Today I ran into a couple of quotes that I thought you might find of interest. Both were made during the run-up to the Iraq war, and both refer to the vote then before Congress to give Bush a blank check in support of his desire to invade Iraq.

Barack Obama: "I don't oppose all wars [but] I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

John McCain: "[Saddam's government] is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the earth multiple times. He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage. ... Given this reality, containment and deterrence and international inspections will work no better than the Maginot Line did 62 years ago."

Now, leaving aside any and all jokes about John McCain's firsthand experience on the Maginot line, the contrast between these two prewar quotes couldn't be more stark. The former is that of a thoughtful and practical man who demonstrates a forward-thinking line of reasoning that weighs costs and consequences; the latter is that of a blustering militarist who speaks only of extreme threats and horrific possibilities, all slapped together without proof, balance, or even a suggestion of what deleterious effects unilateral action might have.

Strangely, though, a recent Gallup Poll discovered that American voters continue to credit John McCain's "experience" over that of Barack Obama as a major reason for preferring him in the upcoming election. It appears that acquiring "experience" by making tragically misinformed, short-sighted, and fear-mongering judgments is just fine with over 50 percent of our electorate.

Here's one more example of McCain's "experience" - namely, the experience gained by making flawed analyses of post-war attitudes of the Iraqi people and of the leaders of Iraq's neighboring countries. (Well, I do credit McCain with being correct about one thing: The true winner of the Iraq war - Iran - must be quite happy about the severity of the American blunder and how it has vastly increased their influence over their neighbor, Iraq.) Here's a snippet from a conversation that McCain had with the bloviator's bloviator, Chris Matthews, on March 12, 2003. (Our invasion, as you may recall, began on March 19 of that year.)

MATTHEWS: Are you one of those who holds up an optimistic view of the post-war scene? Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?

MCCAIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: And you think the Arab world will come to a grudging recognition that what we did was necessary? I mean by that the modern Arab leaders, the people that we have to deal with.

MCCAIN: Not only that, they'll be relieved that he's not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions.

MATTHEWS: I sincerely hope you're right Senator.

He wasn't.

To be fair, McCain did learn one thing from the experience of appearing on Matthews's TV show: The transcript of that interview is no longer available on McCain's senatorial website - it has since been taken down and is now available only through the ever-helpful Internet Archive. [back to top]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

With Barack Obama's campaign suddenly in aimless-drift mode, it's time to take a more-serious look at John McCain. It pains me to say that the odds of his moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next January look better today than they have in months.

No, I don't mean that we should dredge up such old news as McCain's finishing fifth from last in his Naval Academy class, nor his notorious temper, nor his deep - and Congressionally censured - involvement in the 1980's savings-and-loan scandal, nor his extra-marital affairs during his first marriage, nor his calling his current wife a cunt.

Let's leave all that character-assassination stuff in the past. To be fair, McCain has already endured his share of mud-slinging. Instead, let's talk about McCain's self-identification as a military man.

Specifically, we need to ask a simple question: "Would it be wise at this point in our history for America to choose a president whose thinking is shaped by his military experience?" I'd argue that to do so would be a dangerous error.

There's a well-worn old adage that to a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Well, the military mind is a hammer. That is, it's a force designed to pound - hopefully in the service of construction, but not always.

Today's world requires more subtlety than single-dimension pounding. More flexibility. More of the ability to see matters from multiple perspectives and to take actions that balance others' needs and desires with one's own, and so to create lasting agreements upon which lasting peace can be built.

The military mind is, in itself, neither good nor evil. At times in a country's history it can be that country's savior. At other times, however, it can be that same country's downfall.

Let's enumerate a few characteristics of the military mind, and examine how they relate to the United States' position in the world today.

There's no substitute for victory. When a military mind is engaged in battle, it has essentially three choices: death, surrender, and victory. The first is, of course, to be avoided, and only reluctantly accepted when the calculus of victory and sacrifice demand it. The second, even when inevitable, carries with it the stench of shame. The third is the honorable goal, to be achieved no matter the blood and treasure required.

Surrender is worse than failure - it's cowardice. Surrender is also broadly defined by the military mind as any cessation of hostilities that stops short of the subjugation of the enemy. Negotiation - "talking with one's enemies" - can therefore be seen as surrender. The military mind isn't required to look beyond victory - that's the task (at least in our governmental model) of its civilian managers. To the military mind, victory is an end in and of itself.

Today, the immensely complex dynamics of the United States' involvement in the Middle East beg for an analysis that admits more complexity than simple victory vs. surrender. Sadly, our current president has hidden behind his generals by saying, in so many words, that he'll let those fighting the war decide how to define victory - which turns our country's long tradition of civilian leadership of our military forces on its head.

The military mind defines victory as crushing its enemies, and gives little if any thought to the consequences of that crushing. In a well-functioning America, defining a war's goals isn't the job of the military mind, it's the job of civilian leadership. We don't live in a well-functioning America; we live in an America in which important foreign policy decisions are being relegated to the narrow definition of victory held by the military mind.

John McCain has a military mind.

Victory is worth whatever sacrifices are required. A military commander has two essential goals: destroying the enemy and keeping his own soldiers alive. Both are life-and-death matters and as such demand - deserve - the full commitment of whatever resources the military mind has at its command. What's more, if those resources are unsatisfactory, the military mind feels completely justified, even compelled, to ask for more. After all, American lives are at stake.

Unfortunately, we live in a finite world in which our country's resources are been bled dry to pay for a receding Mideast victory that the military mind sees as the only honorable end to the current conflict. We are mortgaging our future to pay for this victory. The military mind believes that doing so is perfectly reasonable: Victory is the only goal, and victory demands resources.

The civilian mind, on the other hand, watches as its nation's infrastructure crumbles, its schools sink into a morass of (at best) mediocrity, and its debt grows to economy-stultifying levels. The civilian mind asks if a distant, questionably important victory, in and of itself, is worth the heavy price. It weighs the cost of the resources needed for an ever-more-illusory victory against the slow-but-steady weakening and debt burden on the home front, and asks if the benefits of a hollow victory are worth its cost.

This calculation of victory versus home-front health is wholly unsuited to the military mind. Victory is all, no matter the cost. If you're watching your men explode into pieces around you on the battlefield, worries of inflationary pressures and declining inner-city math scores fade into insignificance. The military mind worries about living through the next fusillade, not the next budget cycle.

John McCain has a military mind.

Loyalty and obedience are of more importance than independent thinking. For reasons that should be obvious, the military mind expects - demands - that fellow soldiers support one another unquestionably and follow orders promptly and precisely. Lives depend upon loyalty. A warrior (the Armed Forces' currently preferred term-of-art for "soldier") is carefully bonded with his or her "buddies" during training, so much so that self-sacrifice to the point of self-destruction is one of the most noble acts a warrior can perform.

In battle, a commander expects obedience and loyalty - and 99 percent of the time gets it. Being disloyal is one step short of being treasonous - and, in some circumstances, can get you executed.

On the other hand, a civilian leadership that values raw loyalty to its political team over principle, independence, and innovative adherence to larger truths becomes petty, self-serving, and insular. Examples in our current government abound, from Scott McLellan being excoriated for being disloyal to his former boss to Scooter Libby having his perjury sentence commuted for being loyal to his White House handlers.

Short-horizon loyalty is a necessary battlefield virtue. However, the same "protect my cadre at all costs" mentality is anathema to good governance. Unquestioning loyalty is a prime military virtue.

John McCain has a military mind.

I could, of course, go on, but this post is quite long enough as it is. But before I stop, however, let me quickly point out that some military minds have gone on to become solid civilian leaders. Dwight Eisenhower, for example, was wise enough to foresee and warn against the "military-industrial complex." John Kerry came to his senses after his experiences during the Vietnam war and became enlightened enough to ask, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

John McCain, however, hasn't demonstrated that his military experiences have led him to comparable soul-searching and insight. On the contrary, he jokingly sings "Bomb Iran" to an old Beach Boys tune, and couches his entire foreign policy thinking in terms of military doctrine.

The differences between Eisenhower, Kerry, and McCain can possibly be explained in that both Eisenhower and Kerry were on the ground in their respective wars, watching friends blown to bits and commanding other men to their deaths. McCain, on the other hand, flew thousands of feet above the fray, "airmailing" death to unseen foes below. (McCain was then injured, captured, and treated like dirt by savage assholes for five and a half years - an experience that may very well have colored his attitude towards negotiation and compromise.)

Finally, please don't think that it's merely my radical-lib bent that causes me to feel queasy about putting a military mind in the White House at this point in American history. To show that I'm not alone in my thinking, I'll leave you with a few words by that noted pinko commie, Pat Buchanan, concerning McCain's militancy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paella, the traditional and traditionally delicious rice-and-seafood dish from Spain, has two important things in common with barbecue, kielbasa, and apple pie. First, every true cook from those foods' home turfs has their own well-tested and highly cherished recipe; and second, each can be made simply and still be delicious, or with complexity and be well-nigh astounding.

Here's how to make an exceptionally simple paella that is still - as my Thesaurus would say - delectable, mouthwatering, appetizing, tasty, flavorful, toothsome, succulent, luscious, scrumptious, delish, yummy, finger-licking good, and nummy. (Serves six hearty eaters.)

INGREDIENTS:
• 1.5 pounds of large shrimp (aka prawns, 12-to-15 to the pound), shelled and deveined - You can, of course, add more if you're seriously into prawns or if the ones you find are smaller than 12-to-15 to the pound.
• 3 large linguiça sausages - If you can't find linguiça, use chorizo. If you can't find chorizo, use kielbasa. If you can't find kielbasa, move. If the sausages are raw, cook 'em. If their skins are tough, skin 'em. Otherwise, just cut them into half-inch slices
• 2 8-ounce bottles of clam juice - Snow's is good - although, to be honest, I've bought many brands over the years and have yet to find a bad batch.
• 1 16-ounce box of organic, low-sodium vegetable stock - Actually, the "organic" descriptor isn't as important as "low-sodium." Some brands load up the salt like you wouldn't believe. Imagine and Pacific make good stuff. Oh, and if you make your own veggie stock, more power to you - I'm too lazy.
• 2 medium-to-large chopped onions - I'm a fan of sweeties such as Maui and Vidalia, but good ol' yellow onions are just fine.
• 2 to 4 cloves garlic - How much is a matter of taste - just make sure to chop them relatively fine..
• 1 cup of roasted, chopped sweet or mild red peppers - Roast them right on your stove's gas fire, or under your broiler, then zip them into a large ZipLoc bag for about 10 minutes to let the steam soften their skins. Then, under running water, strip off the burned skin, tear the peppers open, remove the membranes and seeds, then chop the pepper flesh up into approximately 1-inch pieces. Or use this method; or this one.
• 3/4 cup olive oil - You know the drill: The better the olive oil, the better the results.
• 1 1/2 cups of medium rice - Use the same type of rice that you'd use for risotto; y'know, something like Arborio. You don't have to buy imported rice, as Lundberg and others grow quite good Arborio in California.
• 1 teaspoon or more saffron - Spice companies such as McCormick/Schilling and Morton & Bassett charge an arm and a leg for saffron. I've had better luck buying larger, off-brand amounts from Indian grocery stores. Who knows - they prob'ly all buy their saffron from the same suppliers, anyway.
• 1/2 cup dry white wine - As the old saying goes, "If you wouldn't want to drink it, don't cook with it." Use decent stuff - after all, it's only half a cup, and you can't let that entire bottle go to waste, now, can you? Drink up!
• 2 tablespoons of chopped fresh parsley - If you don't have fresh parsley, use one tablespoon of dried.
• 2 scallions (aka green onions) - Clean and skin them, then cut the white and half ofthe green on a diagonal, with each slice being about a millimeter in thickness. If the scallions are thick, you may want to cut them lengthwise before beginning the diagonal slicing.
• 2 6oz. jars of marinated artichoke hearts - Chop off the tougher leaves (save them for artichoke soup), then cut the hearts in half.
• Fresh ground pepper, sea salt, hot sauce, lemon wedges, and red-pepper flakes to taste

EQUIPMENT:
Traditionally, you'd want to cook paella in - what else? - a paella pan, which is a shallow circular pan with two handles and sloping sides. Since few of us 'Merkins have paella pans, any large frying pan with a decent-fitting lid will do.

PREPARATION:
Marinate the prawns. Double-check to make sure that they've been effectively deveined, then rinse and dry the prawns. Mix in a large bowl half the chopped garlic, half the chopped onion, the chopped parsley, one half cup of the oil, and the white wine. Add the prawns, mix up the whole concoction, cover it, and let it marinate in the fridge for an hour or more - and screw Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe: more (time marinating) is better.

Cook the rice. First, pour the remaining olive oil into the pan you're going to use to make the paella, bring it up to a a medium-to-hot temperature, then add the chopped-up sausage. As soon as the sausage begins to brown, dump in the remaining onion and garlic. After everything is nicely browned and the onions are gently transparent, remove the mixture into a bowl and set it aside, covered to keep it warm. Put the chicken stock and clam juice into a separate pot and heat it up to a gentle simmer. Once it starts simmering, add the saffron and simmer the stock a bit more. Now dump the rice into the now-empty-but-still-oily paella pan and stir it constantly until it turns a bit golden and somewhat transparent. When you're satisfied (don't overcook it!), add the boiling stock and the sausage mixture, stir it all up well, then cover it tightly. Reduce the heat to low (standard rice-cooking level) and let it simmer gently for about half an hour.

Cook the prawns and finish up. When the rice is close to done, heat another shallow pan to medium-to-hot and then dump in all the shrimp and some of its marinade. (The amount of marinade you use is up to you - being an onion fan, I add a good portion of the marinated onion and some of the wine/oil mixture.) Cook the prawns until they're almost done (nearly opaque), then, when the rice has been cooking for a half hour and has absorbed all or almost all of the liquid, mix the prawn mixture, along with the red pepper, scallions, and artichoke hearts, into the rice mixture. Cover it, let it cook for another 10 to 20 minutes or so (until all the liquid is absorbed), and you're done. Serve with sea salt, ground black pepper, a not-too-hot pepper sauce, some lemon wedges, and dried red-pepper flakes.

See, I told you it was easy. Oh, and to you true paella experts out there: Well, yeah, I know that this is incredibly simplistic (and I didn't even mention the socarrat), but please don't interrupt me while I'm eating... [back to top]

NOTE: If you're a regular reader of this blog - and if you think it's more than half-decent - I'd greatly appreciate it if you could find the time to tell a friend or three about Myslewski.com. It's getting cold and lonely out here in The Land of Meager Traffic. 'Preciate it. - Rik

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Barring a Bobby Kennedy event as alluded to by Hillary Clinton during the last throes of her campaign, it's virtually certain that the fall election will offer American voters the choice between an aging warrior and a youthful peacemaker.

While the outcome of that contest is far from certain, one aspect of it is painfully clear: that we're going to hear pundit after pundit discuss how "the surge" has reduced violence in Iraq, and how that since things are "improving" in that benighted nation, that we should "stay the course" until we "achieve victory."

Such reasoning is tragically shortsighted, proving again that we Americans seem constitutionally incapable of seeing beyond the moment.

To be sure, the lessening of anarchy in Baghdad is a wonderful thing for that shattered city's residents. But do keep in mind the price those citizens pay for that fragile and far-from-complete improvement: an additional 30,000 foreign troops occupying their city; concrete blast walls separating their neighborhoods; five million of their fellow citizens displaced from their homes - two million of whom have fled their country; the slow fracturing of the self-serving Sunni "Awakening" movement; and, most recently, news about the impending loss of Iraq's control over its oil wealth and its military and political sovereignty.

A high price, indeed, for a citizen to pay, especially when much of it is being paid to the country that invaded Iraq and caused so much of its inhabitants' misery.

But let's return to the subject of "the surge" and its lessening of Iraqi anarchy. Let's also, for the moment, disregard a major reason for the decline in Iraqi street violence: the cease-fire instituted and enforced by Muqtada al-Sadr (who, by the way, has reasonably suggested a popular referendum on the U.S. occupation - an idea that smacks far too much of democracy for the U.S. puppet masters; look how much trouble was caused when BushCo encouraged Palestinians to have a democratic election).

Let's try a thought experiment: Let's say that "the surge" does, indeed, bring about an enduring lessening of hostilities in Iraq. Let's also say - contrary to all evidence - that the current U.S.-installed Iraqi government gets its act together, cleans up its obscene corruption, and brings unity and peace to the divided country.

Yes, I know that all sounds hopelessly Pollyanna-ish, but stay with me for a bit.

What if everything works out as hoped by the most rose-colored-glasses-wearing neocons, and Iraq becomes a peaceful place? What's the best we could expect?

Well, an American puppet state sitting smack-dab in the middle of a multi-country culture that resents our presence and untoward influence, and that will continue to fight to remove us from their midst, that's what.

No wonder the Bush Administration once dubbed their "war on terror" as the Long War. For once, they knew what they were talking about.

If you've ever had any doubt about the colonial nature of the Iraq invasion, study the few facts that have leaked out about the status of forces agreement that's currently under discussion in the Green Zone (and about which, surprisingly, Nouri al-Maliki may actually be playing hardball). We're talking dozens of permanent U.S. bases, Air Force over-flight rights, immunity from prosecution for both soldiers and contractors, and the right to intervene militarily whenever we so choose - the whole nine colonial yards.

That's what the warriors and peacemakers in our presidential contest should be debating, not just whether "the surge" has been effective. They - we - should be debating about what the %$#@! we're doing in Iraq, how long we're going to be doing it, and what our long-range plans should be.

Ah, thinking about the costs and implications of long-range plans - not an American strong point. [back to top]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Over the weekend I attended the opening of San Francisco's new Contemporary Jewish Museum, which lies low behind a plaza across the street from Yerba Buena Gardens.

It's always a pleasure when a major new cultural institution opens in my home town - especially when, as is the case with the de Young Museum, it's an architectural gem. Unfortunately, the Contemporary Jewish Museum, designed by "starchitect" Daniel Libeskind, is an architectural letdown.

The scale of the Museum's much-vaunted lobby feels terribly off, what with a tremendously squished northern end, a gonna-get-old-really-soon abstracted collection of giant Hebrew characters on the tilted west wall, and an east wall that's partially given to over-muscled earthquake trussing that overwhelms the brick of the original façade, and partially to an off-white tile that gives its portion of the lobby the feeling of a far-too-tall shower stall. The lobby has an unpleasantly cramped feeling with concrete, tile, and that white character-scarred wall providing no sense of warmth or human scale.

This is all just my own under-educated opinion, of course, but the lobby gets even worst at its (wider) south end, where a welter of tricky, fussy angles comprise a low-ceilinged staircase, tiny balcony overlook, and gift shop.

Above the gift shop is the oddest room in the building, the “Yud” - a multi-windowed all-purpose room that seems to be designed for gatherings or free-standing installations. Its first exhibition is an audio work by John Zorn, though on opening day the crowds made it nigh-on inaudible.  The room’s sharply angled walls and ceiling are spotted with small diamond-shaped windows, randomly placed. It’s hard to accurately judge this room since it clearly was overwhelmed by the opening-day crowds, but it seemed off-balance: too tall for its floor space, and too “bright” - both acoustically and achromatically - for its intended use.  Dunno.

The two main galleries were, of course, quite crowded on the free opening day, but even with that excuse their sizes are disappointing.  The entire building is about 63,000 square feet; total main-gallery space is under 10,000. I’m ignorant as to what might be standard gallery/non-gallery space ratios, but the Museum's focus on lobby, gift shop, eating area ("restaurant" is overstated), and other non-gallery space over actual places to view art seems wrong.

The galleries are quite straightforward, without the fussy angularity of walls and ceilings distracting from their contents. The two exhibitions at opening are a William Steig retrospective - charming and thorough, if, well, just William Steig; and “In the Beginning: Artists Respond to Genesis,” which was spotty but satisfying. Personally, I admire the “new mythology” of Trenton Doyle Hancock, but I’m at a total loss as to why people find Matthew Ritchie of interest and value. I guess I'm just hopelessly provincial. Sigh...

Outside, the new plaza is a treat - but then, I’m a complete and total sucker for any sort of plaza or open space in an urban setting.  Still, this comfortable and spacious gathering place has a sweet little lawn and garden, a gentle fountain and pool, plenty of seating on subtly differentiated levels, and good, shadow-free sunshine. The homeless’ll love it.  

The Willis Polk-designed power-station wall that fronts the museum is as wonderfully stately and straightforward as it has been since it was rebuilt in 1907 after the great Earthquake and Fire. Especially charming are a quartet of cute made-of-icing cherubs above its secondary entrance. Libeskind’s blue-steel risings above and to the south of the Polk wall are either innocuous or silly - I haven’t yet decided.

All in all, as I mentioned above, the new Contemporary Jewish Museum is a disappointment. Not a hideous travesty as is the building that houses the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, but a letdown, nonetheless.

Ah, well, not every addition to San Francisco's cultural scene can be a home run.

June 19, 2008: Blog reader Jeanette Redensek responds:

"I perused the museum's own site to get a sense of how the building turned out (your photographs of the building in-use, with people inside and out are so much better, and so much more informative than the architecture-frozen-in-time crap that gets published).  My overwhelming perception of the building was rather a back-reading of the finished structure as symptomology:

The project took too long.
The clients couldn't make up their minds.
The architect loss interest.
Therefore, the architecture became less interesting.

[I refrain from beginning with the proposition, "Libeskind is a bad architect," because that would quell further analysis.]

Because the project took too long, too much of the money raised was spent on things other than the building.
Because the project took too long, and because too much of the money raised was spent on things other than the building, by the time it construction began, the design was nicked back and nicked back until it was smaller, tighter, cheaper, less interesting, less challenging, and in the long term, no doubt, less important as a museum space. (I shudder to imagine the offices.)

Before the architect lost interest, the architecture had become less interesting, because it was a smaller, cheaper, less committed version of several buildings the architect had already done.  The diminished funding and the timidity of the clients inevitably produced a slight twitch of something that might make someone's spine tingle, somewhere, sometime...

And so another opportunity to make the public better by making a better public building is squandered." [back to top]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(I spent most of last week in a lovely, sun-filled private room at a rather spartan hotel with amazingly attentive room service: the California Pacific Medical Center. Deftly intubated, I worked my way through a fascinatingly painful intestinal shut-down. All is better now, though it took the ol' brain a few days more than I had hoped to get back up to speed. In any case, I'm back. - Rik)

Remember George W. Bush? He may not be crowding the headlines these days, what with what I heard one man-on-the-street refer to as his "dead-duck status." But his policies are still very much with us, as are his lies and distortions.

He introduced one of the latter in his 2002 State of the Union address, in which he said of radicalized Muslims, "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

That canard has been repeated many times in the ensuing years; it has also been the target of many well-reasoned arguments to the contrary: that "they" don't hate our freedoms, they hate our policies.

But arguments, no matter how well-reasoned, are merely that: arguments. What are needed are facts - well-researched, well-documented, and well-analyzed. Which brings me to a slim volume I recently finished entitled Who Speaks for Islam? and subtitled "What a Billion Muslims Really Think."

While that subtitle is a classic example of a book editor's overstated puffery, the science behind it is solid. For this book, the folks at the Gallup World Poll organization conducted "tens of thousands" of in-depth, one-on-one interviews with Muslims in over 35 countries between 2001 and 2007. Rather than relying on self-styled experts and self-serving politicos, the Gallup guys 'n' gals went right to the source and actually asked Muslims what they think about terrorism, the U.S., their religious convictions, and more.

How novel: data-driven evidence...

While I highly recommend you pick up a copy of the book for yourself (it's a quick read; it took me one afternoon and evening), here are a few top-line data points that, among other things, prove that "they" don't hate us for our freedoms, but, instead, they hate us for our over-reaching neocolonial policies.

First, let's begin with American attitudes towards Muslims: According to recent polls, 44% of Americans think Muslims are "too extreme" in their religious beliefs; 22% of Americans wouldn't want a Muslim as a neighbor; and "less than half" of Americans believe that U.S. Muslims are "loyal" to the United States. Finally, when Americans were asked what they most admired about Muslim societies, the most frequent answer (32%) was "nothing."

Moving along to a few other topics, some with direct quotes from Who Speaks for Islam?:

Freedom of speech: "Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech."

Sharia law: The range of desire to have Sharia law be an influence on legislation is broad. For example, in Egypt, 70% of men and 62% of women want it to be the sole source of legislation, while in Iran those figures are 12% of men and 14% of women, and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women. By contrast, 46% of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source of legislation, while 9% believe it should be the only source. Oh, and that arch-enemy of ours, Iran? Well, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution - a number that's "almost identical" to those surveyed in Iran.

Women's rights: Asked whether women should have the same legal rights as men, substantial majorities agreed: 90% in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Lebanon; 85% in Iran, and 77% in Pakistan. Women's right to vote: 93% supported in Turkey, 90% in Bangladesh, 89% in Iran, and 87% in Indonesia. The right for women to hold any job for which they are qualified outside the home: Malaysia, Mauritania, and Lebanon, 90%; Egypt, 85%; Turkey, 86%

Sympathy for terrorists: "According to the Gallup poll, 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were 'completely' justified and view the United States unfavorably. Among those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were not justified ... 40% are pro-United states, but 60% view the United States unfavorably." Among Americans, 24% believe that "bombings and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "often or sometimes justified;" 6% of Americans think that such attacks are "completely justified," compared to 2% of Lebanese and Iranians and 4% or Saudi Arabians.

Socioeconomic status of "radicals:" Of the 7% who think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified, 67% have secondary or higher educations (versus 52% of the remaining 93% of respondents), 65% report having average or above-average incomes, and 64% report that their standard of living is getting better (versus 55% of the more-moderate respondents).

Attitudes toward the West: "When asked what they admire about the West, the politically radicalized and moderates mention these top three spontaneous responses: (1) technology; (2) the West's value system, hard work, self-responsibility, rule of law, cooperation, and (3) fair political systems, democracy, respect of human rights, freedom of speech, and gender equality. Contrary to popular belief that extremists are anti-democratic, a significantly higher percentage of the politically radicalized (50% versus 35% of moderates) say that 'moving toward greater governmental democracy' will foster progress in the Arab/Muslim world."

Attitudes toward the United States: A full 90% of the "politically radicalized" and 62% of the moderates express an "absolute dislike" of George W. Bush. Only 24% of Egyptians and Jordanians believe that the United States is serious about establishing democratic systems. The attributes most often associated with the United States were: ruthless (68%), scientifically and technologically advanced (68%), aggressive (66%), conceited (65%), and morally decadent (64%).

I could go on, but you get the picture - namely, that lumping all of Islam into one "radical" group and then demonizing that group isn't going to solve our cross-cultural problems - which are both real and growing.

I leave you to read the book - and, while you do, remember that another recent poll discovered that about 10% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Ponder the many meanings and ramifications of that bit of intelligence. [back to top]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -