“The following are excerpts from a secret transcript found in a remote cave in Afghanistan from the summer of 2000. The government and the military have kept these contents under wraps, but an anonymous source has leaked them to me. Now, I share with the world what we deserve to know. This report should finally put to rest the questions of why they hate us. It also vindicates 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani and his scathing attack on that extremist nutball Ron Paul.

Osama: Hey, al-Zawahiri, come here! Look at this!

al-Zawahiri: What is it, Sheik? What are you reading?

Osama: I don’t know, it’s some Satanic document written in English telling all kinds of lies!

al-Zawahiri: Let me see that. Hmmm, I think I read about this in my studies. I think it’s called the constitution or something like that.

Osama: Constitution? And what is all this other ridiculous stuff attached to it?

al-Zawahiri: Those are called the Bill of Rights. They give the Americans certain freedoms.

Osama: Look at this blasphemy! It says that their government can’t make any law about an official state religion. May Allah curse these heretics!…..”

Read all about it at Lew Rockwell.

For interesting stuff about Christian fundamentalism, visit Bill Barnwell’s Blog

And in case, you’re wondering what all the buzz about Ron Paul is, read this

…..and this.

“On Human Conduct” was one of the books I found most useful in my thinking in graduate school. And the uncivility of politics (although I doubt if politics has ever been anything but uncivil) brings me back to it today.

Oakeshott wrote of the adverbial rules of conduct, which very briefly, I could translate as the how of things, the way we do them. It’s what I meant when I spoke about style being more important than substance in my Falwell piece, a piece that provoked some criticism from readers who thought I erred in “saying something nice” about Falwell. But the article was neither an exercize in pragmatism nor in dissembling on my part. It was an acknowledgment (I hope) of complexity and the unknowableness of things…a kind of genuflection, not before evangelical Christianity (I am rereading this and immediately see that what I ought to have said here is ‘Christian Zionism’, not ‘evangelical Christianity’, which is unfairly conflated with it. I will leave the original statement here a bit longer, but will eventually delete it – it shows you how we often misspeak in a hurry, using the language “in the air” even when it’s quite inaccurate or downright misleading) . A genuflection not before an influential public figure, but before our own individual limitations as rational beings, before the complexity and ambiguity of moral practice and indeed language itself – not simply our laws about free speech.

“But a moral practice,” he writes, “is not a prudential art concerned with the success of the enterprises of agents; it is not instrumental to the achievement of any substantive purpose nor to the satisfaction of any substantive want. No doubt there may be advantages to be enjoyed in subscribing to its conditions: perhaps, honesty is the best policy; perhaps speaking the truth is a condition for all durable association for the satisfaction of wants. But a moral practice, unlike an instrumental practice, does not stand condemned if no such advantages were to accrue. Indeed, recognizing and subscribing to these conditions may be expected to add to the cost of these transactions. Nor is morality a court of arbitration in which the different and often conflicting purposes of engagement and their chosen action are reconciled to one another and mean satisfactions authorized. It is concerned with the act, not the event; with agents as doers making an impact on one another and not in respect of the particular wants for which they are seeking satisfactions. (my emphasis)

No action whether it be of self-gratification or of care for the satisfaction of others, is exempt from its conditions. And no agent, whatever the circumstances of his conduct, is outside its jurisdiction.”

That’s where the adverbial rules of engagement come in: courteously, civilly, nicely, politely, kindly, generously, compassionately….

Oakeshott differentiated between enterprise associations – which have a specific goal as their end, say, making’ x’ number of cars, and civil associations governed by procedural rules – among which, he placed the state. He would, I think, have been equally opposed to a theocracy and to a state which left no room for the religious – in any real sense.

Oakeshott also saw the the necessity of a minimalist state for the existence of true diversity, not the diversity of enforced outcomes. In that sense, many of the problems we face now become moot once we return the state to its proper limits.

A reader sent this in. I added a few pointers (in bold type) and found it could easily be read as useful advice on political engagement:

An Open Letter to Toby & April, Our Dogs

Dear Toby & April:

On Left and Right-Wing Zealotry
When I say to move, it means go someplace else, not switch positions with each other so there are still two dogs in the way.

On Dispossessing People of their Land and their Homes

The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. The other dishes are mine and contain my food. Please note, placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it becoming your food
and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.

About the purpose of political debate

The stairway was not designed by Nascar and is not a racetrack. Beating me to the bottom is not the object. Tripping me doesn’t help, because I fall faster than you can run.

On negotiating with those in power

I cannot buy anything bigger than a king size bed. I am very sorry about this. Do not think I will continue to sleep on the couch to ensure your comfort. Look at videos of dogs sleeping; they can actually curl up in a ball. It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space used is nothing but doggy sarcasm.

On respecting what’s valuable to other people

My compact discs are not miniature Frisbees.

On the right to privacy:

For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom. If by some miracle I beat you there and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I
entered. In addition, I have been using bathrooms for years, canine attendance is not mandatory.

On persuading your opponents:

The proper order is kiss me, then go smell the other dog’s butt. I cannot stress this enough. It would be such a simple change for you.

***********

And more, from kids:

On vigilance against the state:

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
Patrick, Age 10

On the dangers of confrontation:

Never talk back to a teacher whose eyes and ears are twitching.
Andrew, Age 9

On the vicissitudes of public service:

Wear a hat when feeding seagulls.
Rocky, Age 9

On readiness to act:

Sleep in your clothes so you’ll be dressed in the morning.
Stephanie, Age 8

On corruption in public life:

Never try to hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
Rosemary, Age 7

On the limits of resources:

Don’t flush the toilet when you’re dad is in the shower.
Lamar, Age 10

On the timing of negotiations:

Never ask for anything that costs more than five dollars when your parents are doing taxes.
Carrol, Age 9

On the unpredictability of grass roots campaigns:

Never bug a pregnant mom.
Nicholas, Age 11

On the occasional need for political correctness:

When your dad is mad and asks you, “Do I look stupid?” don’t answer him.
Heather, Age 16

On offering unsolicited advice:

Never tell your mom her diet’s not working.
Michael, Age 14

On government disclosure of economic data:

When you get a bad grade in school, show it to your mom when she’s on the phone.
Alyesha, Age 13

On the limits to social reform:

Never try to baptize a cat.
Laura, Age 13

On the proper forum for free expression:

Never do pranks at a police station.
Sam, Age 10

On intellectual discrimination:

Beware of cafeteria food when it looks like it’s moving.
Rob, Age 10

On the wisdom of keeping your own counsel:

Never tell your little brother that you’re not going to do what your mom told you to do.
Hank, Age 12

On the need for rationality:

Listen to your brain. It has lots of information.
Chelsey, Age 7

On associating with relentless negativity:

Stay away from prunes.
Randy, Age 9

On unwise rhetoric:

Never dare your little brother to paint the family car.
Phillip, Age 13

“Arundhati Roy is a Left wing wacko. Dinesh D’Souza is a Right wing wacko. The only similarity between them, other than both being Indians, is both being pimps for the Allah/Mohammed LLC.”

And more in the same vein at Jihad Watch.

The only thing I can find here that I really agree with is that Marxism does dominate the elite schools in India. Although I’ve used Marxist terminology sometimes, I’m not very convinced by it, so I can’t say much more about the topic.

However, I do remember very warmly many fine Marxist scholars both in India and in the US, who almost made me think again…. As I said in earlier posts, generosity of spirit probably goes a longer way to intellectual agreement than one would think.

You always hope that the blogs, where there’s more space to explain yourself will encourage more cross-fertilization of thought. But when I read some sites, I worry that exactly the opposite might happen and we’ll be walling ourselves up, instead. We won’t need to understand anyone else’s point of view, simply because the net makes linking up exclusively with like-minded souls so easy.

In that vein, I looked for things here I could agree with and found that, well, it’s probably true that some of the crimes committed against other religions under the Muslim emperors in India have been downplayed in the name of secularism. And as always, lack of plainspeaking, even if it’s in a good cause, ends up provoking a backlash….

So, I can agree with that; accuracy in history (so far as it’s possible) is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But, I hope that argument doesn’t end in being a justification for war today…

I have commented on Arundhati, in a piece called “The Gratitude of Turkeys.” I think the venom directed against her is misplaced. She is an architect and writer, not a political philosopher or professional activist. There are things on which she is going to misstate or exaggerate her case, perhaps unknowingly. I have heard her speak a few times on TV and was charmed by her – hard not to be I think. I confess I only skimmed her book but she has a way with words, no doubt of it. Whether she is or isn’t Booker material, as some argue, I have no idea. A new writer is always a pleasure to read on their terms – not ours.

Also, I’d be curious to find out what it is that Dinesh D’Souza has said this time to have so offended so many people all over the place. This isn’t the only place I’m seeing him burned in effigy.

When I’ve heard D’Souza speak on TV, I haven’t usually found him terribly abrasive…a bit too cocky, on occasion. And not always engaged with what others are saying. His tendency to blame everything on the cultural left (and I think on the Carter/Clinton years) is simply wrong-headed.

You would think after having edited/written highly questionable material for the Dartmouth Review, and attacked Affirmative Action in a way that riled black conservatives, there would be nothing more controversial he could say or do. But I guess controversy sells.

In any case, I’m sure being consigned to the intellectual boondocks will do him no harm….

There’s more, though:

“There is a peculiar madness in the worldview of this Dsouza, a madness that seems to afflict certain people from the Indian subcontinent who are wrongly held in esteem as ‘intellectuals’-

Roy, as far as I know, never had anything to offer but slander. She does nothing but mudslinging and her whole scribble is a poisonous cocktail of anarcho-fantasies. I don’t believe anybody should give her a forum.”

Dear me.

Indians are all arrogant, too, it seems…….

Though, I wonder, arrogant about what? The last I heard, it’s been proved that we’re lagging a bit in the IQ department.

81, I believe is the average Indian IQ, according to an often cited study. But, since I didn’t read the original paper, I’m not sure about the methodology. Oh, the angst this must be provoking in some places.

Gene Expression, the site on which this tidbit is posted, is one I’ve come across before. The discussion is interesing here, although in some places on the net, the discussions about race and IQ are pretty startling …and raw..

I even thought I saw one thread like that on Gene Expression, but am not very sure — an elaborate riff about caucasoid Indians versus non-caucasoid Indians, upper and lower castes, dark and light skinned, which ethnic type dominates Silicon Valley..darker skinned Dravidians, apparently..

81….Hmmmmm, I guess that accounts for all those whacko Indians….

(Strictly humor…no offense intended).

I am posting this from Christopher Hitchens, who — until he inexplicably acquired a body double a few years back — used not to enjoy bombing, but was, of course, never above wearing his anticlericalism on his sleeve:

“The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God’s punishment if they hadn’t got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this — of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we’re — we’re not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I’m glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.

How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like (INAUDIBLE) radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?

How dare he say, for example, that the Antichrist is already present among us and is an adult male Jew, while, all the time, fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends Robertson and Graham…encouraging — encouraging — encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of was holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democratic and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God?

I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.

And I think, if he read the Bible at all — and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of — at all — that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.

I’m going to repeat what I said before about the Israeli question. It’s very important. Jerry Falwell kept saying to his own crowd, yes, you have got to like the Jews, because they can make more money in 10 minutes than you can make in a lifetime. He was always full, as his friends Robertson and Graham are and were, of anti- Semitic innuendo.

Yet, in the most base and hypocritical way, he encouraged the worst elements among Jewry. He got Menachem Begin to give him the Jabotinsky Medal, celebrating an alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fanaticism that has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East.

Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they’re a person of faith.

Look, the president endangers us this way. He meets a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin, and, because he is wearing a crucifix around his neck, says, I’m dealing with a man of faith. He’s a man of goodwill.

Look what Putin has done to American and European interests lately. What has the president said to take back this absurd remark? It’s time to stop saying that, because someone preaches credulity and credulousness, and claims it as a matter of faith, that we should respect them.”

My Comment:

Yes, Falwell’s contribution to the Iraq war was lamentable. So were those of many other Christian and Jewish Zionists. And secular liberals. But, what is amazing to me in Hitchens’ performance is that he completely overlooks the fact that he himself supported the invasion of Iraq……oh, I forgot, he has good liberal, secular reasons for doing it.

That doesn’t make me like religious extremism (I want to distinguish that from fundamentalism) any better. But it goes to show that there are any number of ways to rationalize murderous policies, if you want to. You don’t have to be religious to do that.
And to balance Hitchens, here is a libertarian antiwar pastor, Bill Barnwell, on Lew Rockwell ,who disagreed with Falwell’s position on the war, but finds Falwell’s critics as disturbing in their denunciations of him as he was in his war-mongering:

“The worldview of such people is to judge another’s personal worth solely based upon whether they are for or against abortion, pro or anti gay rights, or whatever other hot button issue riles them up. While I think Falwell got some issues wrong, this does not make him a piece of dirt in regards to everything else. I’m quite sure I don’t have it all together on everything either; and really, neither does anyone else for that matter. Therefore, we all should be careful about making blanket statements about a person’s worth or intentions.

Certainly many who are laughing off Falwell’s death regularly pat themselves on the back for being so much more tolerant than the “Religious Reich.” Many of Falwell’s critics despised him because of his “hate” (hate being defined as opposing abortion and homosexual behavior). But how does acting like a hateful, intolerant crank show ones love and tolerance? Or does love and tolerance only extend to people who think and act just like they do?

What are some of the nice words being posted around the web in remembrance of Falwell in the hours since he’s passed? Here’s a sample from this site:

“You’re pulling my leg! No wonder everyone is so happy and shiny faced today. I think we all should have lots of premarital (or in some other way offensive to him) sex to celebrate. Yes, I see no ill in celebrating the death of a man who has caused so much pain and suffering to others. Not in the least.”

“I had hoped the fat bastard would have pulled through and lived the rest of his life as a vegetable. Darn, there goes my veggie soup.”

“I think a stake through the heart would be appropriate… just to make sure…”

“wow – this feels as good as the day Reagan died!”

“We’ve been singing this great song in my office ‘Somebody’s burning in hell,

Somebody’s burning in hell!’”

“Yeah – maybe if we’re all nice and respectful and Xtian about it, the fundies will be impressed and like us. Burn in hell you fat hateful lying hypocrite pig!”

There’s dozens of other nice, tolerant, and loving memorials that can be read at that site. But how about hearing from the diversity celebrating folks over here on this page:

“I hope he is gang-banged in Hell by Satan, Saddam, Hitler, and Liberace.”

“makes me want to sodomize as a tribute to him. now, if only I knew the sexual preferences of other gawker readers…”

“So how soon is the funeral, and where? Some serious grave-dancing is in order, here.”

“Our Father which art in heaven, please let Pat Robertson be next!!”

I could go on and highlight posts from plenty of other blogs, but I think you get the point. If these individuals want to act so uncivilized and uncaring, then they certainly have the right to think and say whatever they want, no matter how nasty it might be. But if they make the claim that they are more loving, kind and tolerant than Falwell, or really just loving, kind and tolerant in general, then they should stop lying to themselves. They ought to just admit that they are as uncaring and nasty as the next rigid ideological extremist.

The militant hard-left should stop pretending that it celebrates diversity and cares about all people. Individuals who make up this movement actually only tolerate and celebrate other people who think and act just like they do. Once you deviate from the party line, you become a worthless human being. And if we’ve learned anything from the passing of Jerry Falwell, it’s apparently a good thing if you die.

Celebrate Diversity.

My Comment:

Of course, Mr. Barnwell is forgetting something here. Unlike Falwell, none of his critics are advocating bombing large groups of people.

Still, he makes a good point. Whom are we trying to talk to?
Progressives have someone here who is on their side on this vital issue of war and they completely turn him off – quite needlessly – by their vituperation. It’s hard to get anyone to hear anything new or have a change of heart, when the tone of the discussion is so shrill.

It seems that people sometimes don’t really care whether they’re getting through to anyone. They simply prefer to say what they want to hear…to assuage their own feelings. Which, of course, they manage to do. It’s a form of therapy for them that also solidifies group feeling with other people who agree with them.

But isn’t the point of debate to clarify your position to people on the other side? To persuade them? Not just to justify your arguments to yourself? Otherwise, you might as well stay inside your bathroom and mutter at your face in the mirror. You’re tying to converse with people from very different backgrounds from yours, with different thoughts, different experiences, different conclusions – you have to make at least a small effort at civility. Get out of your pajamas so to speak, brush your teeth, put on some clothes and go down and meet your guests. Don’t snarl at them from behind your locked door. Be a hypocrite, if necessary.

The other point is that, unfortunately, as Barnwell suggests, we don’t really celebrate diversity of opinion these days. We welcome different skin colors (which is good), but we want everyone thinking the same way – or at least in entirely predictable ways that have been scripted before hand. Again, an intelligent response to the ideological divide by Ali Eteraz:

“I always considered myself a humanist and do still. It just cannot be the case that only one “side” of a political divide have a monopoly on humanism. I know for a fact that Isaiah Berlin would not exactly be welcome in some parts of the left; nor Solzhenitsyn. [I also know that Burke would be ridiculed in some parts of the right]. I cannot in clean conscience engage against religious supremacism and exclusion if I engage in ideological supremacism and exclusion.

I believe in human solidarity. In the elimination of cruelty and humiliation. I believe in living beyond labels and identity markers. My motto is, and was, the following:

History consists, for the greater part, of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetites, which shake the public with the same troublous storms that toss the private state and render life unsweet. These vices are the causes of those storms. Religions, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men, are the pretexts.

Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear.

Edmund Burke, Reflections On The Revolution In France

I trust in my ability to distinguish between those that advance the causes of liberty and those that undermine it.”

Update:

It’s a hymn by Bunyan, quoted in “Little Women,” by Louisa May Alcott. I remember it from childhood and it sounded like Bunyan and when I looked it up, it was.

ORIGINAL POST

I’ve always been fond of this poem by Louisa May Alcott. It reminds me of something from Bunyan, for some reason.

Maybe it’s a quote that I don’t recognize. I’ll check.
The words evokes a sentiment probably as far as away as it’s possible to get from our consumer society and its partisan politics. Probably, it will be seen as trite, banal, or escapist by many people today.

But I wonder if that would be because of a failing in the verse or in the readers…

He that is down need fear no fall,
He that is low no pride.
He that is humble ever shall

Have God to be his guide.

I am content with what I have,
Little be it, or much.
And, Lord! Contentment still I crave,
Because Thou savest such.

Fulness to them a burden is,
That go on pilgrimage.
Here little, and hereafter bliss,
Is best from age to age!

Murray Rothbard, cited by Joe Stromberg:

“And this is how even a mighty and despotic State gets toppled. This is how ideas effect social and political change – through movements, through alternative visions, through struggle. And this is a change that should gladden the hearts of libertarians, for it shows that a Leviathan State, even a particularly brutal and dictatorial one, can be vanquished….”

What are some of those ideas? One, is to see through the facade of liberal warmaking states:

“…liberal states, by allowing considerable economic freedom, sit atop more productive economies than do backward states. With lower taxes, they can still raise great revenues and assemble superior armed force. They then wield this armed force in projects that interest them as state apparatchiks, while the busy commercial classes pay little enough attention.

Accordingly, liberal states such as Britain and the United States are likely to succeed in imperialist competition, while clunky feudal-mercantilist or dirigiste states are not. This is the key to the much-mooted “democratic peace” imposture. Liberal democratic states get more revenue and win most of their wars. This tells us nothing about the merits of those wars, and little enough about reasons for those states’ foreign policies. (Hint: doing good may not top the list.)

Long ago, John Locke saw the point: “that Prince who shall be so wise and godlike as by established laws of liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest industry of Mankind against the oppression of power and narrowness of Party will quickly be too hard for his neighbours.” Thomas Paine, too, saw it, when he wrote that, “the portion of liberty enjoyed in England, is just enough to enslave a country by, more productively than by despotism; and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom; and is therefore, on the ground of interest, opposed to both.” And Hans-Hermann Hoppe has made the same point at greater length. [48]

It would be interesting to look at the ambiguities of Locke as an early semistatist modernizer, [49] mercantilist, participant in the slave trade, etc., but there is no room here, and anyway, Locke has plenty of latter-day followers in providing a liberal façade for state activities. They are legion who stand for “free-market” Social Bonapartism – the imposing of “freedom” and “spontaneous order” by US weaponry. That so many Chicagoites are on board the imperial train suggests that the Chicago School always functioned as the right wing of Cold War liberalism. [50]

This is heady brew and one can easily see why enlistments are up in John Stuart Mill’s Own Lancers and the Bentham Berets. Instead of cultivating our own garden – dull work at best – liberventionists have enlisted to “Smash Someone Else’s State,” or to repudiate someone else’s national debt. This creates a bit of a problem.”

More ideas to end an empire:

“What can someone do, who sincerely believes that markets work better than states, that liberty is better than statism, or that life is better than death? Well, he or she can learn to separate America from the state, justifications from good intentions, morality from utility, American political realities from vanished 18^th-century essences, freemen from Founders, defense from empire, and so on.”

Read more at “How Murray Rothbard Singlehandedly Brought Down the Saigon Government with Malice Aforethought,” Joseph Stromberg, Lew Rockwell, April 4, 2005.