It is claimed by the Left in scores of articles that Bill O'reilly is somehow responsible for the shooting death of the abortionist George Tiller. I suppose that the left expects that the religious right now do some soul-searching, take some responsibility, and tone down the rhetoric against doctors that provide abortions.
What they are actually doing is creating a climate in which anti-abortion rhetoric is equated with the murder of people who provide them.
But would the same people who have blamed Bill O'Reilly also start to blame the media and left wing intellectuals for the 9/11 attacks or this recent bit where a man killed two soldiers outside a shopping center in Arkansas? After all, the combined anti-military, anti-America, and anti-war rhetoric equating the Army with the greatest of evils are certainly greater and more widely known than anything Bill O'Reilly said. And how much left-wing anti-Israel rhetoric is blamed for the recent plot to blow up synagogues?
To my mind, murders by individuals should generally be blamed on the individual. So whence the double standard blaming people who kill soldiers on no one and when people kill abortion doctors blame the "right-wing media". I'll also bet that the shooting doesn't make it to the Daily Show, nor will the media make a big deal of it. (Bizarrely, this report from Iran refers to the soldiers "helping to recruit armed forces draftees", as if that were either true or possible. The US has no draftees, and if they did they would not need to be recruited.)
I think that we ought to be grateful that free speech is alive and well here and people can speak out against the US, against abortions, against doctors, against the military, against anyone they want. But to suddenly start blaming the exercise of freedom of speech for murders is disingenuous unless it is done by all, and I can't imagine the Angry Left is going to start examining its own speech too carefully in the near future.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Monday, November 27, 2006
Review of Charles Townshend: Terrorism
Terrorism is a notoriously unclear subject. It is full of linguistic, moral, social, and legal ambiguities. One wants an introduction that sorts it all about and makes things a little clearer. Charles Townshend's Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction does not do that. These very short introductions are hit or miss, and this one is definitely a miss.
The book basically starts out with some definitional questions and attempts to disambiguate terrorism from other things. moves on to some history, and then to revolutionary terrorism, national terrorism, and religious terrorism. Finally the book has a little to say about counterterrorism and democracy.
This is a superficial book. When reading this, one gets the impression that the author is a specialist is some related field, but clearly not this one. There is detail without background in many cases, and and judgements without context in others. The author makes no attempt to not be snide or hide sympathies for some group or other. The writing at times is not careful, and frankly, I thought the pictures were poorly chosen.
I would go in to detail, but that would make me go back and look at the book to remember what I didn't like about it. This is an exercise I find too painful to be worth it.
The book basically starts out with some definitional questions and attempts to disambiguate terrorism from other things. moves on to some history, and then to revolutionary terrorism, national terrorism, and religious terrorism. Finally the book has a little to say about counterterrorism and democracy.
This is a superficial book. When reading this, one gets the impression that the author is a specialist is some related field, but clearly not this one. There is detail without background in many cases, and and judgements without context in others. The author makes no attempt to not be snide or hide sympathies for some group or other. The writing at times is not careful, and frankly, I thought the pictures were poorly chosen.
I would go in to detail, but that would make me go back and look at the book to remember what I didn't like about it. This is an exercise I find too painful to be worth it.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Tripoli Six
The Tripoli Six have gotten quite a bit of news coverage lately. Basically there are five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor accused by Libya of infecting some 400 children with HIV. There is a good chance that if international pressure is not successful, they will end up with the death penalty.
The major evidence for this is that Ghaddafi claims there is no HIV in Libya, so it must have come from outside. These doctors are outsiders, so it must be them. The CIA and the Mossad have been blamed, and Libya has offered to trade their release for the release of a terrorist and $6 Billion.
The charge is obviously bogus, and most likely, the hospital just reuses syringes and is too cheap to test blood for AIDS, so it gets spread around. They have to blame someone so they blame a foreigner. Blaming a Palestinian is also too easy because Palestine is almost Israel.
Groups all around the world are calling for their release, bla bla bla. Zillions of scientists have offered scientific proof that it is highly unlikely that they actually did it. . . As if this matters. It is funny that they go through the motions of actually proving the obvious. The fact that the Libyans are using them as scapegoats is far more obvious than any long-winded bit of scientific evidence of their innocence that a team of doctors can conjure up.
But there is something missing from all these news stories about this affair. First, how did these medical personnel get there? Who are they? And what the hell are they doing in Libya?
One must assume that there are risks that you are taking when you go to work for Ghadaffi. There is no expectation that you will be treated fairly. There is no expectation that you have any type of redress should something go wrong, and there is no expectation that you will be treated fairly.
When I first saw this I assumed that one of the following was going on: (1) Libya needed medical staff, so they advertised, and six people were dumb enough to say to them selves "with medical staff in high demand all over the world, why not work in Libya?" Or (2) they said to themselves "Those poor Libyans. The world hates them for no reason. They spend their money on financing terrorism, so they have no money to train doctors, so I better help them." Or (3) "Screw politics. Their people still need help, they are paying. I'll go to Libya and work."
Look, I have no idea why these people actually went to Libya to work, and I really feel bad for any victims of Ghadaffi. But isn't their reasons for going relevant to how much I should be willing to help? If they went because it was the only place the six of them could find work, then I am feeling very bad. If, and I have no idea whether this is true, they went because they really hate America and the effects of the former American boycott of Libya, and want to do whatever they can to undermine the impact of American sanctions on Libya, then why should I try hard to help them. (Who can't imagine a Palestinian doctor thinking that getting paid well to help Libyans is a great way for him to hate Israel.)
So I really don't know their story. But I would like to. I think it is a very morally relevant factor in my willingness to help. Should I feel bad for them as people, or as victims of Ghadaffi? Who goes to work in Libya? Did they go there because they had little choice or because they really believed that Ghadaffi was a good guy and wanted to help? If they initially put their trust in the good will of the Libyan government, it seems like it is not my job to rectify their bad and possibly malicious judgement.
By the way, here is another interesting thing I noticed: The prestigious journal Nature published an Open Letter to Gaddafi calling for a fair trial. The list of signatories is on Nature's website. They are all Nobel Prize winners in Science. But neither of the two Muslim Noble Prize winners (Salam or Zewail) are listed among the signatories. With 113 Science Nobel prize winners, that is a conspicuous absence.
The major evidence for this is that Ghaddafi claims there is no HIV in Libya, so it must have come from outside. These doctors are outsiders, so it must be them. The CIA and the Mossad have been blamed, and Libya has offered to trade their release for the release of a terrorist and $6 Billion.
The charge is obviously bogus, and most likely, the hospital just reuses syringes and is too cheap to test blood for AIDS, so it gets spread around. They have to blame someone so they blame a foreigner. Blaming a Palestinian is also too easy because Palestine is almost Israel.
Groups all around the world are calling for their release, bla bla bla. Zillions of scientists have offered scientific proof that it is highly unlikely that they actually did it. . . As if this matters. It is funny that they go through the motions of actually proving the obvious. The fact that the Libyans are using them as scapegoats is far more obvious than any long-winded bit of scientific evidence of their innocence that a team of doctors can conjure up.
But there is something missing from all these news stories about this affair. First, how did these medical personnel get there? Who are they? And what the hell are they doing in Libya?
One must assume that there are risks that you are taking when you go to work for Ghadaffi. There is no expectation that you will be treated fairly. There is no expectation that you have any type of redress should something go wrong, and there is no expectation that you will be treated fairly.
When I first saw this I assumed that one of the following was going on: (1) Libya needed medical staff, so they advertised, and six people were dumb enough to say to them selves "with medical staff in high demand all over the world, why not work in Libya?" Or (2) they said to themselves "Those poor Libyans. The world hates them for no reason. They spend their money on financing terrorism, so they have no money to train doctors, so I better help them." Or (3) "Screw politics. Their people still need help, they are paying. I'll go to Libya and work."
Look, I have no idea why these people actually went to Libya to work, and I really feel bad for any victims of Ghadaffi. But isn't their reasons for going relevant to how much I should be willing to help? If they went because it was the only place the six of them could find work, then I am feeling very bad. If, and I have no idea whether this is true, they went because they really hate America and the effects of the former American boycott of Libya, and want to do whatever they can to undermine the impact of American sanctions on Libya, then why should I try hard to help them. (Who can't imagine a Palestinian doctor thinking that getting paid well to help Libyans is a great way for him to hate Israel.)
So I really don't know their story. But I would like to. I think it is a very morally relevant factor in my willingness to help. Should I feel bad for them as people, or as victims of Ghadaffi? Who goes to work in Libya? Did they go there because they had little choice or because they really believed that Ghadaffi was a good guy and wanted to help? If they initially put their trust in the good will of the Libyan government, it seems like it is not my job to rectify their bad and possibly malicious judgement.
By the way, here is another interesting thing I noticed: The prestigious journal Nature published an Open Letter to Gaddafi calling for a fair trial. The list of signatories is on Nature's website. They are all Nobel Prize winners in Science. But neither of the two Muslim Noble Prize winners (Salam or Zewail) are listed among the signatories. With 113 Science Nobel prize winners, that is a conspicuous absence.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Review of Freidman's From Beirut to Jerusalem
I finished reading Friedman's book, From Beirut to Jerusalem. Boy is that man insightful. He really seems to understand the Arabs, their mentality, and politics. Jews . . . not so much. I seem to be getting the impression that he knows one brand of Judaism - ie, his, and everything else gets compared to that - always unfavorably. There is little insight there. However the first 250 pages really make sense of the problems in Lebanon - the civil war, the war with Israel. The dude on the front cover said something like "if you only read one book about the Middle East, read this one." Ditto. The book offers penetrating explanations for much of what you read about the region.
I have a whole slew of criticisms, which I will put up at some point when I am less tired. He is an apologist for the Israeli left/peace camp. He is also really condescending to the Arabs he talks about.
The story is something like this. There are these people in Beirut. They all hate each other. They have always been fighting, and always will be. There have been few moments of peace in Beirut every now in then in the past hundreds of years. Every now and then something happens to keep the peace. Either something external (eg, French colonialism) or internal (a precise balance of power). Something like the National Pact or some feelings of Pan Arabism. If this ever gets messed up, even a bit, there is war. Now, the way Friedman portrays this, it is OK, and we are to take this with a sense of humor, and never talk about the killing of anyone in a civil war as bad or anything, except in the perfunctory way we must. He seems to portray himself as some Journalistic version of Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. It is romantic, and cool. We drank in the cool bars and ate in the "in" restaurants, even during the war. Boy - those were the days, the war days.
Moreover Friedman describes well, the set of rules for real power in the Middle East - Hama rules. This is where some Arab massacres thousands of other Arabs. This is part of the game which we have to accept with lots of humor, and amusement. It is really romantic, the way it is all portrayed. There everyone is part of the underground resistance. Only all 50 resistance movements are fighting each other, not an outside enemy. So Hama rules is how it is played internally, but once in a while someone else falls in to the game, like Sharon. You can fal in to the game just by showing up. If he does not understand the rules then he will screw up. If he does he is a butcher.
Now I like this idea of Sharon being held to a higher standard than Arabs, but it seems a bit unfair, if he is playing with them. (Game theory comes in here) Sharon, because he is Jewish like Friedman, is held to these impossible standards. He has to be moral. Why can't Sharon play by Arab (read Hama) rules? Every indication is that every one else is. It is because those are ugly rules. Friedman apparently thinks that Arabs can't be held to such a high standard, and frankly, I agree with him. But if the Jets were to bring guns to the fight and the sharks were only allowed to fight with their bare hands, I see a problem.
Now the fact is that Israel has guns, and Lebanon does not. But not only is Israel not allowed to use them, they have to sit by when other people do. They have to be moral. There is all this hig moral language imposed on Israel, that you do not see elsewhere. There is also a long analysis about why the media does this. (He is naturally exempt)
His understanding of Jews is kind of poor, and his analysis of Israelis is only slightly better. Long poorly chosen quotes from David Hartman make up for analysis. I assume that Freidman came to Israel thinking he knows all he needs to about Jews and Israelis (after all, he is Jewish) and didn't bother to listen to any of them. His "Sassoon" is a saving grace, in that he does touch on something - that a lot of Israelis are Sassoons.
His solutions are worth considering.
I have a whole slew of criticisms, which I will put up at some point when I am less tired. He is an apologist for the Israeli left/peace camp. He is also really condescending to the Arabs he talks about.
The story is something like this. There are these people in Beirut. They all hate each other. They have always been fighting, and always will be. There have been few moments of peace in Beirut every now in then in the past hundreds of years. Every now and then something happens to keep the peace. Either something external (eg, French colonialism) or internal (a precise balance of power). Something like the National Pact or some feelings of Pan Arabism. If this ever gets messed up, even a bit, there is war. Now, the way Friedman portrays this, it is OK, and we are to take this with a sense of humor, and never talk about the killing of anyone in a civil war as bad or anything, except in the perfunctory way we must. He seems to portray himself as some Journalistic version of Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. It is romantic, and cool. We drank in the cool bars and ate in the "in" restaurants, even during the war. Boy - those were the days, the war days.
Moreover Friedman describes well, the set of rules for real power in the Middle East - Hama rules. This is where some Arab massacres thousands of other Arabs. This is part of the game which we have to accept with lots of humor, and amusement. It is really romantic, the way it is all portrayed. There everyone is part of the underground resistance. Only all 50 resistance movements are fighting each other, not an outside enemy. So Hama rules is how it is played internally, but once in a while someone else falls in to the game, like Sharon. You can fal in to the game just by showing up. If he does not understand the rules then he will screw up. If he does he is a butcher.
Now I like this idea of Sharon being held to a higher standard than Arabs, but it seems a bit unfair, if he is playing with them. (Game theory comes in here) Sharon, because he is Jewish like Friedman, is held to these impossible standards. He has to be moral. Why can't Sharon play by Arab (read Hama) rules? Every indication is that every one else is. It is because those are ugly rules. Friedman apparently thinks that Arabs can't be held to such a high standard, and frankly, I agree with him. But if the Jets were to bring guns to the fight and the sharks were only allowed to fight with their bare hands, I see a problem.
Now the fact is that Israel has guns, and Lebanon does not. But not only is Israel not allowed to use them, they have to sit by when other people do. They have to be moral. There is all this hig moral language imposed on Israel, that you do not see elsewhere. There is also a long analysis about why the media does this. (He is naturally exempt)
His understanding of Jews is kind of poor, and his analysis of Israelis is only slightly better. Long poorly chosen quotes from David Hartman make up for analysis. I assume that Freidman came to Israel thinking he knows all he needs to about Jews and Israelis (after all, he is Jewish) and didn't bother to listen to any of them. His "Sassoon" is a saving grace, in that he does touch on something - that a lot of Israelis are Sassoons.
His solutions are worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
