene of Ft. Hood brandishing weapons and firing on his compatriots, there wouldn’t be a crime. Where were the people who should have prevented this? Since there has been a crime (multiple crimes), I’m curious to know what in this world was the shooter thinking as he prepared for his attack? How did he view his potential victims? Were the shootings vengeance, considered a heroic act, or “officer-assisted suicide?” If the answers to those questions are only as shallow as, rank, race, religion, ethnic background, the investigators and media have failed.

Attributing Hasan to any rank, race, religion, ethnic back ground, predisposes motive, creates an potential alibi, empowers and/or promotes discrimination–in a sense perpetuating rumors that may or may not be true.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan: Muslim Bashing? (Randy Black, US)

Randy Black responds to Massoud Malek’s post of 14 November:

Massoud wrote that the WAIS forum is leaning towards Muslim bashing. Nothing can be further from the truth.

If Massoud believes that posting the facts about the Fort Hood killer’s leanings is Muslim bashing, then what are we to make of the posts that bash capitalism, democracy and China’s persecution of Falun Gong? This is not Muslim bashing nor are the other posts, in my mind, capitalism bashing. We are, for the most part, uncensored in our precious WAIS forum. If there are those among us in favor of censorship, I invite them to justify their goal of ignoring the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The facts of these matters is that Tim McVeigh’s twisted thought processes led him to believe that he might start some sort of anti-government movement. Beyond that, he really had no followers or plan beyond the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a radical sect/group/club/gang/militant organization within Islam that has openly declared their goals as total domination of the world. That this Muslim group represents only a tiny percentage, some say less than five percent, of the global Muslim community is a fact. Nevertheless, that tiny group has appropriated, stolen really, the world’s attention.

Al-Qaeda, a multinational, yet stateless arm/sect of Islam, has waged attacks on civilian and military targets dating to the early 1990s in dozens of nations. And with only one goal. Al-Qaeda recruits men, women and children as suicide bombers, warriors and drug runners from Afghanistan to Canada to Australia to Pakistan. About the only nation that appears to be immune is China, unless I missed something there.

Such a large, well-financed and decentralized organization, with the ability to attack just about anywhere on the globe and with the tacit approval of more than a few nations that appropriately are majority Muslim, was not within the talents of Tim McVeigh. McVeigh, who was raised Roman Catholic, later wrote that he was agnostic.

Just last week, Islamic leaders in Britain declared their ultimate goal was to turn England’s Buckingham Palace into a mosque and install Sharia law across Britain where five Sharia courts operating with full judicial authority have existed, with the British government’s approval, since 2008. Additional courts are planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

October 29–all major news organizations: Anjem Choudary–leader of Islam4UK–wants the London residence of Queen Elizabeth to be transformed into a religious centre and renamed “Buckingham Masjid,” the Arabic word for mosque. He claims to have uncovered secret documents that challenge the 83-year-old monarch’s right to the estate, which has been an official royal residence since 1837.

…Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, “No, I don’t at all.”

“One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It’s a matter of time.”

In a statement posted on the Islam4UK website, Choudary said: “At present, Buckingham Palace is nothing more than a hollow building exploited by the rich and withheld from any real use.” Under the sharia this would never happen, rather the British community would see it converted into a flourishing mosque which would be of a great benefit, not only for those residing in London but also the country as a whole.”

Choudary is already making plans to renovate Buckingham Palace to install a dome and a loudspeaker system to call followers to prayer. He also plans to use the mansion as a court where Muslim leaders would enforce Islamic sharia law and a detention centre for prisoners of war.

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) — At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed’s message to nonbelievers is: “I come to slaughter all of you.” “We are the Muslims,” said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. “We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.” …However, another Muslim in the crowd said, “”These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven,” said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals. “This is not ideology. It’s a mental illness.”

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/islamic-cleric-calls-for-buckingham.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

re: “Fragging” (Robert McCabe, France)

Robert McCabe responds to Mike Delong’s post of 14 November:

During my years as a reporter in Vietnam (1959-67) there were plenty of stories about “fragging,” but nothing proved that I knew about. Methods varied: a fragmentation grenade rolled into the tent of a disliked officer, for instance, but also “accidental” wounds during firefights. I’d guess that there were similar incidents during both World Wars, the Civil War and others, but I’ve never read any hard reporting on the subject.

JE comments: Has a comprehensive book ever been written on the topic? One can imagine how difficult it would be to gather any information beyond hearsay.

US: Trial of 9-11 Suspects in NYC (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon writes:

The Obama administration has announced that it will try the mastermind architect of the September 11 attacks, who also allegedly confessed to personally having brutally murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, and four co-conspirators in an open criminal court in New York City. It is my considered opinion that this is one more mistake of the Obama administration. Though the move will be popular with some European WAISers and also with some Americans who have defended the need to try these terrorists as if they were ordinary criminals, I would like to initiate a thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons of such a move.

Amongst the pros I can see two: 1) that the move will be popular in Europe, where it will be hailed as the “civilized” way to deal with terrorism, and 2) that if the terrorists are convicted, we would have proved to the world that the evidence pointing to their guilt is very strong. But the cons in my opinion far outweigh the pros.

Terrorism, especially foreign-initiated terrorism, is not an ordinary crime. The effects of it are the same as that of ordinary crimes–innocent people get murdered, maimed and injured, and property gets destroyed. But there are enough differences that in my opinion the way to treat it judicially in a proper way is not and should not be the same as the way we treat ordinary criminal cases.

Ordinary criminals are protected by our laws, and properly so, by rules designed to make it very unlikely, though as we well know, even so not impossible, to convict innocent people. Thus all our jurisprudence is geared towards a system in which the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and in which the prosecution is obligated to disclose facts that would point to the possible innocence of the accused, while the defense is not under any such obligation. This is proper because our judicial philosophy is that it is more important to protect the possibly wrongly accused of a crime than to punish a criminal for whom the proof of guilt is not strong enough. Juries are supposed to figure out in our system if the prosecution met the test of having proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a very high standard of proof in criminal cases, or proved by a preponderance of the evidence in less important civil cases. Because I agree with this philosophy, I am generally a strong supporter of our judicial procedures as they are.

But should these protections be extended, as now they have been by the Obama administration, to foreign terrorists? This is the key question. If so, why, and if not why not? One reason why I think they should not be extended to terrorists is that law enforcement does not have the same tools available in ordinary criminal cases. Thus the methods of amassing evidence against the accused to prove their guilt in court must be necessarily different. Because the terrorists reside in a foreign country, where we have no jurisdiction, and whose government is often uncooperative with United States law enforcement, many common tools of law enforcement are unavailable. For example, we cannot rely on court-ordered wire taps. Worse, the discovery laws that are in force in our courts, would create the likelihood that the methods by which the evidence was obtained will be disclosed in a public trial. This in turn will make their success in future cases more doubtful, because the enemy, that is the terrorist organizations, will learn how we obtained the evidence, and will hamper our future intelligence operations in foreign lands. They may imperil agents that obtained the evidence, and expose them to assassination. Furthermore the cost of trials is large, while the number of terrorists is also very large. So if every terrorist is accorded the protections of our laws, we will just bankrupt ourselves even if we catch them.

If law enforcement uses methods prohibited by our laws in the gathering of evidence, the accused may go free, even if they are guilty as charged. This protection again is most proper in the case of ordinary criminals, but would be highly inappropriate in the case of terrorists.

All of this points to the need that a separate judicial standard should be imposed on terrorists. The protections against law enforcement need to be weakened, to compensate for the added burden of obtaining evidence in foreign lands, and the standards of proof in court need to be weakened as well. Not eliminated, but weakened. It is still important that the likelihood that we convict a possibly innocent accused terrorist be made small. But the standards of proof need to be less stringent than that for ordinary criminals, the rules of discovery need to be modified, to protect the gathering of intelligence, and so on.

It may be argued that the discovery rules may be interpreted by the rulings of the presiding judge during trial in ways that could eliminate some of the disadvantages enumerated above. But it can be also argued that the disadvantages would be still far better dealt with if the discovery rules themselves were changed to begin with, to make them more adequate to the realities of trying terrorism cases.

We are a sovereign nation. We need not follow something just because it is the popular or the prevalent thought in Europe. They do not ask us about what our opinion is of their judicial procedures, and likewise, we should not be bothered at all if they agree or not with ours.

JE comments: The decision to try the 9-11 suspects in a civilian court in New York City is the biggest news story of the week. It opens up a can of legal worms, as Istvan Simon has pointed out. While I applaud the decision to finally try the suspects (it’s been eight years since the attack), I wonder how an impartial jury can ever be seated. Who in the entire world, much less in New York, isn’t versed on what happened? And what about long-term security for the jurors and their families?

re: Religion: God in Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

Ernie Hunt (14 November) wrote these lines about God: “We call Him/Her the Lord of history and use that reference in an ultimate way to understand what the Greeks believed, ‘the judgments of God are moral in time.’”

Did the Greeks believe that “the judgments of God are moral in time”? This is quite new to me. Are these words a quotation? Could Ernie be more specific?

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Massoud Malek, US; ex-Iran)

Massoud Malek writes:

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the first Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The bombing killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the US prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Religious

Nobody questioned Christianity because of McVeigh’s terrorist act. I feel now that the WAIS Forum is leaning towards Muslim-bashing. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who are not associated with Jihadists. Nidal Malik Hasan was a deranged and lonely man who often visited lap-dancing clubs, but killed innocent friends and colleagues in the name of Allah.

Sura 25, Verse 52 of the Koran states:

“Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness.”

However there are hundreds of verses in Koran about compassion for humans and animals. I suggest anyone who criticizes Islam in this Forum should first read the Koran. I have no problem with someone pointing out all the shortcomings of a religion, but no one should dismiss it entirely because of a few deranged persons commit terrorist acts while practicing that religion.

Today, there are more Christians than Muslims in the world who kill . A high-minded forum should not embrace prejudice; education teaches us tolerance not hatred for people who do not embrace our ideas and do not worship our God.

JE comments: I do all I can to keep WAIS prejudice-free. Hasan’s act, as Muqtedar Khan pointed out on 12 November, has immeasurably hurt Muslims everywhere.

re: Religion: God in Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Ernie Hunt, US)

Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God? Alain de Benoist (and JE) reflected on this topic on 13 November. Ernie Hunt, retired Dean of the American Cathedral in Paris, responds:

I believe that all three of the Peoples of the Book: Jew, Christian, and Muslim, worship one God, but how that God is perceived is the issue. We call Him/Her by different names according to our histories and traditions. Yahweh (there are other Jewish references); a personal God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (omitting the Unitarians); and Allah, but these are all limited because God is much more that our finite conceptions.

For example, some years ago I heard the erudite Dean of Westminster Abbey preach on the Gospel of John in which the text states, “No one comes to the Father but by me,” and he refuted any narrow interpretation of God by saying that the Christian understanding is limited to our concept of His ultimate love, in Christ, but that is not all there is about God.

We can also call Him/Her the Lord of history and use that reference in an ultimate way to understand what the Greeks believed, “the judgments of God are moral in time.”

Theologians wrestle with a proper definition of God but He is beyond us, except for the ways we each know and use to help us in our daily lives and in prayer.

re: US: Obama One Year after Elections; on Being “Fit” for Office (Edward Jajko, US)

When commenting Phyllis Gardner’s post of 13 November, JE wrote:

US presidents can no longer be perceived as a couch potatoes. You have to run and hit the gym to be “fit” for office. A good game of hoops makes you even more attractive.

Ed Jajko responds:

En kol hadash tahat ha-shemesh, as Eccleciastes says; there is nothing new under the sun. Rulers have long had to demonstrate their physical fitness. At Saqqarah in Egypt, there is a ritual race course where the pharaoh, after 30 years on the throne, ran the hebsed race almost 5,000 years ago to assert his continuing vigor–dare one say “vigah”–and his right to hold the throne. And on 16 July 1966, Mao Tse-tung took his swim in the Yangtze to demonstrate his own vigor, which may explain his continuing attraction for some.

JE comments: Interesting. Despite today’s ADA-friendly culture in the US, it is doubtful that FDR could make it to the White House in the CNN age. JFK, with his debilitating back pain, probably wouldn’t make it either. (ADA, FDR, CNN, JFK–a lot of acronyms, IMHO!)

re: Nidal Malik Hasan; on “Fragging” (Mike Delong, US/UAE)

Mike Delong responds (via Blackberry) to Mike Bonnie’s 13 November question about “fragging”:

The Hasan case is not “fragging” but premeditated murder. There are two penalties: life with no parole or death. Depends on the court.

JE comments: A question for our experts on military law: how many “fragging” incidents have been prosecuted as premeditated murder? Fragging is a crime of opportunity, but unless it results from spur-of-the-moment rage, the perpetrator must wait for the opportunity to occur during the chaos of battle. I would suppose that unless a conspiracy is involved, premeditation would be extremely difficult to prove.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Randy Black, US)

Randy Black writes:

On 13 November, in his response to Tor Guimaraes’s 12 November post, Mike Bonnie stated, “The man (Nidal Hasan) who did the shooting at Fort Hood represents no one but himself; not a rank, race, religion or ethnic background.”

In light of additional facts that are now known, that Mike may not have been aware of when he wrote his post, I wonder if he might reevaluate his statement about race, rank, religion or ethnic background not being part of the equation involved in the attack at Fort Hood?

Last year, Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, sued the US Army for religious discrimination. Today, we know that he wired funds to Muslim extremists groups in Pakistan in the past year. He had no family in Pakistan. We know what that he associated with a mosque in Virginia that was also attended at the same time by several of the 9-11 terrorists. In a public presentation in 2007, he clearly claimed that Muslim suicide bombings were justified and that Sharia law trumped the US Constitution. Even more interesting is the apparent emails between Hasan and a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen who later posted on his own Yemeni website that Hasan was a hero to Muslims everywhere. The American-born killer Hasan described himself as Muslim first, Palestinian second and American last, in that order.

Interestingly, Hasan, carried business cards that identified himself by his name, and underneath that, the abbreviation for Soldier of Allah (SoA), a phrase commonly associated with Muslim extremist groups. The business card makes no mention of his military association or rank. See the link below:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574546,00.html

By the way, I called the phone number on the business card and got a message: “This mailbox is full and cannot accept messages, try again later.” I assume that I’m now on some national security watch list. I wonder if AOL has cancelled Hasan’s email account.

Moreover, in the days leading up to the mass murders, Hasan gave away most of his possessions including his furniture. His apartment was virtually empty when investigators arrived after the shooting. Finally, when he began his attack, he jumped up on a desk, and before he began firing with a laser equipped semi-automatic weapon, shouted the phrase, Allahu Akbar, (God is Great), the typical exclamation of most Muslim terrorists and the phrase heard on the airplane black box audio recordings of some of the 9-11 terrorists.

It seems to me that Mike Bonnie has perhaps jumped to the wrong conclusions. It’s apparent that everything about Mr. Hasan’s actions relate to his ethnicity, his race and his religion. Did he act alone? Perhaps.

Personally, I don’t want to see Hasan executed. I would rather that he spend his remaining days at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, although how much hard labor he can perform as a paraplegic remains to be seen.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/111309dnentcharges.4179b70.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/111309dntexhooddaily.2b10a33bd.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/texas.fort.hood.hasan/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/major-muslims-calling-card-soa-soldier-of-allah.html

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/11/malik-nadal-hasan-obamas-pet-goat.html

JE comments: The now-famous business card claims that Hasan specializes in “Behavioral Heatlh…Life Skills.” Even leaving the typo aside, this might be the most ironic document of recent memory.

re: Economics: “The Asian Knout and the European Stock Market” (Tor Guimaraes, Brazil/US)

Tor Guimaraes responds to John Heelan’s post of 13 November:

I believe Slavoj Zizek is on to some critical issues. In practice over the years I have reached a few conclusions about capitalism which dovetail with what he is saying. Capitalism can be good or bad depending on what we do with it. Thus any blanket statement that capitalism is evil is as wrong as a blanket statement that we need no market rules and regulations to limit potential abuse. Properly harnessed, capitalist greed can be a wonderful force as an integral part of creating new goods and services which improve people’s lives. Without a doubt, free markets must be constantly protected by all parties. However, in practice free markets are at every opportunity being undermined by capitalists themselves for an unfair advantage and greater profits in the short term. Totalitarianism may provide a great tool for gaining monopoly power if the opportunity arises

A major problem with capitalism in practice stems from its very success.

As corporations grow into huge global companies, their socio/political/economic power grows much larger than the governments of most societies they can manipulate. For example, having these giant global companies making multi billions in profit while families go under financially is not good for anyone in the long run. Presently the Chinese government seems to be striking a reasonable balance between free markets and central control, between capitalism and socialism.

The struggle between capitalists and labor has been going on since Adam and Eve. Since 1945 what kept capitalists from running over labor and the middle class was the Soviet Evil Empire and the threat of Communism looking more appealing than Capitalism. Since Communism has gone to oblivion, Capitalists can now quickly forget their dogmas and really get creative; including using social funds for bailing themselves out of their self-created disasters and refilling their own pockets at taxpayers expenses. The reality is that capitalists with the big money to invest, the controlling power, and the knowledge to position themselves properly, need major dislocations in the markets to really gain great payoffs. That is why periodically we have bubbles and bursts; stable markets are rather boring to most capitalists. The present global financial/economic crisis was not caused by Chinese capitalism but by seasoned American capitalists.

The greed which drives capitalism is an extremely powerful human force. Capitalists don’t have enough wisdom to voluntarily give capital back to the people except as charitable donations. Otherwise, it is a one-way street. Capitalism is like a game, relentless, creative, and difficult to resist. As common people become relatively more ignorant, overworked, stressed out, and complacent, capitalists take over the financial system and the information systems. Once they have these two systems as they do now in the US and most of the world, how long before they have the government? The evidence is clear that they control most of our government. Is there any way to turn this tide back? I doubt it. Just as with any other “ism,” without strong democracy and proper controls, rampant capitalism will accumulate wealth in the hands of the few and to the detriment of the people. Up to now the Chinese government seems to be holding its own managing foreign and indigenous capitalist forces, but for how long? And, what will happen if a powerful totalitarian government becomes driven by capitalist zeal?

In a supposedly democratic nation as the US, what will capitalists do after they own everything? Unfortunately there will be no winners; poorer people will afford less, thus business will spend less and produce less. In turn, government will have lower funding sources, a weaker military, etc. Concepts like free markets, competitiveness, shareholder value are critical for a healthy economy, but are no panacea. Lenin has been proven wrong but, if we capitalists aren’t harnessed by intelligent regulations which promote entrepreneurship and ensure free markets, Karl Marx might eventually be proven right in many ways. In a Marxist country as China, what will happen if the socialist government becomes controlled by capitalist groups?

JE comments: Isn’t the last scenario already the case in China, Inc? WAISer thoughts?

re: Economics: “The Asian Knout and the European Stock Market” (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

On 13 November, John Heelan forwarded this quote from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

The way market fundamentalists react to the turmoil that ensues when their ideas are implemented is typical of utopian “totalitarians”: they blame the failure on compromise–there is still too much state intervention–and demand an even more radical implementation of market doctrine.

Cameron Sawyer responds:

There is an important difference–totalitarian socialism failed entirely. Market economics have been a very big success which have created a great deal of prosperity over decades and centuries for a very many people. Some convulsions and some failures–some bad years–doesn’t mean that the whole system is a failure. One ought certainly to discern the difference between localized and temporary failure, and systemic and final failure. A failure to make such discernment will lead one to the most horrible mistakes.

And if someone suggests that some particular, local failure of the free market system is due to some deviation from free market principles–why, it might be true. The contrary is not proven by a facile comparison to totalitarian socialism. One must get into the substance of the argument, to know whether it holds any water or not. Speaking as a person who generally advocates more free, rather than less free markets, I would say that these cases are all different. Some failures certainly come from too much regulation, to my mind. Other failures do not.

The biggest difference between market economics and totalitarian socialism is that market economics does not claim to remake human nature, does not claim to perfect mankind, and does not claim to have all the answers to all human problems. And this is an enormous difference. Market economics does not claim (except in a few crackpot versions, not generally accepted) to be perfect. It does not claim to make life better every day for every person in every way. It is not contradicted by compromises, adjustments, and accomodations with other values. It does not cease to work because it is not perfectly implemented. It even worked, in its own very limited way, between the cracks, as it were, in Stalin’s world. And it is certainly working today in the U.S. and Europe, after and despite the financial meltdown of last year. Most people are still working, earning money, feeding their families, and living not too badly.

As to the other point of the author: “What if it shows that democracy, as we understand it, is no longer the condition and engine of economic development, but its obstacle?” I think he is being insincere. He has just said that market economics result in “turmoil” and “failures,” and has accused apologists of market economics for being like Communists–blaming inherent failures on insufficiently perfect implementation. Now he’s talking from a contradictory point of view–he’s asking whether market economics might be such a powerful engine of economic development, but is hindered by democracy, so that it might turn out to be more potently combined with Chinese-style authoritarianism?

I don’t think we have much to worry about. Market economics is nothing but economic freedom. Democracy is nothing but political freedom. They are perhaps not absolutely necessary to each other, but they go hand in hand. Both of them work imperfectly because human beings are imperfect. But they are both civilizing forces, which improve the lives of most people over the long term, at least. Market economics will be a civilizing force in China–wealthier citizens are harder to oppress. Citizens accustomed to econonomic freedom will not tolerate having no political freedom forever.

* Interesting side note–why did the author put quotation marks around the word “totalitarian”? One suspects that the author, a celebrity Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek; http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28536695/ACTING-UP;http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-01-22-clark-en.html), formerly married to a “supermodel and Lacan scholar” Analia Hounie, is not being quite sincere, when he compares capitalism with “totalitarian socialism”–he does not seem to quite accept the “totalitarian” part. Not surprising for someone who wrote a book called Repeating Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm).

Zizek, by the way, is a disciple of the delightful Jacques Lacan. If Lacan didn’t exist, we would have had to invent him. He was a kind of Salvador Dali of philosophy, playing Dali to Derrida’s Picasso, say. His writing is such complete outlandish gibberish, that Lacan himself said famously that he does not write anything so that anyone will understand it. Which did not discourage legions of pious fools like Zizek to devote themselves to the exegesis of those writings.

JE comments: Cameron’s description of Lacan would make card-carrying members of Comp Lit departments cringe! Many a brilliant academic career has been made by explaining and “applying” Lacan. Me? I never found his stuff to be my cup of critical tea–whether this distaste emerges from the imaginary or the symbolic level, I cannot say.

re: Economics: “The Asian Knout and the European Stock Market” (Jordi Molins i Coronado, Catalonia)

On 13 November, John Heelan noted a question from Slavoj Zizek:

What if it shows that democracy, as we understand it, is no longer the condition and engine of economic development, but its obstacle?

Jordi Molins responds:

The answer is easy: democracy is not the condition and engine of economic development: capitalism is. However, both are intertwined because capitalism and democracy appeared more or less at the same time, in the same places. Probably, this was not a coincidence: capitalism and democracy are non-intuitively positive ideas, and only in a free-thinking environment are they allowed to prosper and flourish.

However, there is even a small negative correlation between democracy and economic growth (but not statistically significant).

But who cares? Democracy is a moral issue (people should be allowed to decide how to govern a country), capitalism is not. Democracy is robust. It could very well be that a very well organized dictatorship is able to accomplish a higher growth for its country than any democracy could. However, this “good” dictatorship would be very unstable: “bad” people would be around power, and they could seize it quite easily, transforming the “good” dictatorship into a “bad” one (the most typical example of dictatorship). Instead, democracy is much more robust: definitely, “bad” people can reach power, but they will ultimately be fired by the people.

Coincidentially, I do not find it surprising that somebody who is anti-capitalist (”The experience of the last few decades has clearly shown that the market is not a benign mechanism that works best when left alone”) has doubts about democracy (”What if it shows that democracy, as we understand it, is no longer the condition and engine of economic development, but its obstacle?”). I don’t.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan and Religion (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

David Gress (12 November) wrote: “When Muslims hear Allah (who has very little indeed in common with the God Jews and Christians worship) declare himself to be the compassionate, the merciful, it is understood that this refers to compassion and mercy to those who believe, that is, Muslims. It is by submission (islam in the true sense of the word) that men deserve the compassion of the otherwise arbitrary and cruel Allah. All others are excluded from this compassion and mercy. A message diametrically opposed to that of Christianity or, for that matter, Buddhism.”

AdB: Christianity has, of course, nothing to do with Buddhism. David forgets that, during many centuries, Christians theologians and Church authorities repeatedly asserted that killing disbelievers, “heretics” or “infidels” was not murder, but a sacred duty.

I agree that Allah “has very little in common with the God Jews and Christians worship.” But the God that Christians worship is also very different of the God worshipped by Jews.

JE comments: I took the US Foreign Service Exam ten years ago when I was “between jobs.” I remember one of the questions asked whether Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship the same god or different ones. The correct answer was “the same” (I got it right). But when one thinks deeply, the question takes on a metaphysical quality. For those who argue that humans created and continue to create God to serve our sundry needs, the notion that there is but one God for all the “people of the Book” becomes untenable. The exam, which required one to pencil in the correct multiple-choice circle, allowed for no such nuance or reflection.

Did I pass the FS written exam? Yes. The in-person interview? No; but not one of the eight semi-finalists in my group was asked to come aboard. I guess I don’t have the right stuff for diplomacy.

Economics: “The Asian Knout and the European Stock Market” (John Heelan, UK)

John Heelan writes:

Slavoj Zizek uses Trotsky’s characterisation of Tsarist Russia and asks some uncomfortable questions in an interesting article in the latest London Review of Books. He ends his article with the following:

“In the 1990s, it was believed that humanity had finally found the formula for an optimal socio-economic order. The experience of the last few decades has clearly shown that the market is not a benign mechanism that works best when left alone. It requires violence to create the conditions necessary for it to function. The way market fundamentalists react to the turmoil that ensues when their ideas are implemented is typical of utopian ‘totalitarians’: they blame the failure on compromise–there is still too much state intervention–and demand an even more radical implementation of market doctrine.

“Today we observe the explosion of capitalism in China and ask when it will become a democracy. But what if it never does? What if its authoritarian capitalism isn’t merely a repetition of the process of capitalist accumulation which, in Europe, went on from the 16th to the 18th century, but a sign of what is to come? What if ‘the vicious combination of the Asian knout and the European stock market’ (Trotsky’s characterisation of tsarist Russia) proves economically more efficient than liberal capitalism? What if it shows that democracy, as we understand it, is no longer the condition and engine of economic development, but its obstacle?”

[http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n22/slavoj-zizek/post-wall]

Given that recent WAIS discussions have often centred on post-Berlin Wall, democracy, liberal markets, and the rise of Chinese capitalism, perhaps Zizek’s questions might challenge some of the assumptions on which we have been basing our ideas?

JE comments: I’ll leave WAISers for the next several hours with these questions from Zizek–everyone’s favorite Slovenian philosopher. My day job beckons.

re: US: Obama One Year after Elections (Phyllis Gardner, US)

Phyllis Gardner responds to Paul Pitlick’s post of 12 November:

I agree with Paul Pitlick. Seymour Hersch was on the NPR radio program Fresh Air on 12 November, and he highlighted some accomplishments of the Obama administration. First, he turned to a more diplomatic approach to all nations, including Israel/Palestine relations with the appointment George Mitchell as special envoy (admittedly, Hillary Clinton threw in a monkey wrench with the most recent accolades for the “slow-down” in settlements, versus a complete stop, leading Abbas to threaten to quit). The Iraq timetable of withdrawal was the direct response to his campaign rhetoric, which GWB eventually joined. Obama’s very reasoned approach to Afghanistan, while frustrating for those who want an immediate solution, shows that he puts principle over politics.

In another NPR segment, the discussion revolved around the “what makes a great President” in the public’s perception. The answer apparently is hope, upward movement, faith in the strength of adversity. Thus the “great” presidents are usually listed as Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan. The latter two did not face great adversity for the nation, but they gave uplifting messages.

By contrast, LBJ and Nixon were cited as curmudgeon-like presidents, both of whom faced large issues and both of whom should be thought of as possibly great. The funniest part of the conversation was that neither exercised (for LBJ, the game of dominoes was his exercise), but also both were afflicted with depressive psyches, at least part of the time.

So, I guess the bottom line is that to be a great president, one has to have crises, a sunny disposition, and a prepensity to work hard on the treadmill in the morning. How uniquely American.

Phyllis (Still an Obama fan)

JE comments: A great observation from Dr. Gardner–US presidents can no longer be perceived as couch potatoes. You have to run and hit the gym to be “fit” for office. A good game of hoops makes you even more attractive.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan; on “Fragging” (Mike Bonnie, US)

Tor Guimaraes wrote on 12 November :

I share Michael Sullivan’s and others’ anger, frustration, and shock from this great tragedy at Fort Hood.

Mike Bonnie responds:

The man who did the shooting at Fort Hood represents no one but himself; not a rank, race, religion or ethnic background. Perhaps one of our military experts could tell us what the penalty would be for a soldier of any rank “fragging” a superior or fellow soldier while stationed in a combat zone (or anywhere else)?

Wikipedia.org describes “fragging” but does not describe penalties. I feel certain there is a formal protocol for dealing with such incidents. What is it?

“In the US military, fragging refers to the act of attacking a superior officer with a fragmentation grenade. The term originated in the Vietnam War and was most commonly used to mean assassination of an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade, hence the term. Although the term is derived from the grenade, the act was more commonly committed with firearms during combat in Vietnam. [citation needed]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

JE comments: Have any incidents of “fragging” been brought to trial during the latest wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)?

re: on Financial “Terrorism” (Tor Guimaraes, Brazil/US)

When commenting Tor Guimaraes’s post of 12 November, JE wrote:

With the exception of a few specific rogues like Madoff, retirement account-killers are very difficult to identify.

Tor Guimaraes replies:

This is not true. It is much easier than finding the perpetrators of most terrorist attacks. Financial terrorism mostly is caused by greed for money, so just follow the money. The real reason why Wall Street criminals are not pursued after commiting financial terrorism is that they own most of the US government, thus they can block restrictive laws from enactment and can get exemptions from exisisting ones. Most importantly, they have not yet been identified as the dangerous enemies of the American people that they are, they don’t wear strange garments, or follow strange religions.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Joe Listo, Brazil)

On Nidal Malik Hasan, Joe Listo writes:

Sooner or later, the US must come to grips with reality: the Jihadists are out to cause as much damage as possible to America and Americans. Anytime, anywhere. It is high time the US forgets about political correctness and starts fighting back. The Obama administration must reinforce the Patriot Act, and new legislation must be passed by Congress in order to permit a deeper monitoring of nutcases like Hasan.

Why the military accepts Muslims in its ranks is a mystery to me, but as a precautionary measure those still in the ranks should be retired ASAP. Those KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are enough grief for American families.

What is the use of having Muslims in uniform if they feel bad about killing other Muslims, even when they are declared enemies of America?

Hang Hasan now!

JE comments: In his Washington Post op-ed posted on 12 November, Muqtedar Khan pointed out that some 10,000 Muslims serve honorably in the US Armed Forces. I would add that their presence in uniform has been invaluable to the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. Joe Listo’s drastic proposal to retire Muslims in the US ranks sounds unconstitutional, but even should it be carried out, it would be a moral victory for those enemies who seek to label US efforts a “war against Islam.”

Hasan was formally charged yesterday with 13 counts of premeditated murder, so he is “eligible” for the death penalty. No military execution can be carried out in the US without the president’s approval. I suspect that Hasan will be sentenced to die, which will present Pres. Obama with a difficult, “lose-lose” decision. No execution has been carried out in the US Armed Forces since 1961.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan and Terrorism (Michael Sullivan, US)

Michael Sullivan responds to David Crow’s post of 12 November:

My definition of terrorism is someone or group that plans to attack innocent people going about their daily routine where they believe they are secure. The targets can be civilians or military personnel, as what difference does this make? I hope David Crow isn’t implying that military personnel are fair game at their home base in the US.

re: Einstein: Eine Kleine Steinmusik… (Robert McCabe, France)

Apropos Einstein (see Holger Terp’s post of 12 November), Robert McCabe writes:

Here’s the perfect (anonymous) limerick on the Great Man…

There’s a wonderful family named Stein,
There’s Ep, there’s Gert, and there’s Ein.
Ep’s statues are crazy,
Gert’s poems are hazy,
And nobody understands Ein.

JE comments: The remarkable “siblings” Stein, (Albert) Ein, (Sir Jacob) Ep and Gert(rude), were all born between 1874 and 1880–could they have been separated at birth? I hope they took good care of their baby brother Sergei Eisen (b. 1898), who showed artistic promise at a tender age. But Eisen couldn’t make the editor’s cut for this limerick–too many syllables.

We should raise a…glass…of beer in their honor.

re: Armistice Day vs. Veterans Day: A Quote from Vonnegut (David Krieger, US)

David Krieger writes:

Here is a quote from Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut that was sent to me regarding the change from Armistice Day to Veterans Day. There is an important difference between the two concepts. The first celebrates the peace at the end of a terrible war. The second, while ostensibly celebrating those who served, really helps to pave the way for the next war. Vonnegut was a veteran. So am I. On Veterans Day, I am reminded of how we train decent young men and now women to be killers and sacrifice them on the altar of war. Now that we have a volunteer military, it is mostly the economically disadvantaged whom we treat in this way.

*************

I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally
my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day. When I was a boy, and when
Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in
the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour
of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

So I will throw Veterans’ Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep.
I don’t want to throw away any sacred things.

re: Great War: Thoughts on Armistice Day (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

When commenting Alain de Benoist’s post of 12 November, JE wrote:

Dividing historical epochs into tidy centuries, as the French do in their literature departments, is rife with problems.

Cameron Sawyer responds:

Right, but there is a pretty vividly coherent, identifiable epoch which broadly corresponds with the 19th century–it starts in 1789, the events of which in France really turned Europe upside down (and coincidentally is also the very same date as the real beginning of the American republic; much more so than the traditional 1776). And it ended in either 1914 or 1917 depending on your taste (I prefer 1914–the year the “streetlights are going out all over Europe . . “).

I don’t think the identification of this epoch is rife with problems, at all. 1789 was the beginning of a continuous conflict, first inside France, then throughout Europe, lasting until the Vienna Congress of 1815, and entirely different in nature from earlier European wars, which determined the borders and indeed the nature of Europe, and predetermined all of the conflicts which followed in Europe, until 1914. All of the big conflicts in Europe of the 19th century were echoes of 1789-1815–the two Franco-Prussian wars as well as the civil wars of 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1870, the unification of Germany and of Italy and rise of modern states as we know them today, the rise of the British Empire (completely brushing aside, in historical terms, the Ottoman, Spanish, and other rival empires).

You can even identify the clothes of that era! After 1789, there is a break with the wigs and ruffles of previous centuries. That’s a trivial example, but it is of a piece with the much more serious matter of art and music, which was turned on its ear just about this same time with the beginning of Romanticism, which was the last fully developed stage of Western high aesthetic culture (which more or less died, around 1914, to be replaced by pseudo-art and pseudo-music).

This world came crashing down in 1914; a clear “full stop” on the epoch, and the start of a new one characterized, as JE I think correctly pointed out, by the leading role of ideology (and cold and hot wars around ideology). Whether that world was “ripped apart by its internal contradictions” or fell apart by accident, as the result of a tragically accidental war, is actually hard to say. There are good arguments for both of these ideas. And that takes us ts back to Nigel Jones’s thesis that “for modern military historians,” WWI was “a just conflict by the Allies to prevent the domination of Europe by aggressive German militarism different in scale, but not really in kind, to the Nazism which followed it.”

That’s one view of it, for sure. I am not as expert on WWI as I am on WWII, so I can’t say whether there is any consensus among historians on this point, but all of the recent books I’ve read on WWI by British and American historians definitely do not subscribe to this view. The clear tendency, at least among the authors of the dozen or so books on WWI I’ve read in the last couple of decades, is, on the contrary, in line with Alain’s thesis that WWI was a tragic accident which was not caused by “aggressive German militarism,” but rather by an exceedingly unhappy, somewhat mechanical, even, working of the labyrinth of alliances (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWIchartX.svg) and blocs which had formed by that time.

I can’t remember who made the point, but in one book I read, it was pointed out that Serbia was not even involved in the fighting during the first months–forgotten as the hideous machinery of automatic war declarations ground on.

John Keegan, the great English military historian, whom I bet Nigel admires as much as I do, belongs firmly in Alain’s “unnecessary and tragic” camp, not in Nigel’s “German militarism made it inevitable” camp. The very first lines of his classic study of the war, The First World War, are:

“The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict. Unnecessary because the train of events that led to its outbreak might have been broken at any point during the five weeks of crisis that preceded the first clash of arms, had prudence or common goodwill found a voice; tragic because the consequences of the first clash ended the lives of ten million human beings, tortured the emotional lives of millions more, destroyed the benevolent and optimistic culture of the European continent and left, when the guns at last fell silent four years later, a legacy of political rancour and racial hatred so intense that no explanation of the causes of the Second World War can stand without reference to those roots. ”

http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eodyssey/Quotes/History/Keegan.html

Another good example of this point of view are the wonderful books by Robert K. Massie, Castles of Steel and Dreadnought, which are nominally about the build-up to and prosecution of the naval part of the Great War, but which contain extensive and fascinating analyses of the general background of the war. Massie, a Pulitzer prize winner (and a graduate of the same small, quirky high school I attended in Nashville, Tennessee) has a theory that Wilhelm II, who was first cousin to both Nikolai II and to King George V, and who was a passionate yachtsman, was a little crazy and a little infantile, and was crazy with feelings of insecurity towards his English relatives, having been perpetually snubbed at Cowes Week. The naval arms race started by Wilhelm, which presumed to challenge English naval hegemony for the first time in more than a century, was a major cause of the war, and was in turn caused much more by purely personal and private feelings, than by any kind of “German militarism.” Wilhelm was not only a passionate yachtsman, he was a passionate Anglophile, and never dreamed (as Massie shows pretty well, I think) of any kind of war with his beloved cousins. He actually just wanted to impress them with his pretty battleships. I find this quite plausible, actually–the psychological portrait of the Kaiser, drawn with care and with a great deal of supporting data, is convincing.

Likewise, the Kaiser’s beloved cousin Nicky, which was what Wilhelm called Nikolai II in their 20-odd year long, affectionate correspondence (in English, by the way, which can be found here in full text: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Willy-Nicky_Letters_between_the_Kaiser_and_the_Czar; and the so-called “Willy-Nicky Telegrams” exchanged as the war was actually breaking out, the full text of which can be found here: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Willy-Nicky_Telegrams, are heartbreaking primary sources powerfully supporting the “tragic accident” theory of the war’s origin), had no intention or desire to go to war with his kinsman.

I think it’s clear, actually, from the primary sources, forget the historians, that Wilhelm was no Hitler, and that his Germany had no inclination at all to take over Europe by force.

JE comments: An outstanding analysis, but “pseudo-art” and “pseudo-music” post 1914? Prof. Hilton probably would have concurred, but I’m sure there are a lot of pseudo-artists and musicians out there who might raise a protest.

re: Great War: Thoughts on Armistice Day (John Heelan, UK)

Nigel Jones wrote an interesting perspective on WWI (11 November):

There is a huge gap–comparable with the gap between fighting soldiers and their families back home–between perceptions of [WWI] by the mass public, especially young people, and that of modern military historians.

The former, nurtured on plays/films like “O What a Lovely War” and the protest poetry of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, see the war as nothing more than a futile struggle for a few yards of mud, that slaughtered a generation, ruined a continent and brought us the delights of Communism in Russia and Nazism in Germany–and of course laid the seeds for a second, greater war.

[...]

In that sense, I can only see the “futile mud and bloodbath” school of thought growing ever stronger as the war recedes into the mists of myth.

John Heelan responds:

UK government documents released recently describing political circumstances surrounding the Fall of the Berlin Wall reveal that the UK and France were strongly opposed to German reunification. Thatcher’s reasoning appears to have been that such reunification would have damaged Gorbachev’s fragile perestroika and led to Russia seeking a Treaty with the UK and France–to which they would have agreed, according to Thatcher. She thought that such conditions would have been similar to those pertaining in 1913, prior to the outbreak of the “War to end all Wars.”

The scale of the slaughter did not really come home to me until I visited Vimy Ridge a couple of years ago and explored the trenches and fighting tunnels that have been restored. It was frightening on a sunny day in April. It must have been terrifying in rain and deep mud! The rows and rows of gravestones were both sombre and heartbreaking to imagine the useless waste of lives. Looking at the ages of those who died exploded the fallacy that it was all the young who died–the average seemed to be in late 20s-early thirties with several in their forties.

Perhaps the “futile mud and bloodbath” school of thought continues to be nourished in public imagination by its continual refreshment by similar contemporary wars, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The advent of television brings the the graphical horrors of warfare daily to our living rooms. The battle for the public mind today centres on the fight between reality of those horrors and the jingoistic propaganda with which governments attempt to justify them.

(I reported earlier that one of my lectures behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s was interrupted at 11 AM on the 11th November by a squad of waiters bearing glasses of a fiery East German brandy and doughnuts for everybody in the lecture hall. I did not know at the time it was the traditional way to celebrate “Elfte/Elfte/Elfte” or the signing of the Armistice.)

JE comments: Was “Elfte/Elfte/Elfte” observed in West Germany as well? Is it still? I cannot understand what the East Germans, dominated by the Soviets/Russians, who in turn had been defeated by Germany prior to 1918, had to celebrate.

A tiny question for our war historians: I recall reading somewhere that the Germans during WWI were always two hours ahead (time zone-wise) of the Western Allies. Did the Armistice therefore take effect at 13 hours (1 PM) from the German perspective?

re: Great War: Thoughts on Armistice Day (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

Nigel Jones (11 November) wrote that, for “modern military historians,” WWI was “a just conflict by the Allies to prevent the domination of Europe by aggressive German militarism different in scale, but not really in kind, to the Nazism which followed it.”

Actually, I am sure there is no agreement among “modern military historians” about such an interpretation. Some of them would disagree that WWI was a “just conflict,” others claim that German militarism of that time was “different in scale, but not really in kind,” to Nazism.

The First World War began as the last traditional war and ended as the first modern war. Above all, it was a tragic European civil war. The 20th century began in 1917.

JE comments: When I followed up with Alain off-Forum on whether he meant 1917 or 1914 as the beginning of the 20th century, he replied that the Great War had changed in focus and scope by ‘17–the Bolshevik Revolution, the entry of the US, changing war technologies, etc. Alain further wrote that the 20th century in effect “ended” in 1989–what a short century! By this yardstick (meter stick?) we’ve been living in the 21st century for over two decades. Dividing historical epochs into tidy centuries, as the French do in their literature departments, is rife with problems. I would prefer to call 1917-1989 the Age of Ideologies. Now we live in the Age of Identities. After 2012, if we follow Mayan logic, we may be in the Age of Nothingness.

re: Agape and Love: A Greek Question (Harry Papasotiriou, Greece)

Harry Papasotiriou responds to Istvan Simon’s post of 10 November:

Regarding the Greek word “agape” being different from the English word “love,” I have to admit that I cannot illuminate. In modern Greek these words are identical. Perhaps in ancient or medieval Greek “agape” had a special meaning over and above mere “love,” but unfortunately I just do not know.

JE comments: Our biggest exponent of love in WAISdom was our late (and beloved) colleague Steve Torok, who often reminded us that love makes the world go ’round–if not in the geophysical sense, at least regarding our interaction as humans and WAISers. It’s been several months since Steve’s death, and I miss him every day.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (David Gress, Denmark)

David Gress responds to Vincent Littrell’s post of 11 November:

I respect Vincent’s very eirenic understanding of Islam and of politics generally. Unfortunately, many people do not share either.

It is, in a way, a pointless undertaking to ask if Hasan was acting as a righteous Muslim or not. Fact one: he believed he was. Fact two: he has ample justification for that belief, not only in the Quran and several hadith, but also in many decrees issued by numerous authoritative imams over the past many decades, not to mention centuries.

For one thing, when wahhabi-salafi or what you will Muslims appeal to e.g. the verse of the sword or other verses that command the assault on, subjugation of, and murder (unless they convert) of infidels, they cannot be said to be wrong. The peaceful interpretation of the (to Muslims) divine message is unfortunately rather in abeyance these days.

For another, when Muslims hear Allah (who has very little indeed in common with the God Jews and Christians worship) declare himself to be the compassionate, the merciful, it is understood that this refers to compassion and mercy to those who believe, that is, Muslims. It is by submission (islam in the true sense of the word) that men deserve the compassion of the otherwise arbitrary and cruel Allah. All others are excluded from this compassion and mercy. A message diametrically opposed to that of Christianity or, for that matter, Buddhism.

Jihadis are not wrong to understand the command of jihad as a command to conquer. That reading is all over the Quran and the hadith, not to mention the perpetual record of Muslim behavior vis-a-vis subjugated people–India, Asia Minor, the whole Middle East for that matter.

The new thing in recent decades is that jihad is now commanded (again, by authoritative sources) not just against rulers of Muslim lands deemed insufficient in faith, but against us, the remaining infidel, who have not realized that we are all created Muslim and if we do not submit, we are in heinous error and must, as a Pakistani group recently commanded, either convert, pay tribute, leave, or be killed.

Pope Boniface VIII has been often excoriated for declaring “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” there is no salvation outside the Church. But even such as Boniface never imagined killing or forcibly subjugating all those “extra ecclesiam.” He just believed they would all go to hell. Muslims today, however, do not seem satisfied in believing that we infidel will go to hell; many of them seem to want to put us there deliberately and before our times.

What about just letting “Allah” do his thing without the aid of jihadis? Where is their trust in this supposedly omniscient and benevolent deity?

re: Nidal Malik Hasan: The View in Europe (Michael Sullivan, US)

Michael Sullivan writes:

I would like to remind Gilbert Doctorow (11 November) that when you join one of the US armed forces you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. You aren’t given a choice about who you would fight if you’re sent to war. Throughout history combatants of the same religion have waged war against each other. If a Muslim cannot fight for his country against another Muslim from another country, he should not enlist in the US armed forces.

To allow Muslims in the US armed forces to be excused from fighting against other Muslims around the world would destroy morale and be a terrible “politically correct” decision, especially since our most likely enemies today are Muslims in wars fighting terrorism.

JE comments: Nothing to disagree with here. I am reminded of the large number of German-Americans who fought against Germany in both World Wars–from Gen. Eisenhower down the ranks. Japanese-Americans, interestingly enough, tended to be sent to the European Theater of WWII to avoid suspected conflicts of interest. A double standard applied then; it would be politically unacceptable to do such a thing today by “excusing” Muslims from fighting against their correligionists. My observation? If the shooter were, say, Methodist instead of Muslim, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. The perp would have been viewed as what he is–an angry, deranged misfit.

Michael Sullivan’s straightforward response reminds us that Hasan should have left the military long ago if he struggled with divided loyalties. As an officer, he had ample opportunities to do so. How many psychiatrists are ordered to pick up a gun anyway?

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Muqtedar Khan, US; ex-India)

Muqtedar Khan writes:

Here are my observations on Major Hasan: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/fort_hood_shooter_attacked_muslims_too.html

JE comments: I urge all WAISers to read Muqtedar Khan’s Washington Post op-ed. I agree with my old colleague that US Muslims have suffered immeasurably by the Hasan rampage. Among other things, the 10,000 Muslims presently in the US Armed Forces will henceforth be treated with much greater scrutiny and suspicion.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Tor Guimaraes, US)

Tor Guimaraes responds to Michael Sullivan’s post of 11 November:

I share Michael Sullivan’s and others’ anger, frustration, and shock from this great tragedy at Fort Hood. What I don’t understand is that the American people have been raped numerous times by other individuals, institutions, and government in the past, and presently, and I hear no shouts of indignation from anyone. For example, caused by “blind” regulators, and personal/institutional fraud, this financial crisis has hurt America more that thousands of Nidal Malik Hasans ever could. But, where is the anger and indignation? I would rather be killed by a terrorist IED than have my retirement account destroyed by a Wall Street fat cat, which is also some form of powerful terrorism.

JE comments: I’m probably not alone to respond that I’d rather lose my 401(k) than be killed by a terrorist. With the exception of a few specific rogues like Madoff, retirement account-killers are very difficult to identify in any case.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (David Crow, US)

David Crow responds to Michael Sullivan’s and Gilbert Doctorow’s posts of 11 November:

I am interested in Gilbert Doctorow’s and Gen.
Sullivan’s definitions of terrorism–and those of
other WAISers, especially those who focus on
security–and their opinions of how the Ft. Hood
massacre squares with those definitions. The
definitions I have read involve violence directed
at civilians for the purpose of achieving some
definable political objective by creating
generalized fear and panic. Under the second
and, arguably, the third parts of this
definition, the Ft. Hood killings do not
qualify as terrorism. The victims were military
(except for one civilian), and the purpose seems
to have been personal–avoiding deployment–more
than political. This does not make the killings
any less reprehensible or heinous–it just means
that they are not “terrorism.” (Since attacks on
the Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983, and on
the U.S.S. Cole were on military targets, I have
always been puzzled by their classification as terrorism.)

I think the question of definitions is
important: knowing what, exactly, we’re fighting
against has implications for the means we
use. For example, maybe investigative police
work, intelligence gathering, and criminal
prosecutions are more effective means of fighting
terrorism than military invasions–despite the
Bush administration’s derision of Democrats for,
supposedly, viewing terrorism as more a crime
than an act of war. Also, the effects of a
“terrorist attack” on public opinion are
different than those of, say, a “rampage” or
“massacre.” It’s probably easier to mobilize
people to do something about terrorism than an
individual, psychopathological act.

JE comments: Interesting point. I suppose the world will hear from Hasan himself whether his rampage was personal or politically motivated–I suspect he’ll claim the latter.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan (Vincent Littrell, US)

Vincent Littrell writes:

This is a response to General Michael Sullivan’s 11 November post:

I certainly am of the mind that Hasan’s alleged action was treasonous. The Uniform Code of Military Justice will deal with him and as I see it, once he is formally found guilty he should hang or face a firing squad (provided he recovers from being shot by the police). If found guilty he should be stripped of rank…referring to him as “Major” is distasteful.

I think I take a different view from the General as to Hasan’s being a Muslim. No matter the puritanical/salafist/extremist perspectives, what Hasan did was not of Islam. The first line of 113 of 114 Surahs of the Qur’an read, “In the Name of God, The Compassionate, The Merciful.” Failure to act in accordance with compassion and mercy stands against the fundamental foundational teachings of Islam. I strongly hold to this interpretation. Also, as I explore meaning in the concept of Jihad, supposed “jihadists,” the enemies Coalition and US forces face, have failed to understand and implement the spiritual foundations to this concept. The concept of jihad is debated within the Muslim world to be sure, and we in the West give the puritanicals who get the media attention through their savage actions further credibility by our legitimizing their self appellations and use of vocabulary through our own usage of their terms. This appeals to them. This strengthens them.

Hasan is a criminal and a traitor who adheres to a superstition that claims to be of Islam, a superstition that must be defeated and not given the status of being anything to do with religion or the Prophet Muhammad.

re: Nidal Malik Hasan: The View in Europe (Gilbert Doctorow, Belgium)

Gilbert Doctorow responds to Michael Sullivan’s post of 11 November:

It may interest WAISers to see how one of Europe’s leading strategic security think tanks views the Fort Hood tragedy. On the home page of www.esisc.org you will find the feature article (in English) posted last night by their President, Claude Moniquet, entitled “Fort Hood Rampage: ‘The Most Destructive Terrorist Act Committed on the American Soil Since 09.11.’”

I found Moniquet’s arguments in favor of qualifying the carnage as a terrorist act to be very persuasive. Clearly a commission of enquiry must deal with the questions Moniquet poses about the affair: all relate to the manifest failure of both military authorities and the FBI to react to the flashing warning lights surrounding the suspect for years leading up to his deed.

Moniquet speaks of political correctness as likely being at fault, and this also comes out at the bottom of Michael Sullivan’s posting. But just saying this is not enough. What lessons are there to be learned here? I would like to put on the table one of many issues which should be flushed out: namely that it is unreasonable to send American Muslims off to war in the Middle East irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the given American policy. This presents them with a terrible conflict of loyalties, which adds to the otherwise great potential burden on the conscience of men at war.

re: Agape and Love: A Greek Question (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

Istvan Simon (10 November) asked for more information about the difference between “eros” and “agapè.”

I cannot say anything about “agapo” in modern Greek, but I can say to Istvan that the eros-agapè topic has been extensively studied in theology. The most important study is probably the monumental two-volume treatise Eros och Agape. Den kristna kärlekstanken genom tiderna, which was published in 1930-36 by the Swedish theologian Anders Nygren. There is an English translation which appeared in 1932 under the title Agape and Eros (London). It was republished in 1982 by the University of Chicago Press (764 p.). The French translation, in three volumes, was published by Aubier in 1944, with a foreword by Maurice Goguel, and republished quite recently by the Editions du Cerf (Paris, 2009, 858 p.).

Anders Nygren, first president of the World Protestant Federation, was professor of theology at the University of Lund. Hostile to Platonic philosophy, he opposed eros as an expression of the individual’s desires to agapè as an “unconditional love,” “spontaneous,” “unmotived,” and “indifferent to value” (like charity), stressing that the former turns man away from God, while the latter would be the only authentically Christian kind of love (“Agape is the center of Christianity, the Christian fundamental motif par excellence”). Agape and eros can have nothing to do with each other, because they would belong to two “entirely separate spiritual worlds, between which no direct communication is possible.” More recently, in his first encyclical, “Deus caritas est,” Pope Benedict XVI tried (not very convincingly in my opinion) to defend the idea that both eros and agape can be aspects of divine love. Some modern theologians have also criticized Nygren’s interpretations.

It can be said that agapè loves regardless of the value of the loved, while eros loves its objects because they are worthy of love. Nietzsche wrote: “Christianity has poisoned Eros. Eros did not die, but became vicious.”

re: Agape and Love: A Greek Question (David Gress, Denmark)

On 10 November, Istvan Simon inquired about the classical vs. modern Greek meanings of the verb agape/agapo. David Gress responds:

If an erstwhile classicist may weigh in, I think the answer is as Istvan surmises, in the sense that the classical words erôs and its derivatives disappeared from the spoken language, so that agapê and agapô henceforth had to do duty for both senses of love, the personal as well as the disinterested/charitable love of neighbor and fellow-man commended by Christianity.

Erôs etc. may have lost ground partly because the verbs are rather complicated, but also because Christianity extolled agapê and denounced erôs, which even the pagans saw as a dangerous force.

JE comments: Hurrah for the Classicist! Often, I lament having spent all my language efforts on the new, trendy stuff–even now, I’m Chair of “Modern Languages” at Adrian College. Sometimes only the Classical perspective will do–thank you, David.

re: Golden Rule, Its Origins and Translations (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

Ed Jajko (10 November) recalled very accurately that the statement “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is not expressed by Jesus himself, but by the “lawyer” to whom Jesus asked: “What is written in the law?” (Luke 10:25). The answer is a bit strange because, of course, many other things are “written in the law” (Torah). This is probably a device of Luke’s christological perspective. The exchange between Jesus and the “lawyer” [nomikos] seems also to have a polemical background: “ekpereizô” means “to tempt” as well as “to put to a test” (this verb is encountered only twice in Luke, see Luke 4:12). Jesus and the “lawyer” disagree probably on the answer to the following question: but who is my neighbor?

Ed gave also the correct references from Deuteronomy, Joshua and Leviticus. He could have said, however, that Luke 10:25-28 should be compared to Matt. 5:43, which presents the Biblical statement in another light: “You have heard that it has been said: Thou will love your neighbor and thou will hate thy enemy.” Jesus is supposed to have added: “But me, I tell you: love your enemies.” In this pericope, the word “enemy” is apparently related to the private enemy, not the public one.

Great War: Thoughts on Armistice Day (Nigel Jones, UK)

Nigel Jones writes:

John Eipper has invited me to contribute my thoughts on this Armistice Day–the 91st anniversary of the end of WWI–as my late father, Frank Jones, who was 70 when I was born, was a vet of the conflict, and his younger brother, Ernest, was killed aged 18 in 1915.

The obvious difference between this Armistice Day and those that preceded is that the three last surviving British veterans of the war (I believe there is one left in Australia) died over the last 12 months, ranging in age from 108 to 112. The war in the trenches has thus left the realms of living memory and entered that of history–and legend.

There is a huge gap–comparable with the gap between fighting soldiers and their families back home–between perceptions of the war by the mass public, especially young people, and that of modern military historians.

The former, nurtured on play/films like “O What a Lovely War” and the protest poetry of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, see the war as nothing more than a futile struggle for a few yards of mud, that slaughtered a generation, ruined a continent and brought us the delights of Communism in Russia and Nazism in Germany–and of course laid the seeds for a second, greater war.

The latter point to the fact that the war was a just conflict by the Allies to prevent the domination of Europe by aggressive German militarism different in scale, but not really in kind, to the Nazism which followed it. (Cf. such atroctities as the burning of Louvain University library and the massacres of Belgian and French civilians.) They also point to the fact that the Allies actually won the war.

It seems to me that the historians are right, but this does not really matter since historical truth is often not what actually happened but what is perceived to have happened.

In that sense, I can only see the “futile mud and bloodbath” school of thought growing ever stronger as the war recedes into the mists of myth.

There is no doubt, however, that WWII was a more clear-cut conflict. Partly because military technology had reached a stalemate in 1914–until the advent of the tank friable human tissue was flung at impenetrable barbed wire–WWI had a dimension of horror, all enacted in a tiny cockpit of NE Europe–missing from the latter (and far more bloody) struggle.

There is no doubt that WWI, and its poignant images of optimistic young men marching off to disillusion and death still haunts Britain’s natioonal imagination, though I expect that to fade after the centenary of its outbreak in 2014.

A few weeks ago, an elderly Chilean cousin gave me a very precious possession: my uncle Ernest’s last letter from the trenches, written two months before his death. Written in pencil to his eldest brother, my uncle Tom–who was living in Punta Arenas, as he did for the rest of his working life–it complained that they were being “hammered” by German artillery and advised Tom to stay where he was and not rush back to join up as Ernest had done. Wise counsel!

This weekend I am going out with a couple of friends to pay my respects to Ernest’s grave at Ypres in “Flanders Fields.”

JE comments: Bon voyage, Nigel, and please pay respects to Uncle Ernest’s grave on behalf of all of us.

re: Agape and Love: A Greek Question (Istvan Simon, US)

Istvan Simon, intrigued by Alain de Benoist’s explanation (10 November) of agape versus eros, writes:

I am curious and would like to ask our Greek experts and Greek WAISers to please elaborate more on this subject. The reason I am asking this is because I did have a Greek girlfriend in the 1970s when I was at Stanford, and she definitely did not use “agapo” in the sense of charity, but very much in the sense of “I love you” as it is used in English today. I am therefore curious, given Alain’s explanation, whether the meaning of “agapo” changed from the ancient Greek to modern Greek, or if the explanation of this discrepancy is something else.

JE comments: In 3+ years of WAISing I don’t think I’ve ever written “It’s all Greek to me,” but it’s hard to resist now. Can Harry Papasotiriou or Jon Kofas (we’ve missed you, Jon!) come to our rescue?

re: Golden Rule, Love and Compassion (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

Robert Whealey (9 November ) is quite right to recall, indirectly, that what Christians usually call “love” is not a translation of Greek “eros,” but of “agapè.” “Agapè” is a disposition of mind very different of what is implied by “eros.” It means “loving” indistinctly anybody, while “eros” is the love of somebody in particular. The meaning of “agapè” is quite close to “charity.” The Greeks were very wise, who made a clear distinction between “agapè,” “eros,” “philia,” “storge,” and “epithumia.”

JE comments, with the WAIS Vocabulary Power! lesson for 10 November: “epithumia” means “desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust.” Epithumia is not a WAISly virtue, though it is fundamental to human nature. Several thousand years ago, craving the forbidden got us into this mess in the first place…

re: Golden Rule, its Origins and Translations (Edward Jajko, US)

When commenting Alain de Benoist’s post of 7 November, JE wrote:

“Love thy neighbor not as thou loves thyself, but rather because love is necessary for a good neighborhood” doesn’t have the power of Jesus’s original soundbite, but maybe something was lost in the translation. Ed Jajko, can you help us here?

Ed Jajko responds:

This is not so much a matter of translation as it is of understanding and interpretation of the text, whether in the original or in translation. Alain is entitled to his interpretation, especially in this Forum. Equally, then, Robert Whealey is entitled to his interpretation, viz., “Jesus’s statement, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ is better than the negative statement of Confucius.” Leaving aside discussion of the merits of this statement or of Alain’s counter-argument, I here respond to JE’s request. The relevant Scripture passage is Luke 10:25-28. In the Greek of the Nestle-Aland ed., as emended by others, and without the necessary diacritical marks and accents, which I am unable to supply, one reads:

“25. Kai idou nomikos tis aneste ekpeirazon auton legon: didaskale, ti poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso? 26. ho de eipen pros auton: en to nomo ti gegraptai? pos anaginoskeis? 27. ho de apokritheis eipen: agapeseis kyrion ton theon sou ex holes [tes] kardias sou kai en hole te psyche sou kai en hole to ischyu sou kai en hole te dianoia sou , kai ton plesion sou hos seauton. 28 eipen de auto: orthos apekrithes: touto poiei kai zese.”

In the translation of the Revised Standard Version, this reads: “25. And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26. He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” 27. And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28. And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.” This is followed by the lawyer’s question “who is my neighbor,” and Jesus’s parable of the Good Samaritan.

Note that Jesus asks the “lawyer”–which does not mean a barrister or solicitor but rather a doctor of the religious law–what is “written in the law,” i.e., the Torah and remainder of the Bible, and it is the lawyer who answers. The formula quoted by the “lawyer” comes from three Old Testament sources, Deuteronomy 6:5 and 10:12; Joshua 22:5; and Leviticus 19:18..

The verses in Deuteronomy are, here in the New International Version:

“6:5 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

“10:12 And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, …”

And from Joshua:

“22:5 But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul.”

And from Leviticus:

“19:18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

Leviticus 19:18, in romanized Hebrew, is “Lo tiqqom ve-lo tittor et b’ne ‘ammekha ve-ahavta le-re’akha kamokha ani YHWH.” The relevant part is the penultimate phrase, “ve-ahavta le-re’akha,” “you shall [have] love [for] your neighbor.”

The interesting question in this exchange is how it was that the lawyer picked those portions of several Bible verses and joined them together to make a set of deceptively simply rules for how to live one’s life relative to God and others. Was this a formula that was current in Jesus’s time? Why did the lawyer, who would have known the Bible backwards and forwards, pick these injunctions, leaving out the 613 commandments? Granted, Deuteronomy 6:5 is the Shema’, the declaration of faith that was on the doorpost of every house in Israel and Judea, and was regularly recited as part of the prayer rituals. Or is this simply a device of Luke’s?

But it should be kept in mind that the way Luke writes this story, it is not Jesus who states that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves; rather, it is the lawyer who does so, quoting centuries-old Jewish Biblical texts. Jesus accepts the lawyer’s formula and agrees with him and with this ancient Jewish tradition.

JE comments: Many thanks for this response–detailed and learned in the fashion we’ve come to expect from Ed Jajko!

re: Religion: on Prophets, Persecution and Falun Gong (Ying Rong, US)

Ying Rong responds to Istvan Simon’s post of 8 November:

I agree with Istvan that persecution over Falun Gong is a human right issue. Belief is everyone’s choice, and Falun Gong practitioners respect other people’s choices. We don’t and won’t impose our belief/practice over others.

Falun Gong practitioners respect Mr. Li but we don’t worship him, since this has been strongly discouraged from the very beginning. The practice is focused on becoming a better person.

Below is from FalunInfo.net:

Who is Li Hongzhi?

Mr. Li Hongzhi is the founder and instructor of Falun Gong. He first taught the practice of Falun Gong to the general public in 1992 in northeastern China in the city of Changchun. He is the recipient of numerous awards and citations for his efforts to promote human betterment. He is a four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and has been nominated by the European Parliament for the Sakharov Prize For Freedom of Thought.

Why do you call him “Master”?

This is a common honorific in China for any accomplished instructor in any of a variety of skilled arts–such as the martial arts, Tai-chi, or qigong–or religious disciplines, such as Buddhism or Daoism. There is nothing sensational about it, any more than, say, might the designation “professor” be for one’s instructor while in college.

An article I read said that you “worship” Master Li?

Those who practice Falun Gong do not as a practice worship Mr. Li, and Li has, for his part, specifically discouraged this sort of thing in his teachings (veneration of one’s spiritual teacher is common in Asian culture). While it is common in the Asian martial arts to, say, bow to a portrait of one’s sensei/teacher before commencing one’s training, Falun Gong’s teachings do not suggest anything of the sort. Attention has always been directed to the teachings in Falun Gong, as opposed to any one personality.

Why did he leave China?

Mr. Li has explained that he wished for a better educational opportunity for his daughter, who was then of high school age, when deciding to relocate to the United States. The move could also be seen as consistent with his decision in 1996 to discontinue teaching in China in favor of introducing the practice abroad.

Where does he now live?

As of the time of this writing, Mr. Li is said to be living in the United States on the East Coast.

I heard he lives a secretive life. What’s he hiding?

Mr. Li keeps a low profile at this time, presumably owing to threat of physical harm from agents of China’s communist regime. Radio Free Asia and others have reported that China’s rulers have dispatched assassins to the U.S. with orders to track down and kill Li. Several of his more prominent students, active in human rights efforts, have been physically assaulted by hired thugs; in at least two cases the thugs were later found to have been sent by the Chinese consulate.

Why doesn’t he address the public or do interviews?

Alongside the above concern for safety, Mr. Li has suggested a wish to avoid media fanfare and the possibility of a cult of personality forming around him; several journalists have not represented his words or teachings accurately, which might be another factor.

How does Mr. Li make a living?

He has indicated that his income as of 1999 came primarily from the sales of books which he authored.

Is it true he’s made millions off of Falun Gong?

No. Mr. Li is believed to have only made a nominal amount from the sales of Falun Gong books and videos, and the giving of lectures in China between 1992 and 1994. China’s Ministry of Propaganda has labored to paint Li as a wealthy swindler in an attempt to turn public opinion against him, going so far in one story as to show photos of a Manhattan skyscraper and claim he had amassed a real estate empire in the U.S. In reality, he owned a small residential home in Queens.

Who taught him the practice?

Mr. Li has indicated that he studied under several Buddhist, Daoist, and other masters in China in the decades leading up to Falun Gong’s public introduction in 1992. He has expressed a wish to protect their identities following the persecution of Falun Gong which began in 1999; their identification would likely lead to arrest and torture, as it has others associated with the practice.

Is it true he is “controlling the movement” via the Internet?

No. Mr. Li reportedly didn’t know how to use a computer when last asked. He has composed a number of essays in recent years, published by various adherents online, which offer spiritual and philosophical guidance to students of the practice, many of whom live in China under constant threat. But it would not be accurate to describe this as “controlling” what is happening in China, particularly given how loosely organized are the grassroots efforts there meant to resist the suppression.

What is Li’s response to the suppression in China?

Mr. Li originally called for dialogue with Chinese authorities, believing them to be acting on a mistaken perception that Falun Gong threatened their power. China’s rulers refused, and issued an arrest warrant for Li; soon after it was reported they sent assassins to the U.S. Li has since then suggested that students try to expose human rights abuses against Falun Gong to fellow citizens, and combat official propaganda with grassroots informational efforts.

JE comments: Does Mr. Li make public appearances now? Does he still live in his “small residential home in Queens”? The information presented above appears to be current only through 1999.

re: Religion: on Prophets, Persecution and Falun Gong (Alain de Benoist, France)

Istvan Simon wrote on 8 November:

Li Hongzhi may be a flawed individual, but that does not make the persecution of the followers of his teachings any more acceptable.

Alain de Benoist responds:

I agree. But persecution is not proof that the persecuted are “right,” “good,” or that they hold any “truth.” There is today a tendency for some victims to use the fact that they are (or have been) victims to show how good they are. This is a non sequitur. Persecution of insane people is also unacceptable, but it is certainly not a proof of their good mental health.

Moreover, I think it is perfectly reasonable to compare Li Hongzhi to Jesus or Muhammad, not because he is supposed to be a prophet, but because he is a founder. Li Hongzhi “is” not the Falun Gong, but I suppose that Falun Gong practitioners can have only reverence for what their founder has said.

Finally, Istvan is right to retract the statement that “no spiritual movement has been successfully suppressed by savage persecution.” John Heelan gave the counter-example of the Cathars in medieval France. He could have quoted a great number of other spiritual movements, Christian “heresies,” or popular beliefs, which have also been suppressed by persecution. He could also have quoted all the original European religions (Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Roman, Greek, etc.) which were suppressed by Christianity.

re: Religion: on Prophets, Persecution and Falun Gong (Mike Bonnie, US)

Istvan Simon wrote on 8 November:

It seems to me that Massoud Malek [7 November] misstates the relationship of Li Hongzhi with the Falun Gong, and I think also the nature of the Falun Gong when compared to other religions. Li Hongzhi is not a prophet. As far as I know Falun Gong practitioners do not consider him to be a prophet either. If so, it is inappropriate to compare him to either Jesus or Muhammad, because the latter are considered to have been endowed with divine powers by their followers, whereas that does not seem to be the case with the Falun Gong practitioners and Li Hongzhi.

Wikipedia has a balanced and well-researched summary, which I think could be a good starting point for an understanding of the proper relationship of Li Hongzhi to the Falun Gong for non-expert WAISers like me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

Mike Bonnie responds:

Istvan cites Wikipedia.org/Falun Gong as a balanced and well-researched summary of the beliefs of Falun Gong members. I believe its fair to cite Wikipedia.org/Li Hongzhi as an equally balanced and well-researched summary:

“Much of Falun Gong’s doctrine and all of its texts are directly compiled from Li’s lectures and he wields near-absolute influence over the practice.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi

In my opinion, it’s not what a teacher as Li Hongzhi professes himself to be (a metaphor for religious, spiritual leader) teaches that is important–what’s important is what sticks in the students’ heads.

A bit more researched information can be found in translations of Zhuan Falun II, one of the principle writings and teaching of Li Hongzhi.

From a Wikipeidia.org discussion of Falun Gong text on the subject of homosexuality:

Li’s Statement About “the disgusting homosexuality” in Zhuan Falun II:

Dilip: You questioned the validity of the Li Hongzhi quote in “Ephasis
on Moral Nature,” so I just added a link to the source. I hope we can
avoid an overt war over this one paragraph on homosexuality. I agree
that we do not need a big section on homosexuality in this article, but
we certainly need a fair representation of Li’s teachings on this
subject. Frankly, I don’t undertand why you keep deleting these
statements of Li, except perhaps that they embarrass you.

This particular quote has appeared in many English articles over the
years. There may be a question of translation from the Chinese. Here are
two possible versions:

Existing version: “The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal
psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the
present time.”

More literal translation provided by Samuel Luo: “The disgusting
homosexuality reflects the dirty twisted mind which has lost its
reasoning ability at the present time.”

I am happy with either version, and wonder if anyone on this site can
offer an expert opinion on the best translation of this quote.

Source: Falun Canada web site.

Select “Dafa Books” in left column. Select Zhuan Falun II. Go to
“Humankind at the Period of the Last Havoc” at page 22. –Tomananda
20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, this quote serves no purpose as the issue is
comprehensively addressed in the following quote from Germany. It’s
clear from the Germany quote that Falun Gong views this behavior or
state of mind as filthy. And since there is no official translation it
is even less acceptable. If you cannot provide a better reason to keep
the quote it cannot stay in the article. The same goes for the poem
quote; I stated ample reasons for it’s removal, so unless you or anyone
else can respond, it should not be included.

Mcconn 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive6#Li.27s_Statement_About_.22the_disgusting_homosexuality.22_in_Zhuan_Falun_II

For greater depth in understanding the nature of cults, I’ll defer to
the late Dr. Margaret Singer and recommend watching a video interview of
her discussion of cults and Falun Gong:

Interview with Dr. Margart Thaler Singer on Falun Gong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC3USBF42RM&feature=related

For people who do not know of Dr. Singer:

Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer (1921 - 2003) was a clinical psychologist
and adjunct professor emeritus of psychology at the University of
California, Berkeley.

Singer’s main areas of research included schizophrenia, family therapy,
brainwashing and coercive persuasion. Singer performed research at the
University of Colorado’s School of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center Institute of Research, the National Institute of Mental Health,
the United States Air Force and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. She received many awards for her work, including the Leo J.
Ryan Memorial Award, the Research Scientist Award from the National
Institute of Mental Health, and both the Hofheimer Prize and the Stanley
R. Dean Award from the American College of Psychiatrists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Singer

re: Golden Rule and Compassion (Ernie Hunt, US)

Ernie Hunt writes:

It seems to me that Jesus was quoting Leviticus that emphasized love of the other, the neighbor and his or her household, so the implication is communal not so personal, and certainly not egotistical, which would be the last thing in Jesus’s mind. He quoted the heart of the Scriptures he knew to those who opposed his more liberal interpretations of the Torah.

When I say liberal I am not being political but imply that Jesus, at least as far as we can tell from the research of scholars, often crossed the social line defined by the law then and purposely embraced sinners, that is: outcasts, lepers, all kinds of women, and others like tax collectors who were not very popular at the time.

Theologian Marcus Borg, who I believe still teaches at the State University in Oregon, refutes any egotistical love about Jesus aimed at himself. Borg has written, “To belove Jesus means more that simply loving Jesus. It means loving what Jesus loved. That is the heart of Christianity.” Hence, the ethic involves loving those whom he loved, the outcasts.

At the University those who wish to differ from fundamentalists I understand have worn tee shirts which say, ho, ho: “Borg Again Christians.”

re: The Golden Rule and Compassion (Robert Whealey, US)

Robert Whealey writes:

I don’t have any disagreement with Alain de Benoist’s 7 November
addendum to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Love thy neighbor as thyself”
is only an opening gambit, if one meets a stranger in school or on the job,
which in a democracy is assumed to be a classless situation. Privates in
the army start out all equal, until the job proves otherwise. So adding to
the presumption of love, the qualification that love is also is necessary
for a good neighborhood is fine.

Part II: If you do not love yourself, one cannot take care of a spouse,
children, or aging parents. One cannot hold a job. Every moral system
assumes that the ego or the seven deadly sins, pride, greed, etc. must be
restrained for a neighborhood or community to survive.

The Greek agape and philos has to be taught to the neighbors, by parents or
teachers. Jesus was a rabbi. He had the moral sophistication which proved
more sophisticated than the high priests of his day. Paul the tentmaker
became a teacher or missionary for the message of Jesus, and took the message
beyond the tribes of Judea and Israel.

re: Iran/Persia: Firdowsi’s Shahname Epic (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

Cameron Sawyer responds to Kaveh Farrokh’s post of 8 November:

And don’t forget the Persian director Makhmalbaf, who is to this day making movies in Tadjikstan, possibly in order to avoid censorship in Iran:

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/?tag=iran-persian-culture-and-religion

Concerning the language of the film, Tadjik Persian is mixed up with Russian, just the way people really talk in Dushanbe.

re: Anthropology: Claude Levi-Strauss, 1908-2009 (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist writes:

I am very pleased that there was at least one WAISer, David Westbrook (8 November), to send a comment to mark Claude Lévi-Strauss’s death. I also appreciate learning that the first book published by David was illustrated by the Belgian Surrealist Paul Delvaux, an artist I like very much.

David wrote that he was never sure how seriously Lévi-Strauss took science, including his own, and that “his structuralism [became] the target of post-structuralist critiques.”

On 8 October 1991, Lévi-Strauss gave an interview to the daily newspaper Le Monde, where he expressed the opinion that social sciences, compared to “hard” sciences, “are sciences only as the result of a flattering deception” (“par une flatteuse imposture”). The reason, he explained, is that the realities that the social sciences try to know and to understand “have the same level of complexity as the intellectual means used to catch them”–while the objects of the “hard” sciences are generally less complex than the means used by the mind to understand them.

Lévi-Strauss is mainly known for his book Tristes tropiques, which attracted a large general readership. However, his most important work is Les structures élémentaires de la parenté (1949). In his works on race, he criticized racism as well as antiracism. He described his method as “structural analysis,” which explains why he was so frequently labelled a “structuralist.” However, he never recognized himself fully in “structuralism,” especially in philosophical structuralism (Barthes, Derrida, etc.), which was always very foreign to him. He was nearer to the so-called “structuralism” of the famous Indo-Europeanist Georges Dumézil (who discovered in the 1930s the functional character of the “tripartite ideology” of the Indo-Europeans). When Dumézil, who was his friend (and mine), was elected to the Académie française, he was officially “received” by Lévi-Strauss.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was also the only social anthropologist or ethnologist ever elected to the Académie française.

JE comments: And as I understand it, Lévi-Strauss was also the only member of the Académie ever to reach the age of 100.

re: Religion: Falun Gong and Homosexuality (Ying Rong, US)

Ying Rong responds to Massoud Malek’s post of 7 November:

Five major misconceptions about Falun Gong were fabricated in China and exported worldwide. The communist regime takes Mr. Li’s words out of context and uses them to incite hatred against Falun Gong. Years ago, several pro-communists did a large anti-Falun Gong campaign in San Francisco based on this point, and many gays/lesbians inquired about what was going on. After clarifying our position, they understood it. I would like to recommend to WAISers who are interested to read on:

Misconceptions About Falun Gong

http://faluninfo.net/article/651/?cid=23

1. Intolerant of homosexual/interracial marriage?

Falun Gong is not anti-gay. Living in the San Francisco bay Area, I myself have friends/coworkers who are gays and lesbians. One I worked closely wrote recommendation letter for me when I was swiching jobs. Now I am a friend on his face book.

In fact some gays/lesbians have joined Falun Gong. As Falun Gong practitioners, we don’t practice homosexuality. This is easy to understand from Taoism, a traditional Chinese belief. Taoism says the universe has both “yin” and “yang,” while combinning “yin” and “yang” is a natural way to achieve balance. Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese practice that has many Taoist elements. However, we don’t impose our own belief over others.

In regards to interracial marriage, many Falun Gong practitioners I know are in interracial marriages and many of them have children. Hope these facts help to answer Mr. Malek’s question.

Below is from Faluninfo.net:

Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.

The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.

Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.

Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.

A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.

What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.

Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.

Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.

If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.

The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.

JE comments: An interesting verb usage: Faluninfo.net refers to people who “do” Falun Gong, not those who “are” FG members/believers. This suggests a self-identification that FG is a practice or philosophy rather than a religion–I cannot imagine a Catholic or Muslim publication talking about those who “do” Christianity or Islam. Or is the editor and philologist in me attempting too close a reading?

re: Religion: on Prophets, Persecution and Falun Gong (Istvan Simon, US)

Falun Gong has proven to have very long legs on WAIS–the postings keep coming in. Here, Istvan Simon responds to Massoud Malek’s post of November 7 and John Heelan’s post of November 6:

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on the Falun Gong, nor Christianity nor Islam, or any religion for that matter. However, I do not have to be an expert on any religion to be able to comment on the impropriety of the persecution of its followers. That is primarily a human rights issue, and I think something sufficiently basic and fundamental that anyone can comment on without expert knowledge.

Having said so, it seems to me that Massoud Malek misstates the relationship of Li Hongzhi with the Falun Gong, and I think also the nature of the Falun Gong when compared to other religions.

Li Hongzhi is not a prophet. As far as I know Falun Gong practitioners do not consider him to be a prophet either. If so, it is inappropriate to compare him to either Jesus or Muhammad, because the latter are considered to have been endowed with divine powers by their followers, whereas that does not seem to be the case with the Falun Gong practitioners and Li Hongzhi.

Wikipedia has a balanced and well-researched summary, which I think could be a good starting point for an understanding of the proper relationship of Li Hongzhi to the Falun Gong for non-expert WAISers like me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

Perhaps Ying Rong would be kind enough to further comment on this relationship from the perspective of a practitioner.

Li Hongzhi is the founder of the Falun Gong. Nonetheless tens of millions of people now claim to be practitioners, and when such a large number of people is involved, it is I think appropriate to state, as I have done in my November 6 post, that Li Hongzhi is not the Falun Gong. I also think that my comparison of the relationship of the Falun Gong to Li Hongzhi with that of the Catholic Church to the Pope is more appropriate than Jesus to Christianity or Muhammad to Islam.

If this is so, the enumeration of the supposed shortcomings of Li Hongzhi that Massoud Malek brought up is not relevant to the discussion on the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Li Hongzhi may be a flawed individual, but that does not make the persecution of the followers of his teachings any more acceptable. Furthermore, his flaws do not necessarily invalidate the possible truths that Falun Gong practitioners find in his teachings.

I stated in my November 6 post that no spiritual movement has been successfully suppressed by savage persecution. John Heelan responded with the counter-example of the apparently successful suppression of the Cathars in medieval France. John Heelan seems to be right, so I retract my statement made with the sweeping generality that I have indulged in on November 6. Nonetheless, the following considerations perhaps make it unlikely that the Chinese authorities will ever succeed in suppressing the Falun Gong.

The article in Wikipedia states that there is no centralized organized membership list of the Falun Gong. So it is not clear in particular how many practitioners there are. At one point the Chinese government claimed that there were 70 million followers in China, but following the ban of the Falun Gong and the propaganda campaign against it this number was revised to 2 million. I am frankly skeptical of this spectacular reduction in the number of practitioners by a factor of 35 claimed by the Chinese authorities. However, in any case, there seem to be millions of followers outside of the reach of the Chinese authorities, which makes their attempt to suppress the Falun Gong by savage persecution unlikely to ever succeed.

JE comments: I have a response in my inbox from Ying Rong, to Massoud Malek’s posting of 7 November. Ying’s note is next in the queue.

re: Anthropology: Claude Levi-Strauss, 1908-2009 (David Westbrook, US)

David Westbrook writes, on the death (30 October) of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss:

The news that Levi-Strauss has died arrives like an announcement that
Merlin has died. On the one hand, we had so long heard his name, many of
us assumed that he was already dead. On the other hand, for those of us
who knew he was still alive, he was already so old, certainly in the
pantheon, as good as immortal–actually dying seemed rather
superfluous. But at the age of 100, surely that means something?

L-S was a giant. Alain de Benoist pointed out that he valorized particular
cultures, the various modalities of humanity that are the forte of the
anthropologist. True enough, but the opposite is equally true: L-S also
insisted on “the human” that underlay all cultures–perhaps to be
articulated in structuralist terms. This more universalist and
“scientific” (although I was never sure how seriously L-S took science,
including his own–very French, that) tendency, in fact, was what made
his structuralism the target of post-structuralist critiques. Of course,
it was these very same critiques that guaranteed L-S his place in the
pantheon, i.e., the rebellion of the next generation proved L-S was a
cultural figure.

Looking back, with some distance now, I think it was really important to
insist, particularly in the years after WWII, in which the French had
acquitted themselves badly and the Germans horrifically, even while the
U.S. and the USSR threatened to blow everything up, on the human as
such. L-S reminds me, in this regard, of Faulkner–a great spirit in
dark days.

To repeat myself, L-S was a giant. My education was woefully inadequate
in this regard, but giants are hard to avoid, and so, over the years, I
kept running into L-S, stumbling over him. After a while, the accidental
(for me) character of L-S’s work and especially influence became
amusing. My first published book was illustrated with paintings by the
Belgian Surrealist Paul Delvaux, whose work seemed very apt for what I
was trying to say. It emerged that L-S was a big fan, who wrote the
Preface to a major edition of Delvaux’s works. The man who taught me
most of what I know about securities law, a great lawyer who should have
been an anthropologist, turned out to have been a serious student of L-S.
And an overly generous critic did me the great honor of saying that my
understanding of anthropology reminded him of anthropology in the age of
L-S (he didn’t actually compare my work favorably to Claude’s, but we
were in the same sentence, and that’s good enough for me). My pamphlet
was supposed to go to the great one this year, but that didn’t happen. I
won’t deny fantasizing about having a blurb from Claude on the second
edition. You get the point: here there be giants.

And now this giant is gone. And that is worth some thanks for a truly
notable life, perhaps a prayer, certainly a log on the fire on a
November evening, and a toast.

JE comments: Very poetically stated. In 2009 the world has lost many giants, but Levi-Strauss was one of the biggest.

By his “pamphlet,” David Westbrook is referring to his sweeping reflection on anthropology today, Navigators of the Contemporary: Why Ethnography Matters. All WAISers should read it.

re: Religion: Falun Gong (Massoud Malek, US; ex-Iran)

JE: Just one more Falun Gong posting for now. This time, we hear from Massoud Malek:

On 6 November, Istvan Simon wrote:

I do not particularly care whatever Li Hongzhi may or not have said in front of television cameras. That is because I think that Li Hongzhi is not the Falun Gong.

Massoud Malek responds:

Could we also say that Jesus is not Christianity or Muhammad is not Islam?

Today , there are over 100 million Falun Gong practitioners who follow the teachings of their master, Li Hongzhi. These people are persecuted by the Chinese government and the West keeps quiet because of cheap Chinese products. There are actually more followers of Li Hongzhi than all the Jews, Baha’is, Zoroastrians, Shamanists, Voodoo practicers, Jains, and many other faiths combined.

No one knows exactly when Zoroaster was born. The same goes with Buddha. Li Hongzhi’s birth certificate states that he was born on 7 July 1952, but he was actually born on the same day as Sakyamuni (Buddha), on 13 May 1951. Here is how Li Homgzhi explains his birthday:

http://clearwisdom.net/emh/download/publications/peacereport_statement.html

“Some people spread rumors that I changed my date of birth, and this is true. During the Cultural Revolution, the government misprinted my date of birth. What I did was simply to change the misprinted date of birth to the correct one. As for the fact that Sakyamuni was also born on this day, what does that have to do with me? Many other people were also born on this day. In addition, I have never claimed that I am Sakyamuni.”

Note: The Cultural Revolution took place many years after his birthday. Why did the Chinese government issue a new birth certificate making him younger?

By reading “Brief biography of Li Hongzhi: founder of Falun Gong and president of the Falun Gong Research Society,”

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/Chinese%20Religions/Li%20Hongzhi.htm

one could understand why Falun Gong is not a cult, it is based on “Zhen-Shan-Ren:”

Zen: Do true things and speak the truth.

Shan: Be kind and compassionate.

Ren: Refrain from resentment and hatred.

It is safe to practice Falun Gong. No practitioners of Falun Gong will suffer from adverse changes. Li Hongzhi has time and again emphasized that no problems must arise in the practicing of Dafa. Falun Gong has excluded all factors that are likely to lead to adverse changes. For instance, there can be no “yi nian” in the course of practicing gong, nor can there be “spontaneous gong.” Also, each student is protected by his or her “fa shen” (Dharma body); the family of each student, and even the venue where he or she practices gong, is cleansed and protected by a “safety hood” (anquan zhao) that ensures that the student is not affected by evil information.

Every prophet produced at least one miracle; here are some miracles by Li Hongzhi that [ordinary people could not comprehend]:

When Li Hongzhi was eight years old, he suddenly became aware that something had appeared at the corner of his eyes. Gradually, he realized they were the words “zhen-shan-ren.” It was the master who had impressed these words in his eyes. No one else could see them, but they were constantly visible to him. In the years that followed, the master told him the meaning of these words: Zhen means to do true things and speak the truth; it means not practicing deception or speaking untruths, and not concealing one’s mistakes; this will eventually result in the attainment of truth. Shan means to be kind and compassionate, to refrain from bullying people, to sympathize with the weak, help the poor; it means that one should always be ready to help others and do good things. Ren means that, when one experiences difficulties and suffers injustices, one should look at the bright side of things, be able to hold out, refrain from resentment and hatred, refrain from nursing grievances and taking revenge, be able to endure the worst of adversities and things that normal people are unable to endure.

At the age of eight, Li Hongzhi was already highly proficient in Dafa and had acquired supernatural powers. When he played hide-and-seek with his companions, he had only to think “other people cannot see me” to make himself invisible to others, who could not see him even if they directed a flashlight at his face. With a simple flick of a finger, he could draw long, rusty, and crooked nails out of pieces of wood. When water pipes froze up in winter, he had only to tap them with his hand for the pipes to bend; even he himself did not know how he did this. As he was playing with his little companions in snow-covered fields, he could jump and fly through the air. If he found two people about to get into a fight, he could prevent one of them from approaching the other simply by thinking that that person should not go near the other person.

One day, when in the fourth grade of elementary school, Li left school without taking along his school bag, and when he went back to get it the door of the classroom was locked and the windows had been shut. He thought that it would be nice if he could get in. No sooner had the thought flashed through his mind that he found himself in the classroom. Another thought, and he was out again. On another occasion he had this thought: what would it feel like to be in the middle of a window pane? No sooner had he thought this than he found himself positioned in the window. He at once felt as if his body and brain were filled with shards of glass; it was most uncomfortable, so he hurriedly got out again. He did not know, at the time, what was the power of gong; he thought everyone was like this, and paid no attention to the matter.

Here is what Li Hongzhi said on September 4–5, 1998 in Geneva about the decline of the Greek Civilization:

http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

Question: Why is it that homosexuals are considered bad people?

Teacher: Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods. You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed.

Conclusion: What is more disturbing? Mike Bonnie’s posts on Falun Gong or reading in this high-minded forum posts about a prophet who dislikes homosexuals, mixed races, and the Chinese government?

JE comments: This is the first time I’ve heard that Li-Hongzhi is so anti-gay. Can Ying Rong comment?

re: Golden Rule and Compassion (Alain de Benoist, France)

Alain de Benoist responds to Robert Whealey’s post of 5 November:

Jesus’s statement, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is in my view rather poor. First, there could be good and just reasons not to love thy neighbor. In that case, love contradicts justice. Second, this statement is an implicit justification of egoism: it is built on the premise that I am supposed to be in love with myself. But what happens if I do not love myself? A better statement would be: love thy neighbor, not as thou loves thyself, but because love is necessary for a good neighborhood.

JE comments: “Love thy neighbor not as thou loves thyself, but rather because love is necessary for a good neighborhood” doesn’t have the power of Jesus’s original soundbite, but maybe something was lost in the translation. Ed Jajko, can you help us here?

re: Religion: Falun Gong (Charles Ridley, US)

JE: I know, I know–this morning I said no more Falun Gong posts for awhile. But I always want to know what Charles Ridley has to say. So this is what Charles has to say:

I will have to leave the question of the degree of suppression of the Falun Gong to those better informed than I. It does appear that the Chinese government has chosen the Falun Gong as its major domestic enemy at the present time. As I noted in my WAIS ‘09 talk, the government most likely feels the necessity of indentifying an “enemy” within the society as a rallying point so that people will have a ready target for their discontent. In earlier days, it was landlords and other “rightists” who were the targets.

The primary fact about the Chinese government is that it is extremely authoritarian. The history of the regime since 1949 has been one of persecution of those seen to be on the wrong side of regime values, a tendency that led to a high level of slaughter of innocent citizens.

A major difference now is that the eyes of the world are on China, which means that any persecutions inside its borders must be handled without undue publicity. Whether the nature of the beast has changed is another question.

My own personal and very anecdotal evidence suggests that people are well indoctrinated into a belief that the Dalai Lama is an evil man, and, I suspect, on the idea of the “civilizing” character of the regime in dealing with the “decadent” culture of Tibet.

At a personal level, because of my past publication history, I was a bit nervous about undertaking my trip to China this past summer. When I applied for my visa I wondered of they would check on me and deny me entry. And I even wondered if I might be challenged once I was in the country. That can be chalked up to paranoia, of course.

When I get to analyzing the school books, one of the approaches I will take (and have undertaken in the past) is to look for contradictions between the values the government wishes to inculcate and the behavior of the government.

One of the problems deriving from actual visits to China is that the Chinese are very charming and most visitors returned enthused. One acquaintance of mine who spent last year in China has informed me that he “loves that country” and prefers Chinese to Americans. (He has also taken a dislike to Japan, after having spent three years there studying Japanese.)

I must conclude with the caveat, that in spite of my doctorate in Chinese studies, I have had virtually no experience, excluding my visit in July, of the country and do not think of myself as a “China expert.” I merely investigate one aspect of the culture, namely education, and that only from a “documentary” basis as I lack the experience of observing Chinese schools in action and have no way of knowing what actually happens in moral education and language classes. Thus, in practice, I am merely an amateur.

JE comments: Amateur, schmamateur. Don’t be so modest, Charles! Your on-the-spot readings of Chinese textbooks at the WAIS conference was one of the most impressive demonstrations of the entire weekend.

re: Religion: Falun Gong, Cults and Persecution (Mike Bonnie, US)

Ying Rong wrote on 6 November:

I don’t truly have anything more to say to [Mike Bonnie] since [he] claims to be so well-informed about Falun Gong. May my compassion go all the way out to you. I silently wish that one day in the future your heart will wake up to the truth. I hope that you will have a chance to appreciate the truth soon.

Mike Bonnie responds:

Not so fast. Falun Gong does not have a monopoly on truth. Ms. Rong would like to personalize the discussion regarding the torture and abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Very well; I’d like to share some personal insights of which, being younger than me, she may not be aware. I’m certain more than a few WAISers older than 60 can chime in with their own views.

I was raised attending a Roman Catholic school and adjoining church. At that time it was standard practice in the “hidden curriculum” that all boys were raised to be priests. All girls were raised to be nuns. Writing script with the right hand was required. I had a particular disadvantage because I was born a natural left-hander. I recall being whacked on the hand numerous times in the presence of my classmates, and being told the “devil” was inside me causing me to make the Sign of the Cross with my left hand.

Probably the most difficult day of the school week for me was Monday. That was the day the list came out from the church announcing the names of families, in order of size of donation, who put how much in the Sunday donation basket.

My abuse went on for 7-1/2 years until one day, while running on the playground, I fell and hit my head. Unbeknownst to me at the time I suffered a concussion. All I knew what that I hurt, I was throwing up on the floor and the nun in the classroom refused to let me call home. I left the tutelage of Roman Catholicism never to return.

The abuse I suffered was nothing compared to that I’ve since seen and heard testified and graphically demonstrated by others. I’ve forgiven the nuns in the school and priests who idly stood by. I’ve forgiven the members of the religious cult that tore my family apart for well over 20 years and still holds sway. I’ve forgiven but haven’t forgotten. I don’t need or require lectures on the right or wrong of abuse and forgiveness, cults or religions. I prefer that people do not silently wish anything for me. We may not be wishing the same things.

When you say “Falun Gong practitioners believe in ‘Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance,’ Doing good deeds will be rewarded; doing bad deeds will be punished,” what is Falun Gong (the U.S. corporation) doing to the people of China (those who do not want to be liberated–those who are happy as is)? How is Falun Gong, Inc. any different from any other religion that has attempted to back the colonization China?

On 11/05/2009 JE commented: If a “good cult” has transparency and integrity, and creates provisions for challenging its leadership openly, how many governments or large organizations can we classify as “good”–cult or otherwise?

Mike Bonnie replies: I can’t address the list of governments and organizations that exist or existed that could be classified as “good” cult or otherwise. I can address the number of Falun Gong/Falun Dafa organizations that exist in the U.S. operating as tax-exempt 501(c)(3), B99 (Education N.E.C. ), Q70 (International Human Rights), or X99 (Religious Related, Spiritual Development N.E.C. ) corporations.

Here’s the list from Guidestar.com http://www2.guidestar.org/

Friends Of Falun Gong
Tenafly, NJ 07670

Global Mission To Rescue Persecuted Falun Gong Practitioners
West Roxbury, MA 02132

Coalition To Investigate The Persecution Of Falun Gong In China
Washington, DC 20024

Washington DC Area Falun Dafa Practitioners Assoc.
Silver Spring, MD

Mid-USA Falun Dafa Association
Chicago, IL

Falun Dafa Information Center
New York, NY

Southern USA Falun Dafa Association
Richmond, TX

Falun Dafa Museum
Richardson, TX

Falun Dafa Association of New England
Lexington, MA

Wisconsin Falun Dafa Association
Madison, WI

US Southwestern Falun Dafa Association
West Covina, CA

Arizona Falun Dafa Association
Tuscon, AZ

Indiana Falun Dafa Association Incorporated
Indianapolis, IN

North Carolina Falun Dafa Association
Duluth, GA

North Carolina Falun Dafa Association
Cary, NC

Western US Falun Dafa Association
San Jose, CA

Eastern US Buddahs Study Falun Dafa Association
Woodside, NY

I’ll close with a quote from the past: American President Ronald Reagan once famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

JE comments: The Falun Gong discussion is getting very personal. I think it would be best to move on to other topics for awhile.

It’s been said that natural lefties in the old days were often abused in parochial schools, but Mike Bonnie’s tale is the first time I’ve heard from one of the victims. What absurdity to persecute the leftists among us, to call them “sinister,” “gauche” and the like! (Left-handedness came up on WAIS about 18 months ago, and I recall that we have a high number of southpaws–far beyond the “normal” level of 10% or so. Do WAISers have the devil in them?)

re: Religion: Falun Gong, Cults and Persecution (Alain de Benoist, France)

Istvan Simon wrote on 6 November:

When a spiritual movement has as many adherents as the Falun Gong does, it is absurd to call it a cult.

Alain de Benoist responds:

Maybe. A question, however: what is the level of membership to be reached for getting the privilege not to be called a cult anymore? Are religions cults which have been successful, and cults religions which have failed?

re: Religion: Falun Gong, Cults and Persecution (Siegfried Ramler, US)

Siegfried Ramler writes:

In relation to the recent postings on Falun Gong, may I add a perspective
based on contacts with academics in China under East-West Center
auspices during the last several years. There is a wide spectrum in
China from often brutal repression to freedom of religious
expression, reflecting the diversity in twenty-first century China.
Take, for example, the centers for religious studies at Nanjing
University, the theological Protestant seminary and the Nanjing
center for Judaic studies in that city. While the government
forbids proselytizing, such centers do grow in research and
publications.

Travelling in China with American scholars in recent years, including
discussions in Nanjing, we raised the issue of brutal Falun Gong
repression. We would point out that in the US, as in other
countries, sects or cults, such as Hare Krishna, would manifest on
the streets, chanting and beating drums, and generally would be left
alone by police. Why can’t the Chinese authorities tolerate
manifestations which do no harm? The answer was consistent wherever
we raised this issue. We were told that social stability must be a
priority for China. If manifestations are not stopped, they will
grow and interfere with the social order. Though not openly
expressed, the argument goes that a relaxation in maintaining public
order would not only endanger social stability but might also incite
political unrest, such as the 1989 Tiananmen incident, to be avoided
at all costs.