Back - but not happily

I haven't posted here again in over a year. I'd been vacillating over whether to discontinue and shut down the blog as I just haven't had the time and motivation to maintain it. Inertia set in and things were more or less left where they were.

Until today. Today, I feel the need to put down a few quick thoughts regarding the political situation in the US. Today was not a good day as the largest white supremacist demonstration in a decade (if news reports are correct) took place today in Charlottesville, VA. I have ties to that area and the University there. And the demonstration that was planned and organized by the white supremacists is the very antithesis of that area and its citizens.

Yet that did not stop them from organizing and pushing through for their plans. From an organized march last night with torches to a few thousand (again, if reports are to be believed) white supremacists waving the Confederate and Nazi (seriously, NAZI) flags around and screaming about white power and how whites need to stand up for themselves. And I'm still stunned that they were waving NAZI flags in support of their ideals!

They were opposed by many counter-demonstrators and violence quickly erupted. Probably by both sides so neither is particularly blameless here. Extremists from both sides - white power advocates and antifa (short for anti-facists) - attacked each other and the police eventually stepped in and shut down the planned demonstration (and David Duke and others of his ilk whined about how their rights were being trampled - yet didn't seem to feel any sense of irony when the ACLU supported their right to demonstrate in the first place).

That might have been the end of it - until some idiot in a car decided to drive into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one (so far) and injuring 19 others. Video of the attack (there isn't another word for it in my opinion) quickly went viral. Then President Trump went on television and condemned the violence by all sides (specifically not calling out the fact that it was all precipitated by the white supremacists) while simultaneously extolling how well the economy is doing under his leadership and then praising himself and a few others about a new VA bill he was signing at the same time. In essence, he spoke a few words condemning the violence in Charlottesville (by "many sides") before returning to his favorite topic - himself. And he refused to condemn white supremacists. This is odd given his predilection for condemning "radical Islamic terrorism" and damning anyone who is afraid to "call a spade a spade".

He later tweeted condolences to the family of the victim of the car attack and two Virginia State Police officers killed in a helicopter crash linked to the same demonstrations - again without calling out white supremacists and their "terrorist" actions. Oh, sorry, only Muslims can be terrorists...

What many people have pointed out is that, by not explicitly condemning white supremacists, he is implicitly granting tacit approval of their actions. And, on the other side of that coin, many of his supporters say that the violence was all the act of leftist extremists and they should be held accountable while denying anything wrong on the part of the white supremacists. This is ridiculous! And yet it is a sign of where our nation stands today. We are increasingly a nation divided. The job of the president should be to find ways to bridge those gaps but it is ever so clear that this president is singularly incapable of doing so.

I fear that things will get much worse before they get better. If they get better.

Today, I weep. I weep with frustration. I weep with sadness. I weep for my nation for which I am a patriot (not to be confused with a nationalist). I hope we can overcome but I fear that will not happen until Trump, and the divisiveness that saw him into office, are removed. I pray that day comes soon.

Thoughts on extremism - via Qasim Rashid

I just finished a new book by Qasim Rashid, The Wrong Kind of Muslim. And while Mr. Rashid urged his readers at the end to share the story with others, I would have written this brief essay regardless.

Mr. Rashid is an Ahmadi Muslim and he writes of the experiences both of himself as well as a brief history of the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims, specifically in his birth nation of Pakistan. Frankly, prior to my reading of this book (which I found at the local library and picked up just because I found the title to be interesting), I knew of the two main sects of Islam (Sunni and Shia) and the battles that exist between them but not much more beyond that. I am familiar with the basics of Islamic teaching and have had very interesting conversations with several Muslim friends, including the Imam of a mosque in Georgia years ago, but this book was a bit of an eye-opener. And not in a particularly positive way - though Mr. Rashid strives to be as positive as he can in his personal outlook.

He details some of the horrific crimes - and they are indeed crimes regardless of how they may be viewed by Sunni Muslims in Pakistan - committed against not just Ahmadis but against any minority in Pakistan. The stories are particularly gripping and stay with the reader. The belief that perseverance against such oppression and aggression is a positive but it seems almost futile in some ways. He offers some comparison to the civil rights movement in America but I feel that is shallow and not entirely valid based on the differences between the two nations from political, cultural and religious viewpoints. I would like to believe that his positive faith in human nature will be rewarded but I fear that the more likely result is a worsening of the situation - perhaps something akin to Somalia in the 1990's - rather than a non-violent belief and push for improvement.

Something else to point out is a book should not be judged by its cover. While I found the title to be intriguing enough to pick it up and read it, I did attract some odd looks from people who saw me carrying the book. I live in the US and there is a pervasive negative view of Muslims (regardless of sect) among a segment of the population. On more than one occasion I tried to explain that while the issues may be specific to adherents of Islam, its lessons were not limited to just that. The key underlying point here lies in the understanding that extremism is not limited to any one religion, culture, nation or any other grouping. In this, Mr. Rashid is spot on and more can (and should!) learn from this point. In the US, we have extremists of many different varieties. I do not agree with most of them but I have the right to disagree (much the same way that they have the right to express those extremist views so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others) - something that is not enjoyed in Pakistan based on Mr. Rashid's observations and experience. But we must take advantage of the right to express that disagreement so that narrow-minded, extremist views do not pervade the responsible mainstream!

Knowledge is power - another key point of Mr. Rashid's and one with which I fully agree. The more we know, the better we can and will be. Extremism, unfortunately, often devolves to the lowest common denominator among its followers. It abhors knowledge outside of its own limited realm and therefore will work hard to punish, abuse, or demonize it so that it cannot take root. But when extremism is allowed to do so, the result will be as predictable as what Mr. Rashid has described in his book. I highly recommend you read it in order to gain a better understanding of what can become if we choose to continue to ignore it.

Expanding Points of View

I recently finished Christiane Bird's Neither East Nor West, a story of her travels in Iran. Her book reminds me of one of my favorite blogs, Seeing Red in China, by an American named Tom about his view of China on a daily basis. What these two things have in common is a desire to look beyond the very narrow, news-oriented point of view of daily life in Iran and China respectively and offer their readers the opportunity to see life in places they may otherwise never have the opportunity to see. Frankly, it is people like this that help to bring the world closer together and make it, hopefully, a better place for everyone.

And while my commentary may be directed more at Westerners (and Americans in particular), it is by no means limited only to them. Misconceptions and generalizations about others has no limits nor boundaries and they are rarely positive. The only way to overcome those misconceptions is to truly live some place else and recognize that life in the US is really not that significantly different than it is in China or Iran or anyplace else. This is not to suggest that there are no differences but to point out that we tend to have a very limited perspective when we think of others. For example, we tend to view Iran as a misogynistic, radically religious, fundamentalist nation that is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and imposing a radical view of Islam upon the rest of the world. Yet few Westerners realize that there is a great deal of diversity within Iran, that they actually do have elections (perhaps not to the standard that we have in the West but certainly better than any in the Middle East) and that there is a long line of Persian history, art and culture to which they are the inheritors. The same goes for China. To hear China in the news, it is often in regard to their rising economic status, their belligerent behavior in the South China Seas toward their neighbors, the rising number of protests in the countryside or their human rights violations (see Liu Xiaobo, among others). Yet very little street-level discussion is provided to offer the full context of life in China - much of which revolves outside of the limited political view with which it is held in nations outside of China. Indeed, I have always found it interesting that Chinese often knew more about US politics (although often negative or bad things) than most US citizens. In reality, it could be argued that the majority of people in both Iran and China like the US, if not necessarily its government or policy decisions. But then again, there is a sizable portion of US citizens who have problems with its government and policy decisions, so there may be some validation to that particular argument.

Perhaps not everyone has the opportunity to travel to these places and see things for themselves but they should, at the very least, avail themselves of the opportunity to read about them beyond the limited scope of what they see/hear in the news. Expanding one's horizons and perspectives can only be to the benefit of not only the individual but potentially even rising to higher levels of policy making that can allow nations to work together to solve problems for the mutual benefit of more than a select few. Perhaps this is a simplistic and naive point of view but everyone should dream about making the world a little better else nothing will change. As the saying goes, think globally - act locally.

War and Demonization

I was recently getting my car worked on at the local dealership and, while waiting, ended up watching some of Fox News.  Unlike many people, Fox News does not bother me most of the time; if anything, I view it as the anti-MSNBC.  In other words, I recognize that it has a specific editorial bent and watch it with that in mind.

On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided.  Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).

But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from.  Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring.  Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents.  The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy.  And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed.  After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders.  And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.

The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today.  Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones.  We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's.  This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them.  The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy".  It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches.  When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis).  This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself.  Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.

Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype.  When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous.  But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people.  Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins.  Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.

(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)

Burn a holy book!

It just goes to show that extremism and ignorance is not limited to only one religion or one group of people. Terry Jones, a pastor of a Florida-based church, has spent the last several months declaring that he would burn the Koran as a message to the Islamist extremists. Exactly what message he thinks that will send is another matter entirely. While much of the civilized world deplores such an action for a variety of reasons (it will harm US soldiers, it will inflame the moderate Muslims, it's heretical to do that to any other holy book, etc.), he has spent much of the last week or more garnering needless attention from a media that cannot get enough of him and asinine actions.

To be fair, he lives in a country where he has the right to do such a foolish action. No such similar action would be accepted or tolerated in any Muslim country (whose populations are being roused to anger because of Mr. Jones' threats). The right to act stupidly seems to be a uniquely American right and is exercised often - and then hyped by a media seemingly starved for new lows upon which they can report. But just because one has the right to act stupidly does not mean that they should. Honestly, there are a variety of (very valid) reasons why Mr. Jones should not follow through on his threat to burn the Koran and they have been articulated by personages far more influential than I. But for a man who professes to be a man of God (and presumably the peace and kindness so often associated with God), this is an action that stands as a stark contradiction to that profession. But is it really that different from those whom he claims to be protesting against (Islamist extremists)? Except that he is only hurting a book (a grave crime in my personal belief but that is beside the point) whereas his avowed enemies seek to hurt anyone who opposes them - or even gets in the way.

Maybe the best answer is to take all of them, lock them in a room together and toss the key...

Some more random thoughts...

China's firewall goes international. Ignoring the technical side for a moment, the possibility that people outside of China are having their requests routed through China - and its firewall - poses a conundrum. One of the major selling points is the absolute freedom of information available on the internet. And while there is a growing possibility of mini-nets that will be regional, or even country-specific, and thus liable to suffer from whatever forms of control asserted by the local authorities, the possibility that an error such as that described in the linked article could occur can have consequences far beyond the given area. Indeed, it is the opposite of the problem that many authoritarian countries face now whereby they worry about information getting to their citizens. But the ability to export their controls external to their regional area is far more frightening for everyone. It simply goes to show that there is balance everywhere. It is easy to see the "good" side of the internet and its information flow and ignore the "bad" side where impediments to that same free flow can be far too easily exported. Hopefully a good answer will be found in the near future - though the fact that this has occurred previously does not bode well.

The nanny state is at it again. In a plan that seems more reminiscent of something from the designers of The Patriot Act (or maybe the creators of The Matrix or even V for Vendetta), it would appear that the UK government is asking internet cafes to voluntarily monitor the usage of its customers. The stated purpose, of course, is to help prevent terrorism. The problem is that this becomes a rather slippery slope. Once we know that you're helping us to check up on your fellow citizens, then let's see what else we can do to continue to establish the sense of paranoia and fear that allows us to exert other forms of control over a citizenry too cowed to tell us no. Is it scare-mongering to warn us to be on the lookout for those who would potentially harm us? Is it just responsible government? Is it another step on the way to a more dangerous form of authoritarian government with fewer controls on its exercise of power? To know the answer would be to know the intent of those who wield this power. And the reality is that it is impossible to know the intent of anyone regardless of their actions. If history has not yet demonstrated the ability for government to relinquish its hold on power, then it would seem that we are fated to learn the lesson - again.

And, just so no one thinks it's just a Western thing, moderates in Islam continue to suffer losses. And for some perspective, bear in mind that Qatar also hosts CENTCOM Forward HQ (US military central command). It also is the home of Al-Jazeera, the most widely viewed news source in the Middle East and the source, according to some, of the inflammatory rhetoric used against the West (and has regularly been the primary source for Al-Qaeda communications). But now, to help reshape it as a more religiously conservative site, the government has forced out the moderate leadership (moderate, of course, being a relative term), including Al-Qaradawi, of the company that funds the site. What is the old mantra? Money talks, BS walks? Yes, that is it. And here it is clear that if the moderate message put through by the site could not be erased by an equally rational message from those who disagreed with it, it is easier to simply wipe the site out (or at least dilute it) by taking away its funding. Then the government can step in and force its own message onto the site. Come to think of it, I'll bet Hugo Chavez could learn a lesson from Qatar...