Evil and Wrong Too

In post-9/11/01 America, (as well as post-3/11/04 Spain and post-7/7/05 Britain) there is quite a bit of fear and resentment floating around towards Islam, for some odd reason I can't think of at the moment. In the US there have been those who have tried to bring a little humor and a little reason to the situation. A few years ago a show built around social commentary brought up the effect of attempts to depict Mohammad. After a decent commentary they asked, (dared) their network to allow them freedom of speech in their next episode. The network backed out and censored it.

But we are not here to discuss that issue. We are here to discuss the valiant efforts of Muzzammil Hassan to change negative public perceptions about Muslims. In 2004, they launched Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., which featured a mix of religious, cultural and news programming from a Muslim perspective, as well as non-Muslim programming. The station, operated by a multi-religious group.

In February 2009 his wife had the gall to file for divorce. He didn't take it well. Not wanting to propagate negative stereotypes of Muslims he did the civilized thing and.....no, wait, actually, he cut her head off in the TV station's office. Turns out that sort of thing is illegal in America and he got convicted. But you know what? Maybe he is the victim in all this......at least he thinks so.........because I don't see how a headless body could be seen as more of a victim than a convicted killer.

Boy, wouldn't it be terrible if Islam was unfairly portrayed as misogynistic?

The Return of the King

I have been busy of late with finals and other writing projects but will start writing on here again, I have returned to take my rightful place as King of this flowerpot.

Evil and Wrong

Another sad story of abuse of women in Islam has come to us out of Yemen. A 12 year old girl died from internal bleeding caused by intercourse three days after being married to an older man. I quote from the article, "Child brides are common in Yemen, where the United Nations estimates that one in three girls are married before age 18. Most are married off to older men with more than one wife, according to a study by Sanaa University." Certainly, Arab Islamic culture is not unique in having sex crazed men seeking ever more, and younger, women; if anything that's a global trend. What is unique is the degree to which it is entrenched, institutionalized, encouraged and even justified by the Koran.

It is known that Mohammad had four wives and widely accepted that he married he favorite wife, Aisha, at the age of six but held off consummating until she was nine. In Sura 2:223 (the Cow) Mohammad tells husbands that their wife is their "tilth" or field, to be entered and "plowed" as they please. Sura 65:4 (Divorce) outlines the procedures for divorcing your wife, with special instructions in case she has not yet reached puberty. There seems to be a doctrine that a Muslim man can do anything Mohammad did, hence why most Muslim countries allow up to four wives and taking young girls to wife is allowed and even encouraged, but you are not to consummate until "later" (wink) when they are grown up, like twelve. In addition, several verses refer to women as property. The degree to which the Koran dehumanizes women is truly appalling. Verses like 4:11 and 2:282 plainly say that a woman is worth half a man. 4:11 is where inheritance rules are laid down and women can only inherit half as much as a man. In 2:282 rules for witnesses are explained and also explained is that it takes two women to equal the mental faculties of a man.

Not wanting all of its misogynist credentials to come from sexual exploitation, Islam also threw in spousal abuse. Highlights from those six clips include in the second to last one at about 1:30 the cleric praying for spousal abuse, other juicy tidbits include viewing it as "therapeutic", not more than ten times, no causing bleeding, only a small stick, not in the face, not in front of children etc. Now the obvious counter-argument is that I found the six worst clerics and posted them, ignoring all of the moderates. To speak to that, I would like someone to come up with "moderate" clerics speaking differently on the issue. I actually kind think those were the moderates, given that they were advocating limits on wife beating not backed up by the Koran. Sura 4:34 (Women), a major verse on wife beating, has six main translations, five of the six say beat or scourge and the sixth dubiously inserts words to change the meaning to "beat them (lightly)"

While you can find strange inconsistencies in the lives of early leaders of other faiths, (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's multiple wives come to mind) where this becomes salient is when trying to examine the status of women in Islam today. I can't conclusively prove the Koran is the cause of Muslim women's sad state today I think it's a good window. It could be a chicken and egg case, cultural attitudes bleeding over into the texts. What is clear is that the attitudes and practices in the Koran are a big part of the culture.

Now where this starts to get really interesting is when we take into account Islam's condemnation of the West as being decadent and morally corrupt. I agree, we are, For crying out loud, we defend the proliferation of Pornography in the West. Not only is pornography incredibly morally repugnant but its' highly caustic and destructive effect on society is almost impossible to overstate. I won't go into the whole terrorism vs. taking a moral stand in seeking change, we all have our preferred methods of changing the world for the better. In the West we have our fair share of sexual predators, the difference is we don't use scripture to legally protect it.

To Bruce, at PETA

On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.

1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.

2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.

3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.

4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.

5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.

6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.

In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?

A Clear and Present Danger from the South: Part 2

In part 1 yesterday I related the history of the Mexican Expedition of 1916 and as promised, I will make it relevant. While we don't have a carbon copy of 1916 today we a have similar situation. The Government of Mexico and the drug cartels are engaged in a de facto civil war. We have this Treaty of Westphalia notion of the sovereignty of nations and internal matters. As long as what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico we have no business interfering. This breaks down when what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico and their problems become our problems. If Mexican internal strife compromises our national security we have a right to step in and at least end the threat to us.

As things unravel in Mexico we see hard gang violence spill north into the US. In southern California gangs have started to fight an insurgent campaign against police anti-gang units, even using IEDs. Mexico's problem is our problem now.

I just want to take a minute from the article to congratulate the Mexico Government for permanently end gun violence in their country by total disarmament of the populace.............. oh............. scratch that......... They say statistics don't lie but statisticians do and that's whats going on when certain politicians tell us 90% of the guns used by the cartels come from the US. Its actually more like 17%. If anything the guns flow the other way with the drugs onto our streets. Mexico doesn't have a leg to stand on whining about a few of our guns ending up there when they export huge amounts of illegal machine guns and urban terrorism to us if they won't lets us help them end the cartels.

I don't think the Mexican Government really wants our help. Currently they allow only a small number of unarmed law enforcement advisers in Mexico. We could do so much more. We could provide all kinds of logistical support, money, paramilitary training, advanced weapons and our vast electronic intelligence capability etc. We have had a lot of success sending military advisers to other cartel ridden countries. In the late 80's Pablo Escobar's narcoterrorism destroyed the ability of Colombian Government to do much of anything about him. The US sent Delta Force to create and train a special task force to shut down the Medellin Cartel. The task force hunted down and killed Escobar and dismantled his cartel, all without US personnel using their weapons.

What I am starting to get at is that if the Mexicans have lost control (they pretty much have) and are unable to bring the situation under control soon (they can't) then they need to let us help put down the cartels and end the threat to us. It won't be easy for the Government to admit to needing help from big brother but if the situation continues to get worse we will have to get involved at some point, whether the Mexican Government agrees or not. Of course, that assumes there will be a Government left at that point. At the beginning of 2009 the US State Department listed Mexico as one of the two countries most likely to undergo a revolution that year. Since then its gotten worse.

If we get to the point we have to intervene it won't matter if Mexico "allows" us to or not. History shows that America can have its way with Mexico, although sometimes we get preoccupied by other things like World War I or Iraq and Afghanistan. To recap history, in 1836 Texas became the only (future) state to have kicked a country's (Mexico) butt on their own. In 1848 Mexico made the double mistake of not only invading the US but also at the same time invading Texas (after the 1836 war and later skirmishes one would think they had learned not to mess with Texas, but apparently not.) The US went down and cleaned their clock and showed restraint, only taking Texas permanently, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah as well as parts of Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. In 1914 during the Mexican Revolution Mexican forces attacked 9 US Sailors in Veracruz guarding US citizens and property. As a result, the US took the city in street to street fighting and held it for six months. In 1916 the Mexican Government was unable to stop Pancho Villa from conducting cross boarder rails and burning American towns so we sent the Army down there. We spent more time fighting the Mexican Government than chasing Pancho Villa; because apparently they didn't understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nevertheless, we stayed until we entered World War I and sent the Army to France.

Am I advocating an Afghanistan-style invasion? NO. But we need to take an active role in unscrewing Mexico now so we don't have to take drastic action later. It would benefit America by curbing crime, it would benefit the Mexicans in many ways. In fact, the only people who would not benefit are the cartels. The cartels think this is a horrible idea.

Philosophical Review: Plato's Apology of Socrates

I was rummaging through my philosophical book collection and thought it might be a fun to write a review on philosophical texts from time to time. If anyone wants my opinion on a particular document just let me know and I'll read it and share my impressions. Just like with History there is an academic way to write about philosophy but unlike with History where I choose to ignore it I don't actually know it because I only took the most basic Philosophy class and we didn't write papers. Philosophy majors will have to put up with my layman's style or go write their own paper. This turned out a ton longer than I thought but I promise its worth it.

I want to do Plato's Apology. To get a few things out of the way first in this sense Apology comes from the Greek word apologia, its Greek title, when means defense speech in a legal proceeding. As Plato often did in his writings it's Socrates speaking words Plato wrote later. Sometime he uses this to present his own ideas as if they were Socrates's. We don't really know what happened at the trial. Another student of Socrates, Xenophon, wrote his own Apology that was very different. To be fair to Plato, Xenophon wasn't actually in Athens at the time. He signed up as a mercenary for a coup attempt against the Persian Emperor that went horribly, horribly wrong and was desperately fleeing across Southwest Asia with the most powerful army in the world chasing him at the time of the trial. For simplicity I am just going to go with it and write as if Plato was the court stenographer. For direct quotes I'll give you the Sephonopolis citations which are standard in all editions.

Background:
A few years earlier Athens lost the 27 year Peloponnese War that absolutely wrecked Greece and primed it for the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great to crush it. The War was fought by a coalition of democratic cities led by Athens and a coalition of oligarchic cities under Sparta. When Athens was starved out by a siege the Spartan Army occupied the city and installed an Oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants. Also, I am originating unconfirmed rumors that when the Spartans marched into to the city center of Athens in unison they shouted "THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!" Pass it along.

As a landed citizen Socrates fought as a Hoplite heavy infantryman in several important battles and from all accounts fought bravely. Other important background notes include the trial of the Ten Generals. After a naval victory a storm approached and the commanders failed to launch a rescue attempt as a result. The men were tried as a group instead of individually because the masses were whipped up in a fury even though this was against the Law. Also, the Thirty Tyrants tried to implicate as many other citizens as possible in their crimes to defuse guilt to as many as possible.

Socrates was charged with impiety, not believing in the gods the city believed in, and corrupting the young, a charge sadly missing from our legal system. I decided not to give a blow by blow summery because that was boring even me but rather I will pick out salient points of philosophy and examine them. Early on he tells the story of a childhood friend who went to the Oracle in Delphi to ask Apollo, the Greek God of Wisdom, if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. When his friend returned with the response that there was not, Socrates became troubled and sought out a politician, a craftsman and a poet. He found they knew lots of things he didn't but noted that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. They thought that because they had mastered one thing they had wisdom in all areas, which they didn't. Socrates concludes that the meaning of the Oracle's response was that while other men might know things he didn't, he at least knew he didn't and was therefore teachable. The first step to wisdom is a willingness to learn and an open mind.

As we go along Socrates starts to get into what he thinks the roll of a philosopher should be and how he goes about it and this is where things pick up. Socrates relates that if you had horses you would send them to a horse breeder who could tame and refine them into being the best and most useful horses possible. His question then is if we do that for horses why shouldn't we do that for people? As Socrates goes on he will make it clear that he sees his purpose in life to be like that horse breeder for the men of Athens and help them develop their souls.

Interspersed in here he is cross-examining his accusers and making them look foolish. At 28-b he responds to any who wonder if he regrets his life's work now that he is on trial for his life with is excellent retort. "You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look only to his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man." After mentioning Achillies' actions in revenging the death of his cousin, knowing full well it would cost him his life, because he knew it was what must be done.

We pick up again at 28-e. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: whenever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace. It would have been a dreadful way to behave, men of Athens, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had , at the risk of death, like everyone else, remained at my post where those you elected to command he ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else. That would have been a dreadful thing, and then I might truly have justly been brought here for not believing that there are gods, disobeying the Oracle, fearing death, and thinking I was wise when I was not. To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils."

I know I promised to summarize and not transcribe but some of these passages are so beautiful I can't help myself. The first thing to go over is where he relates it to battle. As a Hoplite he, like all land owning middle class, fought in a phalanx formation where heavily armored men with spears pack as tightly together as possible and move as one. As long as everyone stays in place its almost impossible to break. However, one man fleeing can cause the formation to collapse and the battle to be lost. Two of the battles he mentions fighting in were utter routs. Veterans of those battles who routed were sure to have been in the 1000 man jury. This marks the beginning of Socrates' questionable defense strategy of insulting the jury as much as possible.

Socrates then balks at a plea deal of an acquittal in exchange for giving up philosophy and explains his method of walking up to people with the following. Note I switch out the word Athenian with American and city with country because I think its more powerful that way. "Good Sir, you are an American, a citizen of the greatest country with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" He says if anyone disputes his accusation he won't go away until he has interrogated them to his satisfaction. You can begin to see why he is unpopular, someone who runs around full time calling people immoral is bound to piss some people off. If there is one thing he is good at it's pissing people off. Just in case he was not inflammatory enough he starts to explain that this behavior is why he is god's greatest gift to Athens. I am not making that up, he actually explains how being a kind of a jerk makes him the greatest divine gift of all.

To add insult to injury he brings up the trial of the Ten Generals. The way they did the trial was illegal and when Socrates, as a member of the council, voted against it he was nearly arrested and executed along with them. He also points out that since then everyone recognized they shouldn't have done what they did. Socrates brings up the period of the Thirty Tyrants and an instance when he and others were summoned to arrest someone for summary execution and at risk of his own life refused to do it because it was wrong. Apparently he thought telling a jury they were morally inferior to him was a surefire way to be found not guilty. Next he brings up that most of the time when someone is on trial they drag their family with them to weep and wail and beg for mercy to get out of it with a purely emotional strategy. Then he notes he didn't do that because he thinks its wrong, cowardly and corrupts the legal system.

When he is found guilty by a slim majority and the trial moves into the sentencing stage he tells them they are idiots for convicting him. Then he tells them that if the punishment is to fit the crime Athens should give him a mansion and a stipend so he can keep "blessing" them as the gods greatest gift to Athens. Also he tells them again he will never give it up as long as he lives.

When they give him the death penalty he tells them they will so live to regret it and those who voted for him to be killed will forever have his blood on their hands and live with great guilt. Later on he passes up several opportunities to escape and willingly drinks hemlock to see what death is like. This is what I call going out in style.

OK, now to step out of the text. As I noted at the beginning, this was written later and may or may not be accurate. I hope it is because I think the whole thing is great. Regardless of its historical accuracy there is a strong philosophical theme of standing by your principals no matter what. Socrates was concerned with ethics, i.e. becoming a good person. For him the welfare of the soul is far more important than worldly honors or possessions. However, unlike the ascetics that were common both then and now (most religions have some form of monasticism) he doesn't actually condemn material possessions. What he does condemn is the pursuit of them at the expense of the soul. Back to my favorite quote at 29-e, he asks the rhetorical question "Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" For him worldly things become immoral when our pursuit of them takes priority over everything else. I once heard the saying that "Money is good servant but a bad master." A scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind, Jacob 2: 18-19, "But before ye seek for riches seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted."

I can't remember which pre-socratic philosopher it was but one of them lived in a tub in the town square naked, often masturbating and whining that it was so unfair that hunger could not be similarly relieved but rubbing the belly and no I didn't make that up. We know that while Socrates cared little for worldly things he didn't go without them. We know he had a wife and children and also that he was a land owner because he served in the Athenian Army as a Hoplite which was only open to the land owning middle class. Plato by contrast came from a very wealthy family and served as cavalry, which was only open to those who could afford a war horse.

I think Socrates brought up the trial of the Ten Generals to make the point when you give up your principals and give in to external pressure who will live to regret it and to point out how he is able to live guilt free because he has moral fortitude. Socrates is held up and glorified as an ideal man, honest, true and faithful to virtue till the end. An interesting point to ponder is whether or not the story has a happy ending. The book A man for all Seasons covers the story of Thomas More, who was executed for not condoning the apostasy of Henry the VIII. Interestingly book ends with the quote "It is better to be a dead lion than a live mouse." and the film adaptation says "It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion." I am not sure why the movie flipped the moral of the story but I digress. In the end Socrates dies, but as he made clear earlier, holding in place where you ought to be and doing what you ought to do till the end is the greatest example of virtue. I think that if he had caved in and survived this it would have been the greatest Greek tragedy of all.

Quick Note

I am starting to cash posts so that instead of getting seven posts in under 24 hours (like on Saturday) I have something to post on days my muse is out to lunch. Hopefully things will be more consistent now.