02/05: Global Warming?
Conservative Talk Radio lately has made much of data indicating that the earth could be in a cooling phase until about 2015, according to computer models. The Telegraph has details on recent climate predictions.
I have addressed the issue of Global Warming many times, for example here and here.
I think the same reasoning I argued earlier still applies. (1) Christians should seek to practice good stewardship of this planet and its resources, which includes minimizing pollution. (2) the model behind Global Warming--that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps trap heat--is pretty universally accepted by science. The question is, are humans releasing enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to alter the earth's climate. Since we have only one habitable planet, we had better be careful with it. We do not want to say oops.
I can believe, along with some conservative talk show hosts, that the fear of Global Warming is being used by some to try to destroy capitalism. But, we must not confuse the motive for an assertion with the truth of an assertion. Who knows why I might argue that 2 plus 2 equals four. What matters is the truth or falsity of the assertion.
I have addressed the issue of Global Warming many times, for example here and here.
I think the same reasoning I argued earlier still applies. (1) Christians should seek to practice good stewardship of this planet and its resources, which includes minimizing pollution. (2) the model behind Global Warming--that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps trap heat--is pretty universally accepted by science. The question is, are humans releasing enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to alter the earth's climate. Since we have only one habitable planet, we had better be careful with it. We do not want to say oops.
I can believe, along with some conservative talk show hosts, that the fear of Global Warming is being used by some to try to destroy capitalism. But, we must not confuse the motive for an assertion with the truth of an assertion. Who knows why I might argue that 2 plus 2 equals four. What matters is the truth or falsity of the assertion.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit has this news on the recently released documentary "Refusenik." The film covers the brave Soviet Jews who sought the right to emmigrate and refused to be cowed. "Scoop" Jackson and Ronald Reagan also get credit for their aid to the "Refuseniks."
Many things contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. One essential action was the moral and physical courage of Soviet dissidents.
Many things contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. One essential action was the moral and physical courage of Soviet dissidents.
From the Politico (April 30):
"Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton."
Read a little further into the story and one will find that this quasi-breathless lead comes from well-known party sage with no ax to grind (NOT), Senator Claire McCaskill, who, in fact, has a lot riding on an Obama victory.
Ironically, the headline for this story is less splashy and much more informative: "Obama backer predicts victory in Hill war."
One of my smart friends asked today: "Is it Over?"
Another friend in the know confirmed that this story is making the rounds and added on the rumor that "had Obama won PA, [these stealth Obama-supporting superdelegates] would have declared."
MY QUESTION: how much credence do we give these insider counts and/or even the public declarations concerning committed superdelegates?
That is, what are these “committed” delegates really committed to?
These are all unofficial "handshake agreements" (sans the handshaking). You stand up in front of a TV camera and say, "based on my love for country and my desire to ensure a secure future for my young children, I am taking the politically courageous step of endorsing (insert name of person here whom you think is most likely to win)."
But what's to stop the same politician, two weeks or two months from now, from standing up in front of a TV camera and saying, "based on new information, my love of country, and my dedication to a secure future, I am taking the politically courageous step of changing my mind and embracing (insert here the name of the person whom you now think most likely to win)."
I suspect these committed superdelegates are about as committed to Barack Obama as New Jersey Democrats were to Robert Torricelli in September 2002. They are totally and irrevocably committed unless something comes along to shake their commitment.
As for the math, are these numbers driven by the immutable laws of Newtonian physics? Or are they more akin to the Heisenberg Principle, in which the unfolding process of discovery itself creates a level of uncertainty?
"Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton."
Read a little further into the story and one will find that this quasi-breathless lead comes from well-known party sage with no ax to grind (NOT), Senator Claire McCaskill, who, in fact, has a lot riding on an Obama victory.
Ironically, the headline for this story is less splashy and much more informative: "Obama backer predicts victory in Hill war."
One of my smart friends asked today: "Is it Over?"
Another friend in the know confirmed that this story is making the rounds and added on the rumor that "had Obama won PA, [these stealth Obama-supporting superdelegates] would have declared."
MY QUESTION: how much credence do we give these insider counts and/or even the public declarations concerning committed superdelegates?
That is, what are these “committed” delegates really committed to?
These are all unofficial "handshake agreements" (sans the handshaking). You stand up in front of a TV camera and say, "based on my love for country and my desire to ensure a secure future for my young children, I am taking the politically courageous step of endorsing (insert name of person here whom you think is most likely to win)."
But what's to stop the same politician, two weeks or two months from now, from standing up in front of a TV camera and saying, "based on new information, my love of country, and my dedication to a secure future, I am taking the politically courageous step of changing my mind and embracing (insert here the name of the person whom you now think most likely to win)."
I suspect these committed superdelegates are about as committed to Barack Obama as New Jersey Democrats were to Robert Torricelli in September 2002. They are totally and irrevocably committed unless something comes along to shake their commitment.
As for the math, are these numbers driven by the immutable laws of Newtonian physics? Or are they more akin to the Heisenberg Principle, in which the unfolding process of discovery itself creates a level of uncertainty?
30/04: A Summer Gas Tax Holiday?
Category: Campaign 2008.12
Posted by: Martian Mariner
Both sides of the aisle agree on this one, at least in an election year - McCain and Clinton have both called for a temporary lifting of the national gas tax for the summer driving season. Obama says it's a bad idea, but that may be mostly because Hillary's for it.
Tom Friedman, back to writing at the NYT (finally!) writes today against such a move, calling (again) for an increase in pump prices as a means of providing economic incentive to ditch the SUVs and two-hour commutes. He also calls for increased alternative energy funding, solar in particular, but that's another topic.
So what's it to be, up or down?
Let's look a bit at the actual gas excise tax, first. It's currently at $0.184 per gallon, on all gasoline sold in the U.S. States, of course, add their own taxes. This rate has not increased since 1993! How about other measures in that time? Oil prices have increased dramatically, from $24.36 in 1993(adjusted to 2007 dollars) to just shy of $115 today, after hitting nearly $120 earlier this week. The Consumer Price Index, used to track inflation (or to explain why "I used to go to the movies for a dime", etc.....crazy old-timers) has increased from 143 in 1993 to 211 in 2008 (with 1982 as the 100 standard). In other words, what would have cost $1.43 in 1993 now costs $2.11.
So oil costs more, a dollar doesn't go as far, but the federal tax at the pump hasn't gone up a tenth of a cent.
Sounds like a pretty darn good tax holiday to me.
(We'll save the bids for an increased tax for later...)
Tom Friedman, back to writing at the NYT (finally!) writes today against such a move, calling (again) for an increase in pump prices as a means of providing economic incentive to ditch the SUVs and two-hour commutes. He also calls for increased alternative energy funding, solar in particular, but that's another topic.
So what's it to be, up or down?
Let's look a bit at the actual gas excise tax, first. It's currently at $0.184 per gallon, on all gasoline sold in the U.S. States, of course, add their own taxes. This rate has not increased since 1993! How about other measures in that time? Oil prices have increased dramatically, from $24.36 in 1993(adjusted to 2007 dollars) to just shy of $115 today, after hitting nearly $120 earlier this week. The Consumer Price Index, used to track inflation (or to explain why "I used to go to the movies for a dime", etc.....crazy old-timers) has increased from 143 in 1993 to 211 in 2008 (with 1982 as the 100 standard). In other words, what would have cost $1.43 in 1993 now costs $2.11.
So oil costs more, a dollar doesn't go as far, but the federal tax at the pump hasn't gone up a tenth of a cent.
Sounds like a pretty darn good tax holiday to me.
(We'll save the bids for an increased tax for later...)
30/04: A Rookie Mistake
Some hopelessly devoted advocates of Barack Obama are busy suggesting this repudiation of Reverend Wright is his "Sister Souljah moment." What a strained comparison. What some members of the Obama Nation won't do for love.
The key difference?
Sister Souljah was a nobody to Bill Clinton (and most of us). The vast majority of voters had never heard of Sister Souljah before Bill Clinton castigated her at a Jesse Jackson conference. Clinton introduced us to Sister Souljah in order to make a point. Neither he nor we had a personal stake in the easily disposable human political prop, ruthlessly manufactured to increase the fortunes of the presumptive Democratic nominee in June of 1992.
How is Reverend Wright completely unlike Sister Souljah?
Obama is inextricably linked to his pastor of twenty years. Wright is the man who brought Obama to Christ, married him and his wife, and baptized his two children.
In the most famous address of his public career, drawing on his extensive knowledge of the real Jeremiah Wright, Obama defended his pastor as a flawed but vital member of his extended spiritual family and emblematic of the black community, praising the Reverend for his commitment to the social gospel, his patriotism, and his intellectual bona fides.
Most importantly, unlike Sister Souljah, thanks to the Reverend himself, we have already developed our own impression of Wright, and it is fundamentally at odds with how Obama previously defended him. Now, however, seeing an unfriendly collective wave taking shape, with unnerving alacrity, Obama suddenly repudiates his previous endorsements, adopting our view and delivering his condemnation with an emotionally charged vigor.
This is all a bit unseemly and way too politician-like for the un-politician.
Rookie Mistake.
But, in fact, Obama's statement yesterday was a tactical error made out of inexperience. The Clintons NEVER would have thrown Wright overboard in that manner. They would have hunkered down and told the press to go to Hell--waiting out the storm. Of course, loyalty to a friend would have had nothing to do with it, they would have understood the images were problematic.
That is, now we roll tape of Obama defending Wright, followed by Obama denouncing Wright.
He's family--and you gotta love family. "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
Cut to:
I renounce him. I renounce him. Reverend Wright is a bad man.
It all looks ridiculous. Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?
Obama looks silly and confused. A candidate in the crucial final stages of a nomination canvass cannot afford that kind of crisis in perception.
The key difference?
Sister Souljah was a nobody to Bill Clinton (and most of us). The vast majority of voters had never heard of Sister Souljah before Bill Clinton castigated her at a Jesse Jackson conference. Clinton introduced us to Sister Souljah in order to make a point. Neither he nor we had a personal stake in the easily disposable human political prop, ruthlessly manufactured to increase the fortunes of the presumptive Democratic nominee in June of 1992.
How is Reverend Wright completely unlike Sister Souljah?
Obama is inextricably linked to his pastor of twenty years. Wright is the man who brought Obama to Christ, married him and his wife, and baptized his two children.
In the most famous address of his public career, drawing on his extensive knowledge of the real Jeremiah Wright, Obama defended his pastor as a flawed but vital member of his extended spiritual family and emblematic of the black community, praising the Reverend for his commitment to the social gospel, his patriotism, and his intellectual bona fides.
Most importantly, unlike Sister Souljah, thanks to the Reverend himself, we have already developed our own impression of Wright, and it is fundamentally at odds with how Obama previously defended him. Now, however, seeing an unfriendly collective wave taking shape, with unnerving alacrity, Obama suddenly repudiates his previous endorsements, adopting our view and delivering his condemnation with an emotionally charged vigor.
This is all a bit unseemly and way too politician-like for the un-politician.
Rookie Mistake.
But, in fact, Obama's statement yesterday was a tactical error made out of inexperience. The Clintons NEVER would have thrown Wright overboard in that manner. They would have hunkered down and told the press to go to Hell--waiting out the storm. Of course, loyalty to a friend would have had nothing to do with it, they would have understood the images were problematic.
That is, now we roll tape of Obama defending Wright, followed by Obama denouncing Wright.
He's family--and you gotta love family. "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
Cut to:
I renounce him. I renounce him. Reverend Wright is a bad man.
It all looks ridiculous. Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?
Obama looks silly and confused. A candidate in the crucial final stages of a nomination canvass cannot afford that kind of crisis in perception.
Category: Campaign 2008.12
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Good News for Republicans:
The chances of Barack Obama being our next president are in rapid retreat.
The Reverend Wright catastrophe is an avalanche. In the next month, things are only going to get worse for Obama (we can only wait and see how much his press conference today accelerates the descent).
The Bad News for Republicans:
If the Democrats have any sense at all (which is always a big "if"), Barack Obama is probably going to be our next vice president.
The obvious solution to this Democratic Party dilemma has always been a unity ticket. It is only common sense. That obvious answer is coming back into focus for more and more strategic thinkers within the party--and will likely take hold as an idea whose time has come in May and June.
A few months ago this "agent of change" looked like he could "paint the map blue" with his post-partisan, post-racial, flawless charisma. But all that confident generational realignment chatter is gone with the wind (especially after today). Obama is battered and deeply shaken and trying desperately to limp toward the finish line.
What about the Math?
While Obama will end the primaries ahead on pledged delegates, he continues to need a significant bloc of superdelegates to win the nomination. And there is no longer a compelling positive reason for the supers to select Barack Obama as the Democratic standard bearer.
In fact, there is a growing sense that Obama equals big and unnecessary risks in the General Election. Ironically, just as the call for the superdelegates to decide early gains momentum, Obama's precipitous fall threatens to leave him at his lowest point at the most unfortunate and vulnerable time.
Of course, there is a very serious negative reason standing in the way of a Obama humiliation at the hands of the Party elite. They face a potential tsunami of resentment from Obama fanatics (young people and African Americans), if they deny him his duly earned prize.
How to finesse this potential pitfall?
The unity ticket: Clinton and Obama.
For a forty-six-year-old half-term senator running for president, the personal associations were well worth emphasizing. However, Obama can get away with the Rev. Wright (and William Ayres and Tony Rezko) baggage, if he is only running for vice president. Of course, logically, we understand that the VP is merely a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, but traditionally we do not get that worked up about veep associations.
Much more importantly, a Hillary-Barack ticket preserves the energy of the “millennials” and staves off the bitterness from the African American community. Granted, vice president is not big casino, but, if Barack puts his heart into it, he can inspire his followers into a powerful and only slightly blunted enthusiasm.
As for Hillary, she is tough and ready, and she can beat John McCain. It will be close, but the Democrats have always held all the high cards in this cycle. Hillary maintains the shortest path to a November victory of any 2008 candidate. The Democrats tried to get too fancy. It has turned into a looming disaster. Now they need to get back to the fundamentals.
The Question: is it too late for them? Have they blown their advantages with this flight of fancy?
Probably not. Hillary’s obvious problem is that circumstances forced her to chase Barack into the left-wing weeds on Iraq and NAFTA; however, with some work, she ought to be able to maneuver her way back into the middle of the road between now and the fall.
Moreover, to her good, and this is of inestimable value, this nomination contest has made her much more human and appealing. She found a sympathetic identity in all this: a scrappy fighter who never quits and finds some way to win in the end. Also, because of this experience, Team Clinton is leaner, less arrogant, and unlikely to take their next opponent lightly.
Expect a full-court press from the opening tipoff.
One last thought: Bill will be back in form and in favor for the fall. Does anyone doubt that the mainstream media will once again see his brand of political warfare as not only fair game but endearing.
The next month ought to be interesting.
The chances of Barack Obama being our next president are in rapid retreat.
The Reverend Wright catastrophe is an avalanche. In the next month, things are only going to get worse for Obama (we can only wait and see how much his press conference today accelerates the descent).
The Bad News for Republicans:
If the Democrats have any sense at all (which is always a big "if"), Barack Obama is probably going to be our next vice president.
The obvious solution to this Democratic Party dilemma has always been a unity ticket. It is only common sense. That obvious answer is coming back into focus for more and more strategic thinkers within the party--and will likely take hold as an idea whose time has come in May and June.
A few months ago this "agent of change" looked like he could "paint the map blue" with his post-partisan, post-racial, flawless charisma. But all that confident generational realignment chatter is gone with the wind (especially after today). Obama is battered and deeply shaken and trying desperately to limp toward the finish line.
What about the Math?
While Obama will end the primaries ahead on pledged delegates, he continues to need a significant bloc of superdelegates to win the nomination. And there is no longer a compelling positive reason for the supers to select Barack Obama as the Democratic standard bearer.
In fact, there is a growing sense that Obama equals big and unnecessary risks in the General Election. Ironically, just as the call for the superdelegates to decide early gains momentum, Obama's precipitous fall threatens to leave him at his lowest point at the most unfortunate and vulnerable time.
Of course, there is a very serious negative reason standing in the way of a Obama humiliation at the hands of the Party elite. They face a potential tsunami of resentment from Obama fanatics (young people and African Americans), if they deny him his duly earned prize.
How to finesse this potential pitfall?
The unity ticket: Clinton and Obama.
For a forty-six-year-old half-term senator running for president, the personal associations were well worth emphasizing. However, Obama can get away with the Rev. Wright (and William Ayres and Tony Rezko) baggage, if he is only running for vice president. Of course, logically, we understand that the VP is merely a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, but traditionally we do not get that worked up about veep associations.
Much more importantly, a Hillary-Barack ticket preserves the energy of the “millennials” and staves off the bitterness from the African American community. Granted, vice president is not big casino, but, if Barack puts his heart into it, he can inspire his followers into a powerful and only slightly blunted enthusiasm.
As for Hillary, she is tough and ready, and she can beat John McCain. It will be close, but the Democrats have always held all the high cards in this cycle. Hillary maintains the shortest path to a November victory of any 2008 candidate. The Democrats tried to get too fancy. It has turned into a looming disaster. Now they need to get back to the fundamentals.
The Question: is it too late for them? Have they blown their advantages with this flight of fancy?
Probably not. Hillary’s obvious problem is that circumstances forced her to chase Barack into the left-wing weeds on Iraq and NAFTA; however, with some work, she ought to be able to maneuver her way back into the middle of the road between now and the fall.
Moreover, to her good, and this is of inestimable value, this nomination contest has made her much more human and appealing. She found a sympathetic identity in all this: a scrappy fighter who never quits and finds some way to win in the end. Also, because of this experience, Team Clinton is leaner, less arrogant, and unlikely to take their next opponent lightly.
Expect a full-court press from the opening tipoff.
One last thought: Bill will be back in form and in favor for the fall. Does anyone doubt that the mainstream media will once again see his brand of political warfare as not only fair game but endearing.
The next month ought to be interesting.
28/04: Top Ten Science Experiments
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
From The Telegraph (UK) science writer George Johnson relates the stories of ten fundamental experiments that advanced science. Good stuff.
28/04: Friend and Pagan
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: an okie gardener
In the early 80s I attended seminary in New Jersey and had my only exposure to the Silent Friends, the Quakers who still have the silent meetings until someone feels led to say something. Their spiritual emphasis was on the Inner Light. Getting aquainted with a few Quakers, Friends as they call themselves, I learned that among the Silent Friends were those who were Christian, and those who were not.
Evidently things have not changed that much since. Christianity Today has this article on the growing numbers of pagans who are Quaker, or Quakers who are pagan, among the Friends holding traditional practices.
The article does not really address the why, but I think I know. It grows from the concept of the Inner Light, the presence of God guiding the believer found in Friends doctrine. In early Quakerism, this experience was tied to Christianity, and Quakers were biblically literate. But, once the subjective experience of an inner guiding principle is elevated into an authority, the possibility arises that it may become separated from Scripture. In that case, there is no external check on the subjective perception. One can be a Christian Quaker or a non-Christian.
One of the reasons I am not comfortable with some aspects of the charismatic movement is the reliance some people place on subjectively hearing the voice of God: "God told me . . ." There can be insufficient check on this subjectivity if Scripture is not determinative. And, combined with modern individualism, the group cannot act as much of a check on the subjective imagination. Weird things can grow.
I believe the Spirit speaks, but what a person thinks he or she hears must always must be checked by the Word. And the Word is the Word taught by the historic Church.
Evidently things have not changed that much since. Christianity Today has this article on the growing numbers of pagans who are Quaker, or Quakers who are pagan, among the Friends holding traditional practices.
The article does not really address the why, but I think I know. It grows from the concept of the Inner Light, the presence of God guiding the believer found in Friends doctrine. In early Quakerism, this experience was tied to Christianity, and Quakers were biblically literate. But, once the subjective experience of an inner guiding principle is elevated into an authority, the possibility arises that it may become separated from Scripture. In that case, there is no external check on the subjective perception. One can be a Christian Quaker or a non-Christian.
One of the reasons I am not comfortable with some aspects of the charismatic movement is the reliance some people place on subjectively hearing the voice of God: "God told me . . ." There can be insufficient check on this subjectivity if Scripture is not determinative. And, combined with modern individualism, the group cannot act as much of a check on the subjective imagination. Weird things can grow.
I believe the Spirit speaks, but what a person thinks he or she hears must always must be checked by the Word. And the Word is the Word taught by the historic Church.
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have read a good deal about Islam and the Middle East, speak Arabic, and generally "get" the area better than the average American. So, what course of study would I recommend to the Average American interested in increasing his/her area knowledge? Sticking with good ol' ink and binding books (although there are many great online sources or articles - that may be another post), here goes:
1st Semester:
No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, by Reza Aslan
A recent contribution (2005), this book is accessible enough for someone who doesn't know a Sufi from a Sunni, but won't bore someone with a higher level of knowledge. Aslan is a moderate Muslim, Persian in origin, living in America. As a basic overview of Islam, this book does a remarkable job, utilizing a unique and helpful dual topical/chronological ordering. As a sole source of higher commentary, it's a bit weak, and undoubtably many Muslims would disagree with Aslan's characterization of the splits between the various sects. Aslan also claims that Islam is ripe for a Reformation, along the same lines as the Protestant Reformation, and his book is partly a call for continuing dialogue between the different sides (roughly modern/moderate and fundamentalist.) This claim is much more at debate than Aslan portrays, but his claims shows that at least one side (his side, the moderates) are willing to debate the "soul of Islam."
Arabian Sands, by Wilfred Thesiger
Thesiger's work is a classic in Arabian studies, and is out in a re-issue this year. One of the first Europeans to travel in the heart of Arabia, Thesiger crossed the Empty Quarter with Bedouin guides in the 1950s. This book reads like a James Michener novel, and describes both the unique desert way of life and the complex tribal politics in the region. Perhaps its most valuable function for a modern student is to give a baseline for understanding a style of Islam and living just 50 years ago, without which it is difficult to appreciate just how rapid and core-shaking the change has been in the Middle East with the discovery of oil and influx of the West.
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future, by Vali Nasr
Nasr is one of the preeminent scholars of the Middle East today, and his book The Shia Revival is his most popular for a reason. It deals with an overarching theme in the modern Islamic world: the divide and struggle between Shia and Sunni Islam. Nasr brings the student up to speed, covering the historic divisions between the two branches of Islam, the rise of secular nationalism, the Shia backlash against secularism in Iran, and the (possible) rise of Iraq as the first Arab Shia nation. Nasr's premise of a Shia ascendency is well argued, but he may have a tendency to explain all issues in the Middle East as reflecting this struggle, sometimes ignoring more local concerns. This book excellently bridges the gap between history and current events, along with giving a possible future.
And now you're ready for
2nd Semester:
Islam in the World, by Malise Ruthven
Ruthven covers what Aslan ignored, and then some. I only recommend this book if you're seriously interested in understanding the complexity of Islam, and have some time to devote to the study. If that's you, then this is the book. Ruthven outlines the history of Islam and its cultural context, from the Prophet to today. He also discusses the finer points of the difference between the sects of Islam, not only discussing historical factors but also differences in theology. This book also examines the political interplay between Islamic scholars and the state throughout history, and briefly covers Islamic economic principles. If any of these areas interest you in particular, Ruthven also provides an extensive "further reading" list.
A Peace to End All Peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin
This book details the effects of colonial ventures into the Middle East, from the late 1800s through WWI, especially dwelling on the Palestinian issue. (By the way, if you're interested more particularly in the Palestinian Issue, check out Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles Smith.) The lines of the modern states in the region are often the result of British or French colonial concerns more than an accurate reflection of the local situation, and Fromkin here shows why. To the modern student, this book highlights the difficulty of attempting to impose sudden change upon the Middle East (not that any examples come to mind...).
Along the same topic, but with more modern updates, try Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong?. Like Fromkin, Lewis covers the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but he covers a broader historical period and attempts to explain the current situation in the broader Muslim world in terms of the "clash between Islam and modernity."
So, there you have it. What books would you add to this course, or subtract?
1st Semester:
No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, by Reza Aslan
A recent contribution (2005), this book is accessible enough for someone who doesn't know a Sufi from a Sunni, but won't bore someone with a higher level of knowledge. Aslan is a moderate Muslim, Persian in origin, living in America. As a basic overview of Islam, this book does a remarkable job, utilizing a unique and helpful dual topical/chronological ordering. As a sole source of higher commentary, it's a bit weak, and undoubtably many Muslims would disagree with Aslan's characterization of the splits between the various sects. Aslan also claims that Islam is ripe for a Reformation, along the same lines as the Protestant Reformation, and his book is partly a call for continuing dialogue between the different sides (roughly modern/moderate and fundamentalist.) This claim is much more at debate than Aslan portrays, but his claims shows that at least one side (his side, the moderates) are willing to debate the "soul of Islam."
Arabian Sands, by Wilfred Thesiger
Thesiger's work is a classic in Arabian studies, and is out in a re-issue this year. One of the first Europeans to travel in the heart of Arabia, Thesiger crossed the Empty Quarter with Bedouin guides in the 1950s. This book reads like a James Michener novel, and describes both the unique desert way of life and the complex tribal politics in the region. Perhaps its most valuable function for a modern student is to give a baseline for understanding a style of Islam and living just 50 years ago, without which it is difficult to appreciate just how rapid and core-shaking the change has been in the Middle East with the discovery of oil and influx of the West.
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future, by Vali Nasr
Nasr is one of the preeminent scholars of the Middle East today, and his book The Shia Revival is his most popular for a reason. It deals with an overarching theme in the modern Islamic world: the divide and struggle between Shia and Sunni Islam. Nasr brings the student up to speed, covering the historic divisions between the two branches of Islam, the rise of secular nationalism, the Shia backlash against secularism in Iran, and the (possible) rise of Iraq as the first Arab Shia nation. Nasr's premise of a Shia ascendency is well argued, but he may have a tendency to explain all issues in the Middle East as reflecting this struggle, sometimes ignoring more local concerns. This book excellently bridges the gap between history and current events, along with giving a possible future.
And now you're ready for
2nd Semester:
Islam in the World, by Malise Ruthven
Ruthven covers what Aslan ignored, and then some. I only recommend this book if you're seriously interested in understanding the complexity of Islam, and have some time to devote to the study. If that's you, then this is the book. Ruthven outlines the history of Islam and its cultural context, from the Prophet to today. He also discusses the finer points of the difference between the sects of Islam, not only discussing historical factors but also differences in theology. This book also examines the political interplay between Islamic scholars and the state throughout history, and briefly covers Islamic economic principles. If any of these areas interest you in particular, Ruthven also provides an extensive "further reading" list.
A Peace to End All Peace: The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin
This book details the effects of colonial ventures into the Middle East, from the late 1800s through WWI, especially dwelling on the Palestinian issue. (By the way, if you're interested more particularly in the Palestinian Issue, check out Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles Smith.) The lines of the modern states in the region are often the result of British or French colonial concerns more than an accurate reflection of the local situation, and Fromkin here shows why. To the modern student, this book highlights the difficulty of attempting to impose sudden change upon the Middle East (not that any examples come to mind...).
Along the same topic, but with more modern updates, try Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong?. Like Fromkin, Lewis covers the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but he covers a broader historical period and attempts to explain the current situation in the broader Muslim world in terms of the "clash between Islam and modernity."
So, there you have it. What books would you add to this course, or subtract?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I generally refer to Dana Milbank, Washington Post political columnist-slash-satirist, as the "serially inappropriate Dana Milbank." In general, I find Milbank mean-spirited and distorted when it comes to covering the politicians I admire.
On the other hand, when Milbank goes after the other side, he generally gets things exactly right.
You must read these two graphs:
"Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America."
No exaggeration. He really did. Read the transcript here (oops; sorry, no longer available for free from the National Press Club--must be a hot item).
More Milbank:
"In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam."
Read Milbank in full here, who hits almost every point on my quick list scribbled in the margin of the event transcript:
1. draping himself in the the bloody shirt of the black church
2. his friend Barack lies a lot
3. America should repent for the sin of international slavery--and apologize to Japan
4. [in the context of the alleged CIA plot to infect African Americans with AIDS] he believes the U.S. Government (but not the American people) "capable of anything"
5. he feels for his friend, Louis Farrakhan, who, like himself, gets misquoted and misunderstood by the corporate media (which, evidently, includes Bill Moyers and Chris Rock)
Funny stuff. Although, in all sincerity, my heart goes out to the Obama family. My gut feeling: put a fork in Barack. This is too much.
UPDATE: Another one of my favorite foils, Joe Klein, writes perceptively:
"Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama."
UPDATE-2: Susan Estrich agrees that Wright is poison, but suggests that Obama may survive with added strength (whatever doesn't kill you...perhaps?).
On the other hand, when Milbank goes after the other side, he generally gets things exactly right.
You must read these two graphs:
"Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America."
No exaggeration. He really did. Read the transcript here (oops; sorry, no longer available for free from the National Press Club--must be a hot item).
More Milbank:
"In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam."
Read Milbank in full here, who hits almost every point on my quick list scribbled in the margin of the event transcript:
1. draping himself in the the bloody shirt of the black church
2. his friend Barack lies a lot
3. America should repent for the sin of international slavery--and apologize to Japan
4. [in the context of the alleged CIA plot to infect African Americans with AIDS] he believes the U.S. Government (but not the American people) "capable of anything"
5. he feels for his friend, Louis Farrakhan, who, like himself, gets misquoted and misunderstood by the corporate media (which, evidently, includes Bill Moyers and Chris Rock)
Funny stuff. Although, in all sincerity, my heart goes out to the Obama family. My gut feeling: put a fork in Barack. This is too much.
UPDATE: Another one of my favorite foils, Joe Klein, writes perceptively:
"Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama."
UPDATE-2: Susan Estrich agrees that Wright is poison, but suggests that Obama may survive with added strength (whatever doesn't kill you...perhaps?).
