And also from that website...

There was this piece which is also critical of media coverage of the event (on both sides). And also talks a bit about muslim opinion on Cordoba's building.

Link here.

Not to belabor Cordoba discussion...

but I wanted to link to this article from someone who isn't opposed to the Mosque's building.

It does a good job of analyzing the media discussion of it (specifically how unfair some of the anti-anti-Cordoba Mosque pieces have been).

Link is here.

Luckily...

at least someone out there is still willing to do the hard news.

Did you ghost write this, Berchmans? :)

Reason #1,564,356 our country is doomed...

This may be the single lamest thing I've ever seen appear in a major newspaper.

WTF, America. WTF....

On the other hand, I feel like this pretty much guarantees I'll forever win the argument that our society is infantilized. And yet, I don't take comfort in that.

Islam Before Ground Zero

This article in Slate from 2001 is a must read. In a dizzying array of circumstance, it reminds us how Islam had been a part of the World Trade Center site for decades.

The story goes like this: Minoru Yamasaki, a Japanese-American architect who drew inspiration from Islam for his designs, became a sought-after architect for many of Saudi Arabia's most important structures, including the country's central bank and two major airports. Now, architects are only as good as the construction firms charged with turning their designs into reality. It just so happens that in Saudi Arabia, one family's construction firm was adept—and politically connected—enough to turn Yamasaki's beautiful designs and breathtaking reality: the bin Ladens. And as it happens, Yamasaki also designed the World Trade Center.

As a scion to the construction firm, the article argues that Osama bin Laden must have know about the Islamic influences that adorned the World Trade Center buildings and the plaza in between. This gave bin Laden a reason to despise the site: it embodied the marriage of Islamic art, modernism, and commerce—a combination anathema to his idea of Islam.

We all know the basic reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack the World Trade Center, out of all the buildings in New York. Its towers were the two tallest in the city, synonymous with its skyline. They were richly stocked with potential victims. And as the complex's name declared, it was designed to be a center of American and global commerce. But Bin Laden may have had another, more personal motivation. The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences.

The Papal Encyclicals

I once read a sample of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals for an undergraduate class, and came away deeply impressed with the depth of his knowledge and clarity and of thought. After my last discussion with Esquire about Islam, I decided I'd read through some of the passages again. I did so because, while Esquire may have mistaken our debate as a chance to highlight Christianity's virtues and convert me, I'm a believer. (So stand down, proselytizer!)

That is, even while I disagree with the Church's stance on certain issues, I still allow its teachings a primary place in my political thought, always present to negotiate with my other impulses and leanings.

These excerpts struck me as particularly relevant and deeply moving:

When people think they possess the secret of a perfect social organization which makes evil impossible, they also think that they can use any means, including violence and deceit, in order to bring that organization into being. Politics then becomes a "secular religion" which operates under the illusion of creating paradise in this world. But no political society — which possesses its own autonomy and laws — can ever be confused with the Kingdom of God.

This is in line with what Esquire mentioned about Christianity's vision of limited government. But the Pope also clarifies this sentiment in a following paragraph (taken from his 1991 encyclical):

What Sacred Scripture teaches us about the prospects of the Kingdom of God is not without consequences for the life of temporal societies, which, as the adjective indicates, belong to the realm of time, with all that this implies of imperfection and impermanence. The Kingdom of God, being in the world without being of the world, throws light on the order of human society, while the power of grace penetrates that order and gives it life. In this way the requirements of a society worthy of man are better perceived, deviations are corrected, the courage to work for what is good is reinforced. In union with all people of good will, Christians, especially the laity, are called to this task of imbuing human realities with the Gospel.

In a later encyclical on the value of life, published in 1995, the Pope spoke again about the relationship between civil and moral law according to Christian thought:

Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being...

But, again, he later on says civil law is always and everywhere subservient to "eternal law," that is, any law in contradiction with God's will is no law at all:

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

And for good measure, here's video of Christopher Hitchens on the notion of "free will" in Christianity (the argument I mentioned in the comments section): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg5UNxOmTIY

Shariah In The U.S.A.

Unlike Esquire, I don't believe America is under imminent threat from the spread of shariah, or that radical Islamism is slowly creeping under the nation's consciousness, spreading its venomous roots without our knowing it. I chalk his fear up to the conservative's typical tendency to see impending and apocalyptic threats everywhere and anywhere to the status quo. (You can see a similar impulse in Sharron Angle's hilarious 1993 letter to Harry Reid about the End Of Days that the Clinton tax hikes will no doubt bring to the polity. Right.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with opposing change as a principle; I've read enough Burkean texts exposing the limits of human agency to appreciate the stand. But we, as humans, are also cursed with the logic of scarcity, and if we think our greatest threat comes from a creeping Islamofascism in this country, we'll likely do things -- like pass absolutely pointless, political stunts like the anti-shariah law Newt Gingrich has proposed -- that will hog up time for genuinely useful legislation (it exists! I tell you, those bills exist! Cap and trade, anyone? Comprehensive immigration reform? No?)

I do have two thoughts I wanted to discuss: first, re: shariah, Esquire earlier said he generally opposed its notion that God should be recognized as the fount of all laws. But what does that mean for, say, Sarah Palin's recent claim that one can trace a straight line from America's Constitution to the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian principles? Forget that Palin said it; it's an opinion widely expressed among conservative circles, e.g. the Constitution is "divinely inspired," or that limited government is a uniquely Christian notion (as Dinesh D'Souza has argued)? What's the difference here and the logic of shariah, other than we're talking different gods? (I'm not trying to be a smart ass here; I'm genuinely trying to tease out some principles on religion/state jurisprudence.)

There was a woman quoted in The New York Times last week who said she had no problem with freedom of religion, except -- and this was a whopper of an exception -- she didn't consider Islam a "religion." Instead, she saw it as a political ideology wrapped in divine pretenses. OK, but what religion doesn't lead its followers to certain political decisions? Couldn't you make a similar charge against Catholics that they can't be trusted with power because they only do the bidding of the Pope? (Wait -- don't tell me, people did make this argument? You don't say.)

Second thought: My bigger problem with focusing on Islam like it's the return of Darth Vader is that it leads certain activists to hold Muslims to higher standards than other communities. We frequently hear about the various crimes committed against women that are routinely accepted, even sanctioned, in traditional Muslim communities. But we rarely hear that a pattern of abuse and domination against women has been the modus operandi of human history and has changed only recently, and that too only in select nations in the Western world blessed with immense national wealth.

If this debate follows this pattern, it also tends to view Muslims chiefly as people who regard religion as the foundation of their personality. That may no doubt be true for certain Muslims, but I reckon -- and this is based just on anecdotal experience -- that a fair number of Muslims place their religion alongside a plethora of other concerns and identity markers (gender, age, family, culture, language, nationalism, politics).

This isn't an argument for cultural relativism, so please don't throw that little bugaboo at me. I'm all for accepting certain universal truths that cross over all cultures, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of activists within Muslim countries who agree with that. But liberalism -- and by this, I mean classical liberalism, of Locke and Mill -- has a nasty habit of proclaiming on the one hand that all people are created equal, but then, in the fine print, poking and prodding certain communities and saying "you're not ready for it." We see this logic in Locke's works, for instance, when he talks about what kinds of rigorous education humans need to fully practice rationality (and, thus, exercise full political rights), thus undercutting the democracy of his idea of government by consent.

It just seems silly to me that on the one hand, we, as a country, are supposed to be fighting for burgeoning democracies in two Muslim-majority countries, and on the other, supposed to believe that this religion and many of its proponents believe a philosophy that is fundamentally anti-democratic. It's also ironic that both the Afghan and Iraqi Constitutions -- you know, the ones we have spent billions of dollars and had thousands of troops die for -- recognize Islam as the chief inspiration for all their laws. (Or do I exaggerate?)

The Anti-Muslim Backlash

Conor Friedersdorf, my new pundit crush, countered Esquire's pundit crush (no prizes for correct guesses) on how tolerant America has been to its Muslim citizens:

When an angry crowd mistook this Coptic Christian man for a Muslim, did that count as a backlash? What else explains the Koran burning event this Florida church is planning (guess what day the event is scheduled). Or consider the Temecula, California mosque project that is also apparently too close to Ground Zero.These are all very recent news items. So what can this assertion that "there has been no “anti-Muslim” backlash actually mean? That it hasn't been as bad as some people feared? If that is what Mr. Goldberg means he should say it.

I'd also like to re-link to this This American Life episode on the lengths to which a school went to ostracize and ultimately expel a local Muslim-American family.

N.Y. Muslims On Mosque Near Ground Zero

I thought this Washington Post article deserved to be widely linked and read. We've heard a lot of talk about the need to protect the feelings of those killed on 9/11 (excluding the 100 or so Muslims also included in that tally), or even a more abstract sensitivity felt in the national ethos. But what about local Muslims in New York City?

This is what the controversialIslamic community center and mosque being planned in Lower Manhattan means to Ehab Zahriyeh: not having to play basketball in church leagues.

For Fatima Monkush, it would be a place to swim -- sans cap and layers of clothing -- with other Muslim women.

While the national debate about the center has elicited passionate statements for and against it from Democrats and Republicans, what Muslims have been left with is a great deal of disappointment. And for the young American-born New Yorkers who hope to use the site as a fitness center, meeting space and prayer hall, among other functions, the sense of rejection is personal.

Friends of Totalitarianism

Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler poses a question for discussion:

How about a really systematic exploration of other contemporary collaborators with totalitarian regimes whose propaganda you would like to tout to unsettle readers? Or, would that disturb the shocking effect of your bold free thought on your readership?

His response is illuminating. Among the various 20th century thinkers he highlights as "collaborators" to evil regimes are Susan Sontag and Eric Hobsbawm. But even more interesting are his readers' responses. Here's "Bill" commenting on the purpose of the question:

This is an unthinking post.

It is unthinking because it doesn't define collaborator, and relies on guilt by association.

It would be a better post if it asked: what were the ideas that x person agreed with that y person had. And, would be fairer and more objective if it did. And, it should make a distinction between means and ends.

Discussions of the validity of the question aside, it seems to me that MR's readers are by far the smartest and well-reasoned readers anywhere.

I'm interested in Berchmans' and Esquire's responses to this question.

GOP Political Ad...

From a purely political perspective (I know we'll disagree on the ideological perspective), this is a pretty great ad.

Will really resonate with the Conservative base and indepenents I'd imagine...

(I unfortunately couldn't find another link for it, so I had to use this website. I don't know anything about it, other than some of the commentators are morons).

Something I've noticed....

I could be wrong on this, but in my daily skimming of articles/columns/blogs/tweets, I sense that there's a weird dichotomy in discussion of the Cordoba House.

Opponents of it seem to normally refer to it as a "Mosque." Supporters (or rather opponents of the opponents) refer to it as a "Muslim Community Center."

I'm not sure what that means or what would cause it, but if true it's kinda interesting...

The 14th Amendment

As a so-called "anchor baby" myself, I don't think I need to say too much on how I feel about recent proposals from the Republican Party to change the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.

Some commentators note that the amendment's drafters wanted chiefly to protect slaves and their kin, not allow Mexicans to run a vast birthing conspiracy. Maybe so. Even if that were the case, there are other amendments in the Constitution -- namely the second one -- whose original purpose (to protect Americans from a federal army) has long been subsumed to other more modern political agendas. Justice Scalia admitted as much in Heller v. D.C., when he concluded his majority opinion by saying:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

But what did the 14th Amendment's drafters want when they codified birthright citizenship? Concentrating on the slave issue is surely too narrow. Akhil Reed Amar, a widely respected (though, I admit, liberal) constitutional scholar, explained on a recent visit to the Colbert Report that the amendment had much grander aspirations. It was nothing less than the "textual embodiment" of Thomas Jefferson's quaint notion that "all men are created equal." No matter who our parents are, he went on to say, or their particular identity markers, we are born equal. (Also, Linda Chavez explained the historical basis for birthright citizenship much better than I can in a recent editorial in the WSJ. See here.)

Quoting Jefferson in such fashion makes me sound a bit too high-minded and simplistic. But I'll add that the notion Mexican immigrants think an American child is a fast-track to citizenship and safety for themselves is ludicrous. For one thing, the child can only apply for a green card once s/he turns 18, and even then, there are financial and other application requirements that must be met. If at any time ICE decides to deport you before these proceedings are concluded, having an American child is not much of a defense. (Between 1999 and 2009, in fact, more than 100,000 parents of American-born children were deported. See here.)

On a more depressing note: there are days when I stop and think about my differences with conservatives and almost conclude they aren't that vast. (Lowering the higher marginal tax rates doesn't inspire that much political passion for me, though I do oppose it.) But then, the right's brand of identity politics emerges and I quickly run off to the other side of the political spectrum. I'm not calling anyone racist. This is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had (though its context is rather ugly). I'm just with the other side on this question -- and, quite frankly, on most involving race.

Hitchens on the Cordoba House...

You may have seen this. All things considered, I think he's probably exactly right.

On the Steppes of New Amsterdam

I'm a little late to this, but I see that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City tossed his hat in the ring last week to defend the religious rights of the Cordoba House planners. In his moving speech, he invoked the memory of those who died on September 11th, 2001, and appealed correctly, I think, to first principles:

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'

"The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

The importance of geographically broad support...

Over at RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost has a really interesting analysis about the political difficulties that President Obama has faced in enacting his agenda (and why he is no FDR, for example).

It challenges the view that Obama didn't go "Liberal" enough, and suggests that the geographically narrow nature of Obama's support is the reason why he's facing such difficulty.

As an aside, I'm a big fan of Cost's. He's extremely smart and articulate. And he once took the time to write me several emails of advice on where to attend graduate school.

The Markets Are Efficient .. But Only This Time

We've just gone through a period where we were told emphatically that the recent financial crisis proved without a shadow of a doubt that the efficient market hypothesis is bupkis. Now critics of that idea are saying that the market is indeed efficient and we need more stimulus spending.

Here's how the argument goes: if the bond market fears the direction the U.S. is headed – long-term unemployment, high budget deficits, unsustainable social programs – then it would be putting its money where its mouth is. It would be much more costly for the U.S. to borrow. But what we're seeing now from the bond market, this argument continues, is something completely different. That market is buying U.S. bonds hand over fist, efficiently telling us that – well, I don't know what that's telling us. But no matter. We can borrow really cheaply. That market is saying we need more stimulus spending!

See. Don't you get it? Before the financial crisis, it was really easy for the U.S. to borrow, so the market was inefficient. But now that it's really easy for the U.S. to borrow, it's efficient.

OK, I'll admit, I'm really confused:

The volatility in the stock market has also pushed some investors to allocate more of their funds to cash and cash-equivalents like Treasury securities. In addition, overseas demand for federal securities has been high because U.S. bonds are still considered the safest haven in the wake of concerns about the fiscal stability of Greece, Spain and other countries.

But all of this also proves the point about the former vigilantes becoming deficit cheerleaders. Banks and investors would look for other places to park their cash if federal bonds were considered dangerous or likely to become illiquid because of borrowing concerns. That's obviously not the case.

So, depending on the day, critics tell us either that the market is being very clear and efficient (go stimulus spending, go!) or the market is sending mixed signals and being inefficient (go stimulus spending, go!).

They seem to want it both ways, don't they?

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Christopher Hitchens offers an acerbic and somewhat piquant portrait of becoming stricken with cancer:

So here's the wager: you stick around for a bit, but in return we are going to need some things from you. These things may include your taste buds, your ability to concentrate, your ability to digest, and the hair on your head. This certainly appears to be a reasonable trade. Unfortunately, it also involves confronting one of the most appealing clichés in our language. You've heard it all right. People don't have cancer: they are reported to be battling cancer. No well-wisher omits the combative image: You can beat this. It's even in obituaries for cancer losers, as if one might reasonably say of someone that they died after a long and brave struggle with mortality. You don't hear it about long-term sufferers from heart disease or kidney failure.

Prop 8

By now you've no doubt heard about the very unsurprising overturning of Prop 8 out in California (unsurprising because the Judge ran the trial in a way that made it pretty clear how he felt about the law from the get-go).

I am not bothered by gay marriage as a concept. I do have reservations on the process to enact those rights, and wish to make sure that whatever legal regime we design to incorporate gay marriages/unions is written carefully so as not to signify that we cannot exclude any consensual relationship under the "marriage" definition.

Anyway, I haven't finished reading the decision yet, but the Judge does base quite a bit of the decision on the notion that public conceptions of morality cannot be used as a basis for legislation. While that sounds good and fine, isn't that more or less totally untrue by practice?

It seems to me that there are a whole host of laws that are based on moral principles across the spectrum of laws (including but not limited to drug laws, gambling laws, prostitution, and yes...a number of things related to marriage). For example, common law marriages are based off of established timelines of commitment; that is, society decided that marriage implies a dedication/value demonstrated by cohabitation for a period of significance; that's a moral determination about the idea behind marriage.

If the standard is that carte blanche legislation related to marriage cannot be based off of cultural moral conceptions, then how can the People (and the State) make arbitrary provisions that ban polygamy (in its various forms), incestuous relationships, or any other type of consensual relationship (And how can they decide that the concept only be between two people)?

I think society does have a right to use morality as part of legislation (though I would hope it's not the main or only justification); I just don't think that gay marriage should be considered "immoral." I view marriage as an essentially arbitrary definition. And I'm fine with that; just slide the arbitrary line over slightly to include two person, gay unions.

As I said, I don't have a problem with gay marriage (for me the ideal solution is to have everyone get civil unions, and leave "marriage" as a purely religious notion). But I do have a problem with stupid judicial decisions that are based on preconceived political ideas and without thought about how it'll impact our broader legal regime. I could be wrong, but this decisions really doesn't seem like it's based on solid principles.

Hopefully the Supreme Court can straighten all of this out. For me, I hope it will return these issues to the forum of democratic deliberation where I think they belong. And we can all work to convince people that gays aren't some fifth column of evil, child endangerers.

Newsweek sells for $1

You may have seen that the husband of Rep. Jane Harmon (the liberal California Democrat) bought Newsweek for $1.

The Washington Post Company, which owned Newsweek, apparently rebuffed higher offers from Newsmax Media, stating that it felt Newsmax was "too Conservative," which ostensibly implies that they were seeking a more objective, balanced owner. (I guess?)

I don't fault them for the decision (it's their prerogative to sell to whomever they want for whatever reason they want), but if I'm correct, it's funny that their idea of balanced is to sell to the husband of a liberal California congresswoman...

Jon Meacham is apparently out as editor as well (though he was planning on leaving anyway, I believe)

On Evil

I came across this Charles Krauthammer essay in Time magazine back in 1985. I thought it still relevant and thoughtful.

It's on the idea of evil and the media.

On Banning the Burqa...

Here's an essay on banning the burqa by a freelance journalist living in Turkey.

I liked it for several reasons, including that I think it does a good job of highlighting the notion that our moral/legal decisions do not exist in a vacuum. In the abstract, it can seem clear that rights/values are necessarily absolute. In the real world, however, there are times where circumstances and challenges dictate that the prudent course is to violate the values we typically view as inviolable. (Aphoristically, this is often described as "The Constitution is not a suicide pact.").

I'm not sure how convincing a case this makes for one not already ascribing to the viewpoint, but at least for me I thought it was well articulated and convincing. (I shamelessly note that she does mention the idea of civilizational confidence that I had described previously)

It's a uniquely pathetic....

life form who claims to be an economic conservative...and who also thinks it's their (or public) business how much money President Clinton and Sec. Clinton spend on their daughter's wedding.

I hate hacks.

(But wish much happiness to Chelsea and her husband, because hey: marriage is a beautiful, happy affair.)