Senator John McCain is dangerous. His determination to prevent the CIA from rigorous interrogation of those whose raison d’être is the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization is both foolish and detrimental to the welfare of the US in its fight against terrorism. When he was sworn in as one of Arizona’s senators, John McCain took an oath to protect us against all enemies:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Now he abrogates that oath by promising to fight any attempts by the CIA to interrogate non-military, stateless and lawless terrorists by impeding without let-up the necessary legislative work of the Senate.

	Speaking from the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “If necessary – and I sincerely hope it is not – I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails,” Mr. McCain said on the Senate floor. “Let no one doubt our determination.”
	The ban would establish the Army Field Manual as the guiding authority in interrogations and prohibit “cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment” of prisoners.
	The Bush Administration has sought to exempt the CIA from the ban.

In an earlier post, we urged that you contact your Senators. This has become more imperative than ever. If John McCain’s post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his time as a POW in Vietnam has returned, this is regrettable. But it is also reason for him to recuse himself from this issue. The man can hardly be expected to be reasonable on the subject. And if there is one thing our Senate does not need at the moment, it is another obstructionist.

Here is Mr. John Yoo’s take on the subject. Mr Yoo served in the Justice Department during Bush’s first term and is the author of The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11:

	To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture — such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains — but go beyond mere questioning?
	[…]
	McCain’s only real effect would be to limit the interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorists. They are not prisoners of war under Geneva, but a stateless network of religious extremists who do not obey the laws of war, who hide among peaceful populations, and who seek to launch surprise attacks on civilian targets. They have no armed forces to attack, no territory to defend, and no fear of killing themselves in their attacks.
	Information is the primary weapon in this new conflict. Intelligence gathered from captured operatives may present the most effective means of stopping terrorist attacks. We should not deprive our military and intelligence agencies of the flexibility to prevent another attack, one perhaps using weapons of mass destruction, on an American city by a terrible and unprecedented enemy.

Meanwhile, the administration has gone on the offensive to prevent the harm that McCain’s amendment could cause:

	Vice President Dick Cheney made a rare personal appeal for Congress to allow the CIA exemption during a weekly meeting with Republican senators earlier this week.
	Mr. Cheney told his audience the while the United States doesn’t engage in torture, the administration needs an exemption in case the President decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

Lincoln had to put up with attempts to undercut his ability to engage rigorously with the enemy. Had John McCain and his ilk prevailed during the Civil War, the Union would not have survived.

 
They’re baaack.

History repeats itself, this time with a return of a version of the Barbary Pirates. This is our history, and the solutions we found back then have their bearings on who we became as a nation and what we face in the present.

First the present:

	The Seabourn Cruise Lines ship Spirit was attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia early Saturday morning but escaped capture.
	Two boats carrying between eight and 10 pirates armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers attacked the Spirit, which had 150 passengers and 160 crew members on board, CNN reported.
	Canadian passenger Mike Rogers said, the captain tried to run one of the boats over, and eventually outran the boats. The captain didn’t hit the emergency alarm for fear passengers would rush to the deck. He alerted them over the loudspeaker.
	One person was injured but there are no details.
	The ship suffered a little damage. Rogers said there wasn’t running water and he heard that a grenade went off in a cabin.
	[…]
	The World Food Program announced Thursday that pirates are hijacking shipments into the area and hampering relief efforts.
	The WFP website called the coastline one of the most dangerous in the world.

This is an old story. The fact that piracy is becoming more common and is affecting wealthy civilians rather than commerce says much about the growing anarchy on land and sea. These things are connected.

As Americans, most of us are ignorant of history outside our shores, including history in which we were involved. In the case of the Barbary Pirates, that history goes back to the very beginning of our nation, of our initial attempts to establish commerce as a sovereign nation. What is of especial interest is that the tack we took in confronting the problem runs like a thread through all of our history. And the solution the Europeans hit upon is also part and parcel of their character.

First some background on the Barbary Pirates: they got their name from the Berber states – Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, Tripoli – located on the southern coast of the Mediterranean during the 1700’s. Given the culture of these fiefdoms, the customary way to raise revenue was piracy, ransom of slaves caught in these raids, and ongoing demands of tribute from whichever countries wished to ply the waters there for reasons of trade or travel.

From the definitive 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

The first half of the 17th century may be described as the flowering time of the Barbary pirates. More than 20,000 captives were said to be imprisoned in Algiers alone. The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would not in many cases allow them to secure freedom by professing Mahommedanism. A long list might be given of people of good social position, not only Italians or Spaniards, but German or English travelers in the south, who were captives for a time. The chief sufferers were the inhabitants of the coasts of Sicily, Naples and Spain. But all traders belonging to nations which did not pay blackmail in order to secure immunity were liable to be taken at sea. The payment of blackmail, disguised as presents or ransoms, did not always secure safety with these faithless barbarians. The most powerful states in Europe condescended to make payments to them and to tolerate their insults. Religious orders – the Redemptionists and Lazarites – were engaged in working for the redemption of captives and large legacies were left for that purpose in many countries. The continued existence of this African piracy was indeed a disgrace to Europe, for it was due to the jealousies of the powers themselves. France encouraged them during her rivalry with Spain; and when, she had no further need of them they were supported against her by Great Britain and Holland. In the 18th century British public men were not ashamed to say that Barbary piracy was a useful check on the competition of the weaker Mediterranean nations in the carrying trade. When Lord Exmouth sailed to coerce Algiers in 1816, he expressed doubts in a private letter whether the suppression of piracy would be acceptable to the trading community. Every power was, indeed, desirous to secure immunity for itself and more or less ready to compel Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, Salé and the rest to respect its trade and its subjects. In 1655 the British admiral, Robert Blake, was sent to teach them a lesson, and he gave the Tunisians a severe beating. A long series of expeditions was undertaken by the British fleet during the reign of Charles II, sometimes single-handed, sometimes in combination with the Dutch. In 1682 and 1683 the French bombarded Algiers. On the second occasion the Algerines blew the French consul from a gun during the action. An extensive list of such punitive expeditions could be made out, down to the American operations of 1801?5 and 1815. But in no case was the attack pushed home, and it rarely happened that the aggrieved Christian state refused in the end to make a money payment in order to secure peace. The frequent wars among them gave the pirates numerous opportunities of breaking their engagements, of which they never failed to take advantage.

That’s the British perspective.

To the Americans, things appeared quite different. Europe, enthralled as it was in its own internecine divisions and wars, found it easier to pay this maritime jizya tax than to take on the Barbary pirates. For America, though, the problem was more crucial. For one thing, we weren’t at war, our focus was to begin to move out into the world and build an international commerce. That couldn’t happen if our ships could not move safely in foreign waters. For another, it went against the grain of the American character to be at the mercy of the lawless and the whimsical notions of the Berber area.

For a time we were able to slide by because we were a colony under Britains’ protection. But with the birth of the United States as a sovereign nation, we no longer had that security. Serendipitously for us, Portugal declared war on Algiers and began patrolling the Straits of Gibraltar. The pirates were effectively prevented from moving into open waters. When Algiers and Portugal reached an agreeement in 1793, the pirates of the Barbary coast moved back into the open seas; within three months Algiers had captured almost a dozen American ships, their cargo and crews. As was the custom, the men on these ships were enslaved and put to work until such time as the Americans were willing to pay their ransom and begin the process of negotiating for ongoing tribute.

This became a tumultuous problem beginning in President Washington’s administration, and continuing into that of President Madison. The country had no money with which to redeem the men from these Muslim potentates or to pay the exorbitant annual tributes. In addition, there was sharp disagreement about the policies that would be formulated to address the issue structurally. Political and philosophical conflict existed from the very beginning:

During President Washington’s administration, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson disagreed sharply over policy toward the Corsairs [the pirate ships]. Adams strongly favored paying off the pirates, arguing that a long and protracted war would financially ruin the young nation. Jefferson vehemently disagreed, appealing not only to an American sense of honor, but also to the notion that a single, decisive war might be more cost-effective than annual bribes for perpetuity. Not surprisingly, their subsequent administration policies reflected these beliefs. Adams was anxious to prevent conflict, and ensured payment of all demanded tribute. In addition, Adams even agreed to build and deliver two warships for the Algerian Corsairs. Since the Corsairs were considered more a force of nature than a foreign nation, the fact that this was contrary to the popular, “millions for defense, not one cent for tribute,” attitude toward French demands for bribes, was rarely noted. Yet, frustrated during tribute negotiations with Tunis, negotiator William Eaton wrote home that, “there is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror.” [editorial emphasis]

In May of 1801, the Corsairs of Tripoli became restless and declared war on the United States, figuring they could increase their annual tribute. Their disorganized fleet passed into the Atlantic but was chased back by a recently dispatched American squadron. The Americans cruised the Mediterranean, evacuating American merchantmen and winning several engagements with the Corsairs. Later that year Sweden declared war on the Tripolitans and lent considerable support to the American blockade of Tripoli. The combined fleet of Swedish and American, and infrequently Danish, ships was unwilling to bombard the city until early 1802 when President Jefferson ordered that the war be pursued with greater vigor. Despite occasional bombardment, as the blockade continued, it became impossible for the large American ships to prevent some of the smaller, faster Corsair gunboats from slipping through. The Americans wanted to draw the pirates into a large decisive battle, but their attempts proved fruitless. When Sweden made peace that year, the blockade collapsed.

Other problems intervened. The War of 1812 held our attention. And American relations with each Berber state varied. It was a long, complicated process with Congress, as usual, dithering about what was to be done. Slowly, all too slowly, an American Navy began to be formed. In fact, it was born of necessity with the decades’ long conflicts with the Barbary Pirates.

Eventually we won the wars, both on sea and land. From the shores of Tripoli to the final settlement with Algiers in 1815, America developed her Navy and seasoned its veterans in war. Stephen Decatur and John Paul Jones became part of our national mythos. The US began to formulate a coherent foreign policy. After years of humilation, of ransom, tribute, and betrayal of treaties with the Berbers, President Madison brought it to an end. When the dey of Algiers demanded yet another round of tribute, Madison declined, most famously.

“the United States whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” [Thus, the]… “settled policy” … “that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute.”

And now there are pirates abroad again. And they are Musselmen, as of old. But are they the same muslims, with the same goals?

Probably not. There are some parallels, of course, considering that today’s terrorists are descendants of that Berber culture. One thing is their use of hostages as tools – in one case for raising money, in the present day for propaganda purposes or to influence policy. But the Barbary pirates merely wanted to raise money by terrorist means, they weren’t waging jihad against the infidel, they just wanted his money.

Essentially, piracy ended in the Mediterranean when France captured Algiers. And now we know what the long-term outcome for that victory was:

Paris is burning.

 
There are lots of stories out there today about Mukhtar Mai’s award from Glamour mag. Not only is she their woman of the year, but they’re backing it up with $20,00.00. Is that cool or what?? Pakistan is finally permitting her to leave the country to receive awards.

Our regular readers at Gates of Vienna probably know about my previous reports on her story — a stranger-than-fiction sojourn from obscurity in a blood feud in a rural village in Pakistan to world-wide fame. What a woman!

Mukhtar Mai is not a profile in courage. She is a full frontal assault on a cultural sink in a country so backward that at least eighty per cent of the women report being seriously abused. These are the men who dump acid in the faces of wives they tire of. Fifty cents’ outlay for a bottle of acid is sure cheaper than a divorce. And hey, if it takes her a few days to die, what’s the difference? Plenty more where she came from — and that includes any children who might accidentally get it in the face with her, since this sport is usually carried out while the wifey is sleeping.

Here’s the thing: Mukhtar Mai was supposed to kill herself. This wasn’t something anyone was going to have to do for her. By the time they finished brutalizing her, Mai was supposed to crawl home naked and then do herself in.

There is a lot to her story, much of it ugly and degrading. But if you carry nothing else away about her ordeal, keep this fact in mind: her gang rape was the second one in her family and it only occurred because her little brother objected to the homosexual sodomy he endured at the hands (so to speak) of men from a powerful clan in their village. Had he kept his mouth shut after his ordeal, everything would have been okay. But when his attackers found out he was going to tell his family, they locked him in a room, stuck one of the young, unmarried girls of their clan in the room with him and then called the police. The officers arrived, surveyed the scene and arrested the boy for causing dishonor the reputation of this poor young girl by being in her company without a chaperone.

The fact that Islam’s rhetoric and Shar’ia law would have homosexuals stoned is not taken into account when older men sexually abuse young boys. These men are heterosexuals; the boy is merely a convenient, disposable vessel in a moment of pleasant distraction. Since they used him, they are not homosexuals. Had someone used them that might have been another story. A stoning story, perhaps.

So the boy had dishonored a girl from the Matori clan. Mukhtar Mai’s family must pay the blood price. When she found out that the tribal council was meeting in a field outside of the village, Mai ran there, hoping to intervene on her brother’s behalf. And so she did, but not in a way she had planned. When she arrived it was decided that the restoration of honor to the Matori clan could be accomplished then and there: the tribal council ruled that Mukhtar Mai would be gang-raped.

Five or six men were chosen and while they promptly administered justice, the villagers present celebrated the restoration of honor to the Matoris. When the rapists were finished, Mukhtar Mai was forced to walk naked back to the village while her neighbors laughed and jeered. Part way back, her father met her with a cloak and covered her for the remainder of the journey home.

Up to this point, there is nothing unusual in the story. There was only one action left to be taken: Mukhtar Mai was now supposed to die of shame. Literally. She was to kill herself, and in short order, please. A used, dishonored woman is worse than nothing: she is an insult to her family and to her village, an offense to be blotted out in order for balance to be restored.

Much has been made of her refusal to die, and of her courage in the face of the contempt and hatred that bombarded her for her stubborn decision to go on living. And much should be made of her struggle to transcend the shame, the doomed half-life in a darkened room.

However, we need to pay special attention to the other elements in her story — the ones beside her absolutely naked courage. As far as I can tell (and I’ve looked at her story carefully wherever I could find it) there are two other essential pieces of the mystery of her refusal to die. Mukhtar Mai admits herself that she wanted death more than anything. So what kept her going? It seems to have been two people: her father and her imam. Her father refused to see her as anything other than his beloved daughter. Her imam encouraged her to pursue her attackers in the courts.

And, so, backed by her family, Mukhtar Mai filed charges. So did her brother, for the sodomy he endured. His rapists were convicted in short order, though I don’t know if the boy — who was twelve when he was attacked — was ever cleared of his “crime” of being found in the room with the young woman. Mai’s ascension (or descent into hell) from court to court to court still hasn’t been fully resolved. The men who raped her have been imprisoned, they have been let go, some have been pardoned, others have been remanded once again. The Shar’ia Court wants all the men exonerated. The Supreme Court in Lahore claims it has jurisdiction. Or so it stood the last time I looked; things may have changed since then.

Mai has body guards. There have been pictures of hefty women guards in hijab, given the task of preventing her death. She will probably always live with some kind of protection, but even Pakistan has to admit that she has become too internationally famous to allow her to be killed.

Mai thinks living under guard is worth what has transpired in the interim: the schools she has built, including schools for boys, with all the money she has received, first from the Pakistani government for restitution, and then private donations, and a large award from the Canadian government. To Mai, boys must be educated if the old ways are to change. She has brought electricity to her village and her work has spread to other villages. She has become a symbol of hope to the women of Pakistan. They face a brutal day-to-day reality. Anyone who can show them directly that it can be overcome —even transcended — is worth her weight in gold.

Remember when you read the newspapers’ garbled reports that her “punishment” was for her twelve year old brother’s crime, that there was no crime. Her little brother was the victim not a perpetrator. Just remember that… and then wonder just how many of the other stories you read in the newspapers and magazines get the “little” details dead wrong.

They don’t call it the Legacy Media for nothing.

 
Thanks to James Wolcott and Vanity Fair, Gates of Vienna has enjoyed a little extra burst of traffic.

So, for our liberally inclined New York and Toronto visitors: Welcome! You have wandered into the lair of Satan Himself!

Please allow me to introduce myself; I’m a man of wealth and taste.

This is the realm of perdition, and we are all neocon tools of Bushitler, disciples of the Chimp Himself, ready to usher in the new Amerikkka and put all free-thinking souls into concentation camps!

Seriously, though, the Wolcott hotlink for our site escaped into yet another progressive blog, that of the Toronto Star and Antonia Zerbisias:

	Two of my favourite American progressive/liberal/lefty/sane writer/bloggers, The Nation‘s David Corn (scroll down) and Vanity Fair’s James Wolcott (here and here), are at war over the former’s joining the board of Pajamas Media. It’s a blogger agglomeration site that aspires to
	coalesc(e) the internet’s brightest minds and most compelling content into a single source that will, in turn, complement and re-define journalism in the 21st century.
	Wolcott’s problem is that Corn is the token non-fascist on this chorus line of White House talking points.

She goes on to quote the eloquent post of Mr. Wolcott. My favorite part, though, is this:

Bad enough those two blogs [one of these wicked sites is us: the vile Gates of Vienna] are all about fanning the flames of anti-Muslim hatred [yup]. But other participants in the PJ game include this shrew, who makes this shrew seem reasonable and intelligent.

Since I’m not including the links, readers should note that that the first shrew is Michelle Malkin, and the second is Ann Coulter.

Michelle, you’ve come up in the world: Antonia Zerbisias thinks you’re more shrewish than Ann Coulter.

I’ll bet she thought that was an insult.

 
The headline in the Brussels Journal reads:

Van Gogh Is Dead. Islam Counts Its Blessings

	One year after Theo van Gogh was murdered we are forced to acknowledge that that event has been a benefit to Islam. Anyone who is critical of Islam will still be branded as a “xenofobe” or an “Islamofobe.” Islamophobia is a newly coined word which has already been used by Kofi Annan.
	Following the assassination of van Gogh, the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands, Piet-Hein Donner, proposed to reinstate blasphemy as a criminal offence. In the United Kingdom Islamophilia runs amok. The July 7 bombings, which killed 55 people, seem to have reinforced the taboo on criticism of Islam. The London police chief, Ian Blair (Tony’s parrot, though unrelated), said the bombings could not be qualified as “islamic terror” because “Islam and terrorism do not go together.” Politicians and opinion makers assure us that Islam does not condone terror and that we must support the “beleaguered” Muslim community. With every act of terrorism the press becomes more friendly towards Islam. The Guardian has virtually become al-Guardian.
	The British government wants to make it a crime to insult Islam and the Muslim community. When the House of Lords rejected this bill the Labour Party, eager to win the Muslim vote, incorporated the proposal into its party platform. Private companies are equally eager to pamper Muslims clients. Piggy banks are banned, as are children’s books featuring piggies, as is pork on the menu in schools and prisons. History has been rewritten to blame the West for the Crusades and the conquest of al-Andalous.

The author of this essay, Koenraad Elst, also notes that sensitive Muslims don’t like to laugh much. Supposedly when you open your mouth to laugh the devil gets in (which no doubt explains the Irish). Here’s his bit of history on the first infidel to die — he did so for laughing:

… laughter is not appreciated. My Moroccan neighbour never laughs heartily. He has been taught that the devil enters through the wide open mouth of those who laugh. The first blood spilled in the history of Islam was spilled in Mecca when an infidel laughed on seeing some members of the new sect of the Muslims pray with their backsides in the air.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Southern Knight reports that the new Dutch orthography, used for the Netherlands and Belgium, will from now on use the lower case ‘c’ for ‘Christ’… the story doesn’t mention what treatment allah is going to get, but we ought to start taking guesses. That european union will go to any lengths to make their politically correct points, but here’s a bottle of Jameson’s to the first person who finds mohammed with a small ‘m’ in that orthography.

The european union is so busy building houses of cards they don’t even notice that half the place is on fire and the other half is muslim.

 
Even though this piece of treason will never get past Bush’s pen, it is still important for individuals to make their voices heard. The Center for Individual Freedom will do the work for you. They are requesting a donation to cover expenses but it’s money well-spent.

The message came via a Town Hall email this morning and here’s their concern:

	The GOP-controlled Senate added an amendment to the $440-billion military spending bill that would extend to spies, terrorists, and Islamic jihadists the same rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution.In other words, our military interrogators can no longer question suspected suicide bombers and murderers of women and children without the ACLU looking over their shoulder — ready to haul some poor enlisted man into court just because he yelled at a terrorist or hurt a terrorist’s feelings.
	If the Senate had done such a despicable thing during World War II, the American people would have stormed the Capitol, tarred and feathered all who voted for such treachery, and ridden them out of town on a rail.
	This evil, suicidal bill – if implemented – would expose Americans to the greatest danger in the history of our nation: The planting of explosives on our subways. Suicide bombers killing American women and children. Airline hijackings. Assassinations.

Now this is going to come as a shock, but the amendment is called…get ready… The McCain Amendment: SA 1977. The Capitol fumes have obviously gotten to this man. Or will he simply do anything to get elected? For this act alone, he is eligible for RINO Of The Year award.

Go here and have them send the faxes for you.

Meanwhile, we need to dig up our own Senators and politely ask them the same thing: are you planning to let this atrocity slide??

Sure do wish we could return to the days of Congressional sessions of only four months’ duration. Not that our public servants should be left to their own devices. The rest of the time they could go back to their states and serve, say, in soup kitchens. God only knows those churches could use a few more hands, even manicured senatorial mandarin hands.

This is disgusting.

 
It’s not just American contractors who are at risk of kidnapping in Iraq. al-Qaida’s many-pronged strategy to keep the country in turmoil has as one of its elements the execution of Arab embassy employees. This time AQ decided to pick on Morrocco:

	The al-Qaida in Iraq militant group said today it has sentenced two Moroccan embassy employees kidnapped last month to death.
	The group said in a statement posted on an Islamist web forum that its “Islamic court” had judged the two men as “apostates” who were waging a “war on Islam”.
	“Based on this, the court decided to issue God’s verdict upon the apostates and sentenced them to death,” it said. The statement, whose authenticity could not be confirmed, did not say whether the two men had been killed yet.

As a strategy, their plan is working.

Al-Qaida in Iraq, one of the most feared insurgent groups in Iraq, has claimed responsibility for executing numerous hostages, including diplomats from Egypt and Algeria. It has warned Arab nations not to step up their diplomatic missions in Baghdad or send ambassadors, which would be a sign of support for Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government.

Wait! Notice that the “militants” in the first part of this story have now become “insurgents.” Nice little euphemistic slide there. One does wonder what Ireland Online, the source of this news, calls the IRA…The IRA Insurgents has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? But there’s more:

In July, al-Qaida in Iraq – led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – kidnapped and killed the head of the Egyptian mission in Iraq after that country said it would send an ambassador to Baghdad. Days later, the group also killed the head of the Algerian mission and another Algerian employee.

So now we have it. “Al-Qaida in Iraq” is not an Iraqi deal at all. Not when led by that Jordanian militant killer Zarqawi, it’s not. Somehow it’s doubtful whether the MSM has done a poll on the members of this “militant insurgency” to ascertain their country of origin. How many real Iraqis do you suppose they’d find? Besides a few disgruntled Sunni water-fetchers, anyway.

So much for vaunted objective reporting. But maybe Ireland Online never claimed to be objective — or rather, perhaps its objective is to see the Iraq democracy fail. At least that would allow Europe to focus on something besides its own fetid and wrong-headed mess.

Meanwhile, two low-level and innocent Morrocans are going to be slaughtered by power-hungry Islamicists.

Go, Mohammed.

 
On October 25th the State Department hosted an annual event honoring the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. It was the kind of affair that one would expect, a celebration of brotherhood, tolerance, international fellowship, etc.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made some remarks to the assembled guests:

	We in America also know that Muslims, like people of all faiths and people of no faith at all, possess certain basic rights that arise from our equal human dignity. Among these are the right to live without oppression, the right to worship without persecution, and the right to think and speak and assemble without wrongful retribution.
	Ladies and gentlemen, these are not American rights or Western rights. They are human rights, unanimously desired and universally deserved. Muslims freely exercise their rights as American citizens and Muslims have claimed their rights throughout Northern Africa and Western Europe and Central Asia and Southeast Asia.

So far, so good. She is echoing President Bush here, emphasizing the centrality and universality of basic human rights.

But, Madame Secretary, did you have to lay it on so thick?

So, on behalf of all the men and women of the State Department, thank you for honoring us with your presence this evening. Thank you for what you do every day as people of a great faith, of one of the world’s great religions, of a religion of peace and love. Thank you for spending this important holiday evening with us. Ramadan Kareem.

Islam is no longer simply the Religion of Peace; it has been promoted to the Reigion of Peace and Love.

This, while Muslims are:
  ·  burning down the suburbs of Paris;
  ·  beheading schoolgirls in Indonesia;
  ·  blowing up innocent civilians in Israel;
  ·  torching kindergartens in Denmark;
  ·  beating up Africans in Britain;
  ·  committing genocide in Sudan;
  ·  demanding the destruction of Israel and the United States in Iran;
  ·  and beheading teachers in Thailand.

Is it too much to ask that our leaders — even those who pace the lofty carpeted halls of the State Department — refrain from such embarrassing excesses of rhetoric? Couldn’t they make do with the usual after-dinner boilerplate, something like “I am honored to have with me such distinguished guests…”?

One of my unenviable tasks, both online and in the real world, is to defend President Bush’s foreign policy. There are many people to my left and right who believe that the Bush administration is bought and paid for by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

And, thanks to little oratorical flourishes like this, the contrary position gets harder and harder to defend.

 
Dymphna’s posts on Theo van Gogh reminded me of a little ditty from alternative radio back in the 1970s. If Mr. Van Gogh enjoyed making fun of everyone, then surely he would have enjoyed this song.

Now, before Rune and Henrik and Pieter get on my case: it’s important to remember that the primary point of this song (besides having fun) was to mock traditional British intolerance of foreigners. It was funny thirty years ago, and it’s even funnier now in the PC Multicultural Age because it’s so forbidden.

Now for “I Hate the Dutch” by John Dowie:

I’m a British Tourist and I’m very, very rude.
I hate the stinking foreigners
hate their stinking food

I don’t like French or Germans
I don’t care for Belgians much
But worst of all worst of all
I hate the Dutch

The Dutch, the Dutch
I hate them worse than dogs.
They live in windmills
and mince around in clogs.

They don’t have any manners
They don’t say ‘thanks’ or ‘please’
all they eat is tulips
and stinking gouda cheese…

I’m a British tourist with a countenance severe
I love to strike the foreign type
And box their poxied ears

But there’s one woggy dago
I cannot bear to touch
The slimy crawling
stench appalling
snotty grotty Dutch

The Dutch are mad
Their fingers stuck in dikes
They use the wrong side of the road
And ride around on bikes

They don’t have any manners,
don’t have any brains.
There’s only one race worse than them
and that’s… THE DANES!

 
What follows is an email from Pieter Dorsman. It is a response to my email to him and led to my original post on the anniversary of van Gogh’s death. Mr. Dorsman’s reply is a thoughtful reflection on his fellow citizen. Given that there are boisterous — even obstreperous, at times –commenters on this site, I would ask that all those who have something to say about Mr. Dorsman’s views of his country and his countrymen do so with circumspection and respect. In other words, behave. Not everyone will agree with Mr. Dorsman’s ideas, but since he is an invited guest, I ask that there be no throwing of dinner rolls across the table and that everyone mind their manners.

I certainly have my own reseverations about van Gogh. For example, I do not agree with Pieter that sincerity is sufficient for wisdom or for seriousness. You can be sincerely, even terminally, flippant. It is a characterological flaw I wrestle with myself.

But if we are to learn what makes Europe tick, and why the Netherlands has come to its current state, we would do well to listen, and to ponder before we reply.

Otherwise, we learn nothing and we could well end, if not in the same situation, then in its reactive opposite.

Now Pieter:

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *I think part of Theo’s actions and final response can be found in Dutch culture. Its language and humor are extremely direct and rude and Theo mastered that skill to perfection, offending Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Theo felt he had every right to act like this as he clearly sensed that free speech was under pressure, precisely because of the prevailing political dogmas of multiculturalism. The same with Fortuyn who felt that years of liberation would go to waste if Dutch society were to give into religious dogmas of some immigrant groups who felt the Dutch constitution didn’t apply to them.

“Can’t we talk about this” is equally Dutch. The idea that real violence and real war would visit the lowlands is and has always been unthinkable.Not sure if it is a real story but during the German offensive in 1940 (it took them a mere 4 days to occupy Holland) a few soldiers allegedly dropped their guns and deserted the battlefield exclaiming “they are using live ammunition”! If it was bad in 1940, imagine what it is like in 2005. Most of my friends who still live in Holland – and they’re not exactly uneducated- are clueless when it comes to this.

Epitaph: don’t think it should have been “But I Wasn’t Serious”, as Van Gogh was absolutely sincere in what he said and believed.

Thanks for the link and the e-mail, enjoy your blog.

Best regards,

Pieter

 
The Associated Press, via the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported today on a strange incident which occurred on September 19. It seems Bush 41 went to see a Giants – New Orleans Saints game in New Jersey as part of a fund-raising event for those who suffered the brunt of Hurricane Katrina.

But Bush didn’t go alone. As anyone with a scintilla of common sense knows, wherever Presidents, ex-Presidents, and their families congregate, so does the Secret Service and so does the FBI. What you want to do, should you find yourself in such a situation, is to get as far from the famous personage as possible. That way, you don’t make the protectors of the personages nervous, and they, likewise, leave you in peace. You’ll notice at such events that there are large areas of cleared space around whomever is deemed in need of guarding.

The other thing you avoid, besides the vicinity of said personage, is any behavior that might be deemed suspicious or questionable. Authorities are so paranoid these days you’d think bombs had been going off, or stadiums had been under attack. But paranoia or not, it is always best to err on the side of discretion and attempt to behave as normally as possible. Like, stay in your seat. Watch the game.

These rules were not so clear to the five Muslim men who showed up at the same football game as the former President. It’s terribly gauche for the FBI to take exception to five obviously Arab-appearing men gathered around an air duct, but that’s the FBI for you: not ethnically sensitive in large crowds.

The story is a bit muddled. See if you can figure it out:

	Five Muslim football fans were detained and questioned during a game at Giants Stadium because they were congregating near an air duct on a night former President Bush was in the stadium, the FBI said Wednesday.
	Some of the Muslims said they did not know they were in a sensitive area, and they complained that they were subjected to racial profiling while they were praying, as their faith requires five times a day.
	[…]
	At a news conference Wednesday, Shaban [ one of the men] said he and four friends had just gotten to the Sept. 19 New York Giants-New Orleans Saints game when they left their seats to pray. Around halftime, 10 security officers and three state troopers approached the men and told them to come with them, Shaban said.

Here’s what seems strange, though it may be a muddled report rather than a sinister story: These men had just gotten to the game when they left their seats to pray? And then they happened to choose for the site of their prayer an air duct? But it wasn’t until half-time that the men were approached by the FBI…did they stick around the air duct during the whole first half?

When were they “approached” by the FBI? It doesn’t make sense to think that they were merely under surveillance while huddled around an air duct for an hour.

On the other hand, the way the FBI handled the situation when they did approach the men was outstanding. It was done Israeli-style:

The men were questioned and then were not allowed to return to their seats, but were instead assigned to seats in another section, Shaban said. Three guards stood near them, and escorted them to their cars when they left the stadium.

Turns out they gathered to pray at the main air duct for the stadium. These guys don’t need a lawyer; they need an IQ test.

Meanwhile, the area around the air duct is no longer accessible. Good move, if somewhat slow, on the part of the stadium management.

By the way, how long do you think it will be before the ACLU notices the name of the Louisiana team and starts yammering for legal action to get the New Orleans Saints name changed? Perhaps to something less obviously Christian.

How about the New Orleans Victims?

This week marks the first anniversary of Theo van Gogh’s ritual slaughter for his sins against one immigrant community of Islam. He died the week after his film, Submission was shown on national television. The message behind the film — images of a woman’s body painted with verses from the Koran — was obvious: Islam uses women, often in cruel ways.

No doubt Mr van Gogh’s film was clever, edgy, graphically compellling. But here, a year later, you have to wonder: what in the world was he thinking? Or was he thinking at all? Did he, as so many “celebrities” do, think his fame insulated him from danger? He actually laughed once when a Muslim man warned van Gogh that he was going too far.

This anniversary recalls the original mixed feelings that emerged with the details of his slaughter. He is purported to have asked his killer if they could “talk about this.” Or words to that effect. If true, what stellar ignorance drove Mr. van Gogh’s political/artistic work? How could he have failed to see how useless talk is? Was he blind to the rage “Submission” invoked? Was this hubris or simply a person willfully ignorant of the times in which he lived?

So many questions. Such a babble of thunderous silence.

Now, a year later, Europe is marking this anniversary with continent-wide eruptions. The rising tide of anger between blacks and Pakistani in the underclass in Britain, France’s nights of vandalism and destruction, the ever-increasing demands of the ever-increasingly sensitive immigrant Muslims who cannot tolerate even the public images of pigs, Spain’s race riots and the deaths at the fence it erected to keep out illegals. Exclusion and suspicion on one side; grievance-driven demands for entitlements on the other. And both sides trapped in the conflagration caused when truth — which whispers in private — dare not speak in the public square.

And now…even now, the Netherlands proves how little it has learned.

The Dutch authorities are not going to annul the so-called samenlevingscontract or “cohabitation contract,” a civil union registered before a notary, which a man recently concluded with two women whom he now considers to both be his wives. Piet-Hein Donner, the Dutch minister of Justice, responded in the negative to a request of the Dutch parliamentarian Cees Van der Staaij to annul the “trio marriage.”

Such a small blip on the radar — just one man and two women. What can be the harm “as long as no one is hurt by their behavior”? Right?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

It doesn’t seem as though it’s been a year since Theo van Gogh’s slaughter. His death is such a benchmark, such a defining moment that it has quickly entered a timeless place. Senseless murder —its waste and horror— often does. This crime should never have happened. In the best of all possible worlds he should have been free to express his contempt. But he lived in a very dangerous world — it seethed all around him — and he hadn’t the eyes to see it.

We will never know from what well he drew his willful refusal. What should his epitaph have been? Perhaps it might read “But I Wasn’t Serious”? Unfortunately, Islamist utopians are very serious indeed. Dead serious. As his murderer proved at the trial, with his contempt and vicious hatred for his victim and the family.

Peter Drucker said that “communication is the act of the recepient.” If he’s right — and I do think he is — then each time we want to talk, negotiate, or otherwise dither with a culture that holds us in contempt, we are doing nothing but shoveling out one more spadeful of our own grave.

Has Europe learned yet how truly lethal politically correct multiculturalism is? Have we? More than a year ago, Theodore Dalrymple told us why it won’t work:

Multiculturalism rests on the supposition—or better, the dishonest pretense—that all cultures are equal and that no fundamental conflict can arise between the customs, mores, and philosophical outlooks of two different cultures. The multiculturalist preaches that, in an age of mass migration, society can (and should) be a kind of salad bowl, a receptacle for wonderful exotic ingredients from around the world, the more the better, each bringing its special flavor to the cultural mix. For the salad to be delicious, no ingredient should predominate and impose its flavor on the others.

As he says further, any good cook knows this is a recipe for disaster. Some ingredients predominate and some should barely whisper their names. Otherwise you have a mess, one that can neither be eaten or metabolized. And he reminds us what happens to those who follow the dicta of the mandarins and the grievance-driven:

Reality has a way of revenging itself upon the frivolous.

Mr. van Gogh learned that fatal lesson. Europe disdains his memory by refusing to heed the example.

Update: It seems I forgot Denmark‘s rampaging Muslim underclass young males.

And mercy me, my hat tip re Theo van Gogh, which belongs to an early morning email from PeakTalk.

 
Pastorius is taking on the worldwide jihad at Cuanas:

In other words, little Indonesian schoolchildren who know nothing about Israel, who do not know Arabic, or even an Arab, and who have never met a Jew, are “campaigning” for the destruction of Israel. No, sorry, I don’t believe they came up with this on their own over there in Indonesia. Instead, I believe that this is being coordinated from above.

See The Jihad Is Worldwide And Coordinated.

Or, Why TNR Will Sail On Without Me

A few months ago I decided to try to renew an old friendship.

Some years back I subscribed to The New Republic. Slowly, as our viewpoints diverged and theirs seemed less congenial, I let the subscription expire. It was sad, though, like lettting a friend go.

Wanting to see what they were up to these days, and hoping the divergence might have narrowed, I decided to subscribe to their email letter.

Big mistake. We were even further apart than before. Still, it made me sad. So when Mr. Peretz wrote to me (I’m “Dear Reader”) I felt compelled to answer him.

Here you see the first part of his email to me. Below is my answer.

—– Original Message —– From: Marty Peretz To: dymphna@chromatism.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:28 PM Subject: The New Republic Makes History Dear Reader, The New Republic makes history all the time, important history. Last week was a case in point. The indictment by the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney…

Mr. Peretz:

I began to subscribe to your email letter a while ago, hoping that an old friend — which TNR was, once — might have something that I could read and enjoy. Sadly, that has not turned out to be the case.

This Plame/Libby diversion is a good example of exactly why I’m not interested. Why do I care who back-stabbed whom? High school is over.

And SCOTUS doesn’t move me either. Whoever it is that finally hops up on the bench is of no concern to me because they cannot solve the main issues facing our country.

Here are my concerns:

  ·  the metastasis of government into every cell of our commonweal.
  ·  the need for tax reform yesterday.
  ·  the incompetence and inability to respond of our top-heavy bureaucratic “emergency defenses” — you might try reading Annie Jacobsen.
  ·  the imminent fate of Israel.

Now if you were publishing essays which explained how SCOTUS might find our present tax system unconstitutional, or that the size of government was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind — well, I’d be the first in line for a renewal.

But Scooter? Good Lord, man, get a life.

No, nothing there for me in TNR… Sometimes friendships die and we have to replace them. So I did — with City Journal.

It makes me sad that we went in different directions, but there it is. To me, TNR is not “making” history. Along with much of the legacy media, TNR is history.

This phenomenon must be very difficult to perceive from the inside, Mr. Peretz.

Thanks for the memories,

Dymphna