Archive for January, 2015

The Election of 1832

January 26, 2015

There were essentially two issues on which the election of 1832 was decided. One was the fate of the Second Bank of the United States. The First Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress for a twenty year term in 1791 at the proposal of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that a national bank like the Bank of England was essential for the economic development of the new nation. Hamilton hoped that the Bank of the United States would improve America’s credit and foster economic growth, particularly in manufacturing. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans loathed the idea of a national bank, believing it to be an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. They were also suspicious of banks and the financial industry as being the creation of a moneyed elite who cheated the common people out of their hard earned money. The only honest money was that which was earned through the labor of your own hands (or that of your slaves). When the charter of the First Bank of the United States terminated in 1811, President Madison and the Democratic-Republican Congress declined to renew it.
As a result, President Madison found it extraordinarily difficult to pay for the War of 1812, which broke out the following year. The Democratic-Republicans became converted to Hamiltonian economics and in 1816 chartered the Second Bank of the United States with a twenty year term.

Andrew Jackson hated the Second Bank of the United States as much as Jefferson disliked the first, and for much the same reason. Jackson presented himself as a Westerner and a man of the people fighting against the moneyed interests back East. If re-elected, Jackson promised to veto any renewal of the Bank’s charter and in the meantime, he would work to reduce the Bank’s influence. This dislike and distrust of a moneyed elite would be a feature of populist politics in future elections.
The second great issue of the election of 1832 was Andrew Jackson himself. President Jackson had played a far more active role in governing than any of his predecessors who had generally deferred to Congress. Jackson believed that while a Congressman was elected by his district and a Senator by his state, the President was elected by the whole people and should act as a Tribune protecting the people against particular interests. His opponents didn’t see matters in quite that way and accused Jackson of plotting to make himself a king or a dictator.

The campaign for the presidency began in September 1831 with the first nominating convention in American history, held the Anti-Masonic Party, the first of many “third parties”in American politics which would be organized around a single issue, gain temporary popularity and then fade away. The Anti-Masonic Party was, obviously, against the Freemasons and other secret organizations out of the fear that their membership were involved in a secret cabal to overturn republican government and substitute the rule of an elite. This seems rather paranoid, but it was something that many people were worried about. In any case, the Anti-Masonic Party held their convention in Baltimore Maryland and nominated former Attorney General William Wirt for President and Amos Ellmaker for Vice-President.

Jackson’s opponents, the National Republicans, also met in Baltimore in December 1831. They nominated Kentucky Senator Henry Clay for President and Clay’s friend John Sergeant from Pennsylvania for Vice-President.

The Democratic-Republicans, or Democrats as they can now be called, met in Baltimore in May, 1832 and to no one’s surprise, nominated Andrew Jackson for a second term. Jackson’s Vice-President, John C. Calhoun was not selected as his running mate. Jackson and Calhoun did not see eye to eye on a number of issues, particularly on the issue of state’s rights. Calhoun believed that the states had the right to nullify federal laws that were not to their liking, especially the tariffs which were unpopular in his home state, South Caroline. Jackson was a strong nationalist and threatened to send the army into South Carolina if they resisted or nullified any federal tariff. Jackson selected New York Senator, Governor, and his Secretary of State, Martin van Buren.

It was a nasty campaign, like the one before it, fought over personalities and the Bank. It was actually Henry Clay who brought the Bank into the campaign by persuading Nicholas Biddle, the President of the Bank to apply for a renewal of its charter four years early, in 1832. Clay hoped that Jackson would veto the renewal, dividing the Democrats, some of whom were actually for the Bank and winning Pennsylvania, where the Bank was located in Philadelphia. Biddle applied for the renewal of the charter and President Jackson promptly vetoed it. Events didn’t work out quite as Clay hoped, however. Jackson’s veto thrilled his supporters and burnished his populist credentials and made the contest one between the people and the elite. It didn’t help that Biddle and the Bank spent thousands of dollars funding anti-Jackson newspapers, pamphlets and other political activities.

Clay and his supporters made good use of these funds, accusing Jackson of arbitrary rule and dictatorship in cartoons and speeches, but the Jacksonians proved to be far more organized with meetings, parades, and Old Hickory clubs exhorting the voters to support their champion. In the end, Jackson won reelection easily.
Jackson got 701,780 votes, giving him 54.7% of the popular votes. Clay and the National Republicans got 484,205 votes with 36.9% of the popular vote. The Anti-Masonic party managed to get 100,715 votes with 7.8% of the popular vote.

Jackson won sixteen states all over the country for a total of  219 electoral votes. Clay only won his home state, Kentucky, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island with 49 electoral votes. Wirt and the Anti-Masons won Vermont with its 7 votes. John Floyd, a supporter of Calhoun’s got South Carolina’s 11 votes. South Carolina was the last state to have its electors chosen by the state legislature rather than by popular vote. Maryland’s 10 electoral votes were divided with 3 votes for Jackson, 5 for Clay and two electors not voting.

The Election of 1832

The Election of 1832

 

With these results, President Jackson could claim a popular mandate for his policies and he began to withdraw government assets from the Second Bank of the United States. The new era of popular, Jacksonian, democracy had begun.

 

Crossing the Line

January 23, 2015

DeWayne Wickham believes that the French magazine Charlie Hebdo has gone too far. They have crossed the line between free speech and toxic talk and thus is responsible for much of the violence committed by Muslims in France and around the world. He writes in USA Today;

Charlie Hebdo has gone too far.

In its first publication following the Jan. 7 attack on its Paris office, in which two Muslim gunmen massacred 12 people, the once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.

Charlie Hebdo‘s latest depiction of the prophet Mohammed — a repeat of the very action that is thought to have sparked the murderous attack on its office — predictably has given rise to widespread violence in nations with large Muslim populations. Its irreverence of Mohammed once moved the French tabloid to portray him naked in a pornographic pose. In another caricature, it showed Mohammed being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.

While free speech is one of democracy’s most important pillars, it has its limits. H.L. Mencken, the fabled columnist who described himself as “an extreme libertarian,” said that he believed in free speech“up to the last limits of the endurable.”

French President Francois Hollande, apparently, disagrees. He defendsCharlie Hebdo‘s latest depiction of Mohammed by saying that protesters in other countries don’t understand France’s embrace of free speech.

But even as Hollande defends Charlie Hebdo‘s right to publish images of Mohammed that many Muslims consider sacrilegious and hateful, his government has imprisoned dozens of people who have condemned the magazine with talk the French won’t tolerate. Those arrested are accused of speaking in support of the attack on the magazine, and a separate assault on a kosher store in Paris by a lone Muslim gunman with links to the men who attacked Charlie Hebdo.

While the Obama administration condemned these deadly attacks, it probably wasn’t surprised. Two years ago, then-press secretary Jay Carney questioned the judgment ofCharlie Hebdo‘s editors when they published an offensive depiction of Mohammed. That came a year after the newspaper’s office was firebombed when it tauntingly named Mohammed its guest editor. That portrayal came with a caption that read: “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing.”

 

In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.

If Charlie Hebdo‘s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo‘s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

The principle that Mr. Wickham seems to be enunciating seems to be that freedom of speech is all very well unless someone is upset by what is being spoken or written, in which case, that speech should be suppressed. I wonder if he has really thought through the implications of this principle. If the idea that only speech that offends no one should be permitted is applied even-handedly, than only the blandest sort of platitudes can be allowed, given that there are so many people offended by seemingly innocent expressions. Of course, this principle of forbidding “toxic talk” cannot be even-handedly applied even with the best efforts. In practice, it will be those quick to use force, either violent or otherwise whose feelings will be spared. A pornographic portrayal of Jesus or Buddha is permitted. Christians and Buddhists do not usually respond to insults with bombs or guns. A pornographic portrayal of Mohammed is forbidden. Muslims often respond to insults with murderous rage.

Mr. Wickham justifies this sort of distinction by invoking the example of a man crying fire in a crowded theater. The editors of Charlie Hebdo knew that their cartoons would provoke violence that would create a clear and present danger to the peace. Therefore, their fighting words should be prohibited. He further accuses the French authorities of hypocrisy in defended Charlie Hebdo’s free speech rights while denying the rights of those who have called for violence against the magazine. I do not think that DeWayne Wickham really understands the meaning of the phrase inciting to violence nor does he appear to make a distinction between speech that someone may find offensive and speech that calls for violence against a person perceived to be causing offense. The former must be permitted or there is no freedom of speech. The latter must be forbidden or the violent will deny freedom of speech.

I will try to explain what I mean. If I am addressing a rally of the Ku Klux Klan and I state that everyone in the audience should go out and kill an African-American ( I know what word they would really use, but nevermind.) that would clearly be an incitement to violence. If someone actually did kill someone afterwards, I might be considered legally responsible. I would certainly be morally responsible. Clearly, such speech ought not to be allowed. If, on the other hand, I made the statement that African-Americans were all stupid, that would not be an incitement to violence, even if such a statement would certainly be offensive to an African-American reporter covering the rally. If that reporter jumped up onto the podium and punched me in the face, he would be arrested and charged with assault. The fact that he found my speech offensive would not be considered justification for his action, although a jury might not convict him. The Black reporter would be responsible for his action, not me. The statement that African-Americans are all stupid is protected speech, even if the statement is offensive and even hateful.

In like fashion, Charlie Hebdo is not responsible for the actions of Muslims who find its cartoons offensive. They do not have to read the magazine. They can publish their own magazine mocking the sort of people the cartoonists and editors are likely to be. To blame Charlie Hebdo for their actions is really rather insulting since it implies that those people are savages who cannot really be responsible for their actions. To argue that this magazine should be in any way suppressed because of the threat of violence is giving the violent a veto over our speech and thus ending the concept of free speech. One might think that the dean of a school of journalism would understand that.

 

Death of a King

January 22, 2015

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has died. The Associated Press has an obituary.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, the powerful U.S. ally who joined Washington’s fight against al-Qaida and sought to modernize the ultra conservative Muslim kingdom with incremental but significant reforms, including nudging open greater opportunities for women, has died, according to Saudi state TV. He was 90.

More than his guarded and hidebound predecessors, Abdullah assertively threw his oil-rich nation’s weight behind trying to shape the Middle East. His priority was to counter the influence of rival, mainly Shiite Iran wherever it tried to make advances. He and fellow Sunni Arab monarchs also staunchly opposed the Middle East’s wave of pro-democracy uprisings, seeing them as a threat to stability and their own rule.

He backed Sunni Muslim factions against Tehran’s allies in several countries, but in Lebanon for example, the policy failed to stop Iranian-backed Hezbollah from gaining the upper hand. And Tehran and Riyadh’s colliding ambitions stoked proxy conflicts around the region that enflamed Sunni-Shiite hatreds – most horrifically in Syria’s civil war, where the two countries backed opposing sides. Those conflicts in turn hiked Sunni militancy that returned to threaten Saudi Arabia.

And while the king maintained the historically close alliance with Washington, there were frictions as he sought to put those relations on Saudi Arabia’s terms. He was constantly frustrated by Washington’s failure to broker a settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He also pushed the Obama administration to take a tougher stand against Iran and to more strongly back the mainly Sunni rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Abdullah’s death was announced on Saudi state TV by a presenter who said the king died at 1 a.m. on Friday. His successor was announced as 79-year-old half-brother, Prince Salman, according to a Royal Court statement carried on the Saudi Press Agency. Salman was Abdullah’s crown prince and had recently taken on some of the ailing king’s responsibilities.

He can’t have had an easy time trying to balance between the needs of modernizing his country and the ultra conservative religious establishment which controls so much of the kingdom’s society. As the obituary mentions, King Abdullah was an ally in the fight against al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, yet Saudi Arabia has supplied much of the funding for that terrorism, with members of the Saudi royal family almost certainly providing assistance to radical groups. The strict Wahhabi sect of Islam which is Saudi Arabia’s official religion has provided much of the ideological backing for the most extreme Islamic groups and Wahhabism has spread in the Islamic world due largely to the financial support from the sale of Saudi oil.

King Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz in 2002

King Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz in 2002 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Saudi Arabia is among the few countries left in the world governed by an absolute monarchy. The King of Saudi Arabia holds all the legislative, judicial and executive functions of government in his own persons and his royal decrees make up the law of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also one of the few countries without even a pretext of any democratic machinery. Totalitarian dictatorships such as the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Democratic Republic of (North) Korea have (one party) elections and a legislature to rubber stamp the rulers’ commands. Saudi Arabia is still ruled like a medieval kingdom or a Bedouin tribe. Things are beginning to change in this old fashioned land. Recently there have been elections on the municipal level though no political parties are permitted and the councils elected are mostly powerless. In the 2015 elections, women will actually be allowed to vote and even run for office.

The king’s rule is not absolute, however. He must rule in accordance with the Koran and sharia law. Every Saudi male has the right to petition the king through a tribal council called the Majlis and in practice members and branches of the royal family have considerable influence as well as ulema, the religious establishment of Islamic scholars and jurists. The royal family, the Sauds, form an elite in the kingdom. These are the descendants of the first king of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz ibn Saud who united the Arabian peninsula and founded the Kingdom in 1932. Because of the practice of polygamy, the number of princes in the kingdom is very large, perhaps more than 7000. Of these, around 200 play an important role in the kingdom’s government. The Sauds effectively own the whole country and little distinction is made between the family’s assets and the finances of the state. They are the Saud in Saudi Arabia.

It is not easy to determine what will come next in the desert kingdom since so much is dependent on the personality and concerns of the king. So far, every king of Saudi Arabia has been a son of Abdulaziz. The new king, Salman, is 79 years old, so I doubt he will provide vigorous leadership.  Since Abdulaziz died in 1953, I doubt if any of his remaining sons are much younger, so it is possible there will be a series of short-lived, feeble kings for several years until the line of succession goes to the next generation.One can only hope that the desert kingdom continues to inch toward modernity.

In the Family

January 19, 2015

I am not sure if this story is true or not. It does not seem to be an obvious falsehood or satire, but I have my doubts as its veracity. The story is from Opposing views, but I caught it on Joe the Plumber’s blog.

An 18-year-old woman told New York Magazine that she has been in a two-year sexual relationship with her father after being estranged from him for 12 years.

The father and his ex-girlfriend conceived their daughter when they were both 18, and he left her before the birth. When their daughter was 5 years old, the man was back in the picture for a short time before leaving again.

Twelve years later, the father and his then 17-year-old daughter reconnected online, realizing they had a lot in common. “We shared the same favorite TV shows — “The Simpson” and “The Big Bang Theory” — and we both love to draw,” the daughter told New York’s “Science of Us” blog.

The pair arranged to meet in person and upon seeing her father for the first time in years, the teen said she was immediately attracted to him.

“It was so weird and confusing. I was seeing my dad for the first time in forever but it was also like, He’s so good-looking! And then I was like, What the hell are you thinking? What is wrong with you?” she said. “I saw him as my dad but then also part of me was like, I’m meeting this guy who I have been talking to over the internet and really connecting with and I find him attractive.”

The young woman said that the attraction began to intensify when she stayed with him for five days. One day, they went on a shopping trip and the father complimented her daughter’s figure. When they returned home, they began “play-wrestling.”

“That night we were play-wrestling in the room I was going to sleep in and I bit him. He was wearing a pair of basketball shorts and a tank top and after I bit him I could see goose bumps pop up from his toes to his shoulders. Then he pinched my inner thigh and I got goose bumps,” the teen said. “We stopped and said that we didn’t know what was going on but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other. We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.”

The daughter said she and her father “fell deeply in love” and are now engaged and planning a wedding.

Assuming that this story is true, is there a single logical reason why these two lovers should not be married? Traditionally, the institution of marriage was maintained for the creation and preservation of families. Since human beings reproduce sexually and two distinct genders each playing a role in the process, it has been understood that a marriage must consist of at least one of each sex. Close family members have generally not been allowed to marry each other because of the danger that their offspring will have an increased risk of developing genetic disorders. Such was the understanding in the dark days or institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and heteronormativity.

In our more enlightened times, we understand that marriage has nothing at all to do with families or children. One need not be married to have children and one need not have children with the person one is married to. Marriage is now properly understood as a generic relationship that any two (or more) people can enter into regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or even species.

So, if two men or two women can get married, why cannot two brothers or two sisters? There is no question of children in such a relationship so any consideration of birth defects or diseases caused by incest is moot. Why shouldn’t a mother and daughter or father and son be permitted to marry one another?

Now, in the case of two family members of the opposite sex marrying, there is the question of the health of any offspring of the relationship, but that is easily resolved. One or both of the partners can simply arranged to have themselves sterilized. There is then no possibility of deformed children and no bar to a happy matrimony.

If marriage can be radically redefined to include same sex couples, there is no logical reason why it cannot be further redefined to include incestuous couples, polygamy, or bestiality. You cannot appeal to tradition or religion. If same sex marriage is a sacred civil right that overrides long tradition or religious sentiment, than so are incestuous marriages. You cannot appeal to personal distaste. Personal distaste is no reason to oppose any such change in policy. I do not oppose same sex marriage because of any personal distaste for homosexuals but because I do not believe that such a radical redefinition of a fundamental institution of society is likely to be beneficial to society.

To put the matter succinctly, if you support the idea of same sex marriage, than logic and consistency dictates that you also support the idea of incestuous marriages. There is no logical reason to support the one and oppose the other. I hope you will be happy in the brave new world you are helping to create.

Whose Side are They On?

January 18, 2015

There have been some encouraging developments in Egypt recently, particularly in the speeches and actions of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, which somehow have been underreported in the mainstream media. Raymond Ibrahim has written a little about this at PJMedia. Although born in the US, Ibrahim’s parents are Coptic Christians from Egypt, so perhaps he has a better understanding of Middle Eastern affairs and Islam than many who comment on such topics.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi continues to be the antithesis of longstanding mainstream media portrayals of him.

First there was his historic speech where he, leader of the largest Arab nation, and a Muslim, accused Islamic thinking of being the scourge of humanity — in words that no Western leader would dare utter.  This remarkable speech — which some say should earn him the Nobel Peace Prize — might have fallen by the wayside had it not been posted on my websiteand further disseminated by PJ Media’s Roger L. Simon, Michael Ledeen, Roger Kimball, and many others, includingBruce Thornton and Robert Spencer.

 

Next, Sisi went to the St. Mark Coptic Cathedral during Christmas Eve Mass to offer Egypt’s Christian minority his congratulations and well wishing.  Here again he made history as the first Egyptian president to enter a church during Christmas mass — a thing vehemently criticized by the nation’s Islamists, including the Salafi party (Islamic law bans well wishing to non-Muslims on their religious celebrations, which is why earlier presidents — Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, and of course Morsi — never attended Christmas mass).

Accordingly, the greetings Sisi received from the hundreds of Christians present were jubilant.  His address was often interrupted by applause, clapping, and cheers of “We love you!” and “hand in hand” — phrases he reciprocated.

Sisi stood side-by-side with Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II — perhaps in remembrance of the fact that, when General Sisi first overthrew President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Pope Tawadros stood side-by-side with him — and paid a heavy price: the Brotherhood and its sympathizers unleashed a Kristallnacht of “reprisals” that saw 82 Christian churches in Egypt attacked, many destroyed.

It is also significant to recall where Sisi came to offer his well-wishing to the Christians: the St. Mark Cathedral — Coptic Christianity’s most sacred church which, under Muhammad Morsi, was, for the first time in its history, savagely attacked by both Islamists and the nation’s security

Yet, he reports, the mainstream media’s coverage of al-Sisi has been generally very negative.

Instead, MSM headlines on the day of and days after Sisi’s speech included “Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1), “Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2), and “George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, Jan. 3).

Of course, the MSM finally did report on Sisi’s speech — everyone else seemed to know about it — but, again, to portray Sisi in a negative light.  Thus, after briefly quoting the Egyptian president’s call for a “religious revolution,” the New York Times immediately adds:

Others, though, insist that the sources of the violence are alienation and resentment, not theology. They argue that the authoritarian rulers of Arab states — who have tried for decades to control Muslim teaching and the application of Islamic law — have set off a violent backlash expressed in religious ideas and language.

In other words, jihadi terror is a product of Sisi, whom the NYT habitually portrays as an oppressive autocrat — especially for his attempts to try to de-radicalize Muslim sermons and teachings.

Why is this? Whose side is the mainstream media really on? Do they really want to see Egypt turned into another Iran or Afghanistan? They are, of course, on the same side Barack Obama is on, whichever side that might happen to be.

There is, of course, a reason the MSM, which apparently follows the Obama administration’s lead, has been unkind to Sisi.   One will recall that, although Sisi led the largest revolution in world history — a revolution that saw tens of millions take to the streets and ubiquitous signs and banners calling on U.S. President Obama and U.S. ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson to stop supporting terrorism (i.e., the Brotherhood) — U.S. leadership, followed by media, spoke only of a “military coup” against a “democratically elected president,” without pointing out that this president was pushing a draconian, Islamist agenda on millions who rejected it.

That Sisi remains popular in Egypt also suggests that a large percentage of Egyptians approve of his behavior.  Recently, for instance, after the Paris attacks, Amr Adib, host of Cairo Today, made some extremely critical comments concerning fellow Muslims/Egyptians, including by asking them, “Are you, as Muslims, content with the fact that today we are all seen as terrorists by the world?… We [Egyptians] used to bring civilization to the world, today what?  We are barbarians!  Barbarians I tell you!” (More of Adib’s assertions here.)

I must here give a very short synopsis of recent Egyptian history before proposing a thought experiment. In January of 2011 the long reigning autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown by a popular revolution. In the election that followed in November of that year, Mohamed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected president in what was apparently the first free and fair democratic election in Egypt’s history. Once in power, Morsi began to place fellow members of the Muslim Brother in positions of power and to rule as a dictator. The Egyptians did not seem to want to replace one dictator with another nor to live under a theocracy and protests broke out all over the country. The army overthrew Morsi in a coup in June 2013 and Field Marshal al-Sisi became the new president. As Ibrahim writes, al-Sisi seems to be genuinely popular among the Egyptians and perhaps his religious views better reflect those of the relatively liberal views of the Egyptian Muslims.

Consider this thought experiment. Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January of 1933. He hardly won the post in a landslide, despite the claims of later Nazi propaganda. Although the Nazis had become the largest single party in Germany, they never managed to obtain more than about a third of the vote. Although Hitler was probably the most popular politician in Germany, there were many Germans, especially in the army and civil service who didn’t approve of him. What if the Wehrmacht had overthrown Hitler in a coup when it became apparent that he intended to seize total power and become dictator? Would Barack Obama have called for the reinstatement of the democratically elected Hitler as Chancellor and Fuehrer? Would the New York Times have denounced the generals’ autocratic behavior?

Whose side are these people really on?

Escape from Hell

January 16, 2015

Escape from Hell by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle is the long awaited sequel to their classic adaptation and updating of Dante’s Inferno, titled appropriately enough, Inferno. Unlike Dante, Niven and Pournelle have decided not to take their protagonist, Allen Carpenter, to Purgatory. Instead, Escape to Hell is the story of Carpenter’s work to continue the efforts of his guide from Inferno, Benito Mussolini, to help those who deserve to escape Hell. Along the way, he collects an assortment of companions, including Sylvia Plath, Aimee Semple McPherson, and a thinly disguised Carl Sagan, while revisiting the people and places in Hell he had passed through with Benito. Carpenter discovers that his work is more difficult than he expected. Hell is changing, according to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and there are temptations even for the good intentioned. As before, the writers indulge themselves by including their personal causes and damning their enemies to Hell, but then so did Dante.

Escape from Hell (novel)

Escape from Hell is a worthy sequel to Inferno, yet I cannot help but feel it is something of a disappointment. With Inferno, we were introduced to a new infernal world to explore. With the sequel, we are going back over old ground, updated to apply the changes of Vatican II. Allen Carpenter travels through the same regions of Hell he went to before. The only difference is that his mission has changed from trying to escape Hell to rescuing others. It might have been nice for the authors to follow Dante’s outline and have Carpenter travel through Purgatory. Perhaps there will be another book in the series.

Despite some reservations, Escape from Hell is a worthy sequel to Inferno, both as a fantasy, adventure and as a thought-provoking exploration of the nature of Hell and evil.

 

 

  • Inferno (davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com)

Whose Side is He On?

January 13, 2015

President Obama couldn’t be bothered to attend the anti-terrorism rally in Paris, even though almost every other world leader consequence somehow found the time to show up. He still cannot say the words Islamic and terrorism in the same sentence. He is opposed to the slander of the prophet of Islam. And now, he would like to keep people from publishing articles critical of Islam. At this point, it is fair to wonder just whose side is he really on. Is Barack Obama on the side of freedom or Islamic terrorism.

I don’t believe the conspiracy theories that hold that President Obama is secretly a Muslim or some sort of Manchurian candidate intent on destroying America from within, but he does seem to express more sympathy towards people sworn to destroy us than he ought and he is too inclined to appeasement of the worst villains in the world. From the Daily Caller.

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

I can understand the concerns for the safety of American service people and civilians, but don’t they understand that this is just what the sort of terrorists who murdered those cartoonists in Paris want? If we watch what we say lest someone in the world might be offended enough to attack us, aren’t we giving the terrorists a veto on free expression? And, aren’t we encouraging more offended people to take up arms.

Not too long ago, Newsweek ran an article that many Christians believed was a hit piece against their faith.

Newsweek

 

This is not atypical of the way that the mainstream media treats Christians these days. Should a group of Christians bomb the office of Newsweek or gun down the writer of that piece? That seems to be the only way to get any respect.

So, whose side is he on? The President of the United States ought to be unambiguously and unequivocally on the side of freedom. He should be saying that the future does not belong to those that oppose the course of freedom. If Islam cannot bear to be examined, than it belongs on the trash heap of history alongside Communism and Fascism.

Snowmen are Anti-Islamic

January 12, 2015

That is what a recent fatwa from a cleric from Saudi Arabia states. I read about it in this story from Yahoo News.

A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.

Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country’s north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: “It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun.”

Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

“God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on,” he wrote in his ruling.

That provoked swift responses from Twitter users writing in Arabic and identifying themselves with Arab names.

“They are afraid for their faith of everything … sick minds,” one Twitter user wrote.

Another posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a “snow bride” wearing a bra and lipstick. “The reason for the ban is fear of sedition,” he wrote.

A third said the country was plagued by two types of people:

“A people looking for a fatwa (religious ruling) for everything in their lives, and a cleric who wants to interfere in everything in the lives of others through a fatwa,” the user wrote.

Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. “It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” one wrote.

“May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognize matters that even Satan does not think about.”

Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia’s border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East.

I wouldn’t have thought this would be a problem in Saudi Arabia, but evidently it does snow there. In any case, this ruling is not as crazy as it might appear. Islam is a religion which strongly forbids even the suggestion of idol worship and for this reason  Islamic law and culture has discouraged the visual representation of any human or animal which might be taken as an object of worship. This is why the arts in Islamic cultures have never produced any equivalent to the works of renaissance artists like MichelAngelo with their precise, almost photographic portraits and detailed studies of human anatomy and perspective. Persons with an artistic bent in Islamic countries have generally concentrated on beautiful calligraphy, generally of Koranic verses and abstract geometric designs. According to the strictest interpretations of Islamic law, as is found in Saudi Arabia, any representation of the human form for any reason is forbidden. Forbidding the creation of snowmen is simply taking the iconoclasm of Islam to a logical extreme.

This does say something about the nature of Islam. Islam does not seem to be a very joyful religion and its adherents certainly do not seem to have much of a sense of humor. The Ayatollah Khomeini is reported to have said,

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. …”

Mohammed didn’t care for music, believing it to inspire sin, so Islamic cultures have tended to discourage music. There is no Bach or Mozart in Islam. There seems to be no joy in Islam.

It also says something, that every detail of life, no matter how trivial, seems to be subject to endless rules concerning what is allowed and what is forbidden. Can you imagine a person of any other religion even wondering if building a snowman is acceptable? There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on thinking or reasoning for yourself in Islam. Every decision seems to be based on what Mohammed would do or what the religious authorities centuries ago wrote.

In contrast, Christians are told to:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding,will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:4-7)

We are set free from rules and are made sons of God.

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Gal 3:23-4:7)

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.(Romans 7:4-6)

This does not mean that we are free to commit sins, of course, but if we do commit sins we follow a God more interested in forgiving and saving us than one eager to condemn us. It may be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and to a certain extent it is true, but we have very different ideas about who God is and what He wants from us. Our God wants us to be His sons and sent His own son to die for us. Their God wants us to be slaves of a harsh master. I think I prefer Jesus over Allah. At least Jesus doesn’t have any issues with snowmen.

Je Suis Charlie

January 11, 2015

That’s what everyone is saying in support of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Right now everyone is standing up for the editors and cartoonists’ right to satirize and ridicule whatever they choose even in the face of violence. I am afraid, however, that once the dust settles and the shock and memory of the recent attack fades, there is going to be an almost irresistible temptation for some people to blame the victim and propose craven counsels. The cartoonists and editors brought their trouble upon themselves, the argument will run. They should have known better than to mock the prophet of such an easily offended and potentially violent following. Certainly, they have a right to print whatever they want, but surely they should exercise some degree of  prudence and only mock safe targets, like the Pope.

Consider this partial transcript of a White House press briefing, provided by Breitbart.com,  from a earlier time when Charlie Hebdo published offensive cartoons way back in September 19, 2012.

REPORTER: The French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and schools in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?

CARNEY: Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.

In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

Now, it has to be said, and I’ll say it again, that no matter how offensive something like this is, it is not in any way justification for violence — not in any way justification for violence. Now, we have been staying in close touch with the French government as well as other governments around the world, and we appreciate the statements of support by French government officials over the past week, denouncing the violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas.

Sure, they have a right to publish what they want, but they shouldn’t if what they publish leads to violent objections. As a call for freedom of speech and the press, this is somehow not quite as bold as Voltaire’s apocryphal, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, or even Patrick Henry’s, “Give me liberty, or give me death”. It seems more like, “Give me liberty, unless someone is offended enough to shoot or bomb me.” Ian Tuttle has some more recent examples of this rush to blame the victims, National Review Online.

The reason that Muslim terrorists attack publications like Charlie Hebdo is because they have good reason to believe that such attacks will be successful in achieving the goal of silencing criticism of Islam. This strategy wouldn’t work if the political elites in Europe and America really believed in freedom of speech or at least had any real courage in confronting the threat that Islam poses  to Western civilization. As it is, they are all too ready to condemn any criticism of Islam as racism, bigotry, and Islamophobia. The Terrorists hardly needed to bother with shooting anybody. Given time, I am sure the French government or the EU would have been happy to shut down Charlie Hebdo for its hate speech.

220px-Charliehebdo

The problem with this sort of censorship against commenting on an increasingly obvious threat is that it cannot work in the long run. The average French, German, or British citizen is aware that there is a problem, no matter how much his betters try to reassure him. If the mainstream parties and politicians of Europe will not address the problem with reasonable solutions, European voters might well turn to the people who will talk about it, the real racists and fascists. Their solution is not likely to be reasonable or pretty, though perhaps more desirable than a Islamized Europe.

Charlie Hebdo Attacked Again

January 7, 2015

On November 2,2011 the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had its offices fire-bombed. Today gunmen attacked the offices of Charle Hebdo killing 12 people. The motivation for these attacks remains unclear.

One might suspect these attacks might have something to do with the magazine’s history of making fun of Islam, but Islam is the Religion of Peace and surely no Muslim were resort to violence to avenge an insult to his faith.

All kidding aside, here is the story from Sky News.

Three masked gunmen stormed the offices of the controversial publication, which has previously been attacked for its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.

They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade during the attack on Wednesday morning.

French President Francois Hollande has declared a national day of mourning tomorrow.

The attackers are said to have called out their victims by name before shooting them. In one video clip, one of them is heard to shout: “We have avenged the prophet.”

They were let into the building by a female employee who was threatened along with her daughter and forced to punch a security code into a keypad to allow them inside.

The editor and a cartoonist for the newspaper, who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu, were among those killed.

Radio France chief executive Mathieu Gilet announced on Twitter that a contributor, Bernard Maris, was another of the victims.

Two police officers were also among the dead, including one assigned as Charb’s bodyguard after death threats were made against him.

Another 11 people have also been injured, at least four seriously.

After the attack, the gunmen returned to their black Citroen getaway car and shouted: “We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed, we have killed Charlie Hebdo.”

The vehicle was later abandoned and is being examined by forensics teams.

The response by world leaders seems to be encouraging.

 

President Hollande condemned the attack as “an act of barbarism”.

In a televised address, he said: “We have to respond according to the crime, first of all by finding the authors of this infamy and we have to ensure that they are arrested, judged and… punished very severely.

“Everything will be done in order to apprehend them.

“We must also protect all public buildings… security forces will be deployed everywhere where there could be a threat.

“Our best weapon is our unity, the unity of all our citizens, nothing can divide us, nothing must separate us. Freedom will always be stronger than barbarism.”

Parisiens turned out at 7pm on the Place de la Republique in a show of support for the victims and of the right of free speech.

US President Barack Obama and the Russian leader Vladimir Putin both condemned the shootings.

David Cameron tweeted: “The murders in Paris are sickening. We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the press.”

Unfortunately, British Prime Minister Cameron and French President Francois Hollande don’t really mean what they are saying. If there is anyone in Europe still clear minded enough and with the intellectual integrity to make logical conclusions based on available evidence, he will have to conclude that Islam, as it is currently practiced, is simply not compatible with democratic values such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And if such a person is brave enough to state such conclusions publicly, statesmen like Cameron and Hollande will be quick to attack him as a racist, a bigot , and an islamophobe. I expect that there will be statements on how this atrocity is in no way connected to Islam. The criminals involved are extremists and not at all like the majority of peaceful Muslims. This isn’t actually true, but it keeps them from having to face up to the real issues involved.

Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of Drancy mosque in the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, said: “These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom.

“This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this.”

I hate to say it, but Hassen Chalghoumi does not seem to hold views typical of most Muslims who live in France. If his Wikipedia article is

accurate, he is more tolerant and westernized than most French Muslims and has become rather controversial for his friendship with Jews and his opposition to Islamism. I am also afraid that he is not being completely honest about the traditions and doctrines of his faith regarding the life and deeds of Mohammed. Mr. Chalghoumi is likely sincere in his desire to reform Islam in a more peaceful direction but the controversy  he is facing illustrate the difficulty of any reform is Islam.

The simple truth is that the gunmen were following Mohammed’s example. Mohammed did, in fact, sanction the murder of poets who ridiculed or opposed him.  Stories about Muhammad’s life and sayings are an important source of Islamic law and doctrine, and many of these stories affirm his violent deeds. Since Mohammad is considered a perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow, this presents a problem. Mohammad cannot be simply dismissed as a man who lived in a violent time and place. His example and the Koran applies universally. In order for Islam to become a true religion of peace, Muslims are going to have to reject what seems to be an essential part of Muhammad’s and ignore those verses of the Koran which seem to promote violence against the unbelievers. I am not sure it is reasonable to expect that of them.

In the meantime, we must not let fear, whether of terrorist attack or of being considered politically incorrect, deter of criticizing or ridiculing Islam when criticism or ridicule is warranted. If we allow the terrorists and the bullies to l us what is acceptable to say or laugh at, we will be giving away the freedoms we have worked so long and hard for. Nobody likes having their faith laughed at. Most of us in the West have learned to respect the right of people to say things we don’t want to hear.  If the Muslim population in the various European countries and here in America cannot learn to respect the freedoms of others,  they are welcome to move back to their home countries where freedom is a distant dream.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Hlkolaya

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day – Mohammed by Hlkolaya (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


%d bloggers like this: