I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

And this at a time when the US is being called on by the UN and judges to stop torturing, and when US private sector membership of trade unions stands at 7.8%. How much has the US government allocated to promote trade unionism in the US?

I've quoted it twice already, but here it is again:

"The whole logic of [Bush's] mid-east plan is that people really want freedom and democracy, and they've just been hijacked by theocrats and extremists. It's absolutely essential to him to make that distinction, and it was critical in selling military action there -- i.e., "once we get rid of extremists and corrupt governments, the bulk of the citizens will be relieved and just want to go about their lives." Again, methods aside: the general thrust there is better than this. Plenty of people will still believe lots of the same things that extremists do. But this is a long-term project. And I think we should commit to the spirit of the long-term project, if not the invasions -- which is that breaking down extremists demagogues and empowering people in the mid-East to participate fully in their own societies will lead to new generations for whom this kind of fundamentalism has no appeal. This is a big project, but it's the only thing that can work. Rehabilitation is the only option here, because you can't imprison or execute an entire culture."

Now, unless I'm misreading him, Nabsico is saying that we should commit to the spirit of the long-term project, if not the invasions... This is a big project, but it's the only thing that can work.

And why not? Did they not have elections, which on refelection, are as 'free' as ours?

well yeah.

but really, i don't think you'd find a lot of disagreement on that point here. all y'all accusing each other of secretly or implicitly or explicitly supporting bush or the "bush project" just kind of drives home the point that nobody here is really on board with it.

i've been quasi-arguing other points with nabisco on this thread -- tho i really agree w/him more than i disagree, despite the way debate tends to magnify the disagreements -- but i think reading him as being in any way an apologist for the neocon worldview is ka-razy.

So just for the record, here's you on January 22nd, when you said basically the same thing you're taking me to task for. Emphases mine, obviously. The topic was, generally speaking, things we consider "problems" in the cultures of the mideast:

We need to influence situations while they happen, not at some notional (and impossible) point in the future when all the relevant data is visible, and nobody has any vested interests any more.

It's perfectly liberal to make moral judgements about cultural-ideological blocs (which might indeed sometimes correspond with national or ethnic groups), and indeed it's a moral obligation at times. If we don't do this we can't fight the things we disagree with; we become political eunuchs.

In other words, you -- and I, and Bush -- agree that there are reasons we might do things to influence events in other cultures. Bush thinks one of those things is to invade other countries; you and I don't. So, umm ... could you stop picking at me? It is so, so aggravating.

you -- and I, and Bush -- agree that there are reasons we might do things to influence events in other cultures. Bush thinks one of those things is to invade other countries; you and I don't.

You seem to suggest that it's only the invasion we object to, though. I object to the whole project. Condi Rice's propaganda war and all.

I'm picking at you because you're a highly intelligent person and your opinions are respected here. So it's a major tragedy if you're allowed to become an apologist for the Bush regime and their appalling mistakes, especially the way they're currently creating extremism in the Middle East.

(Must go out now to buy a bullhorn. This is not a joke.)

Speaking of good ways to become a "politcal eunuch"...

if liberals have to respond at all to bush's "democracy/human rights" spiel, i'd say they (we) should just pretend to take it at face value and say, ok, we want to promote human rights, good. now here's how we should go about it...

Also, for everyone else, two points of order:

(1) It's possible to explain someone else's argument without endorsing it. This is what I did in the paragraph Momus is so galled by: the question was why Bush would disapprove of the cartoons, and the answer was that it's fundamental to his entire project to argue that the entire population of the mideast is just gagging to be "liberated" into western culture and democracy.

(2) It's not inherently bad to agree with Bush about things, for god's sake. For instance, I'm pretty sure Bush and I are both against child abuse; it's cool, man. I think I've been pretty clear on here that I don't go for Bush's methods in this instance, and I disagree with his contentions concerning all the gagging-for-democracy stuff. But I'm sure he and I have at least a few shared values in terms of how we'd prefer the mideast to look, and one of those is probably that we'd like people to have a voice in their own governments. And given that there are lots of people in the mideast who feel the same way, I do think it's a worthwhile project to try and "influence situations while they happen" and "fight the things we disagree with" by encouraging those who share our values.

One of Momus's sub-issues appears to be a worry that the U.S. is ill-suited to do that encouraging, because it so often trends in the direction of overwhelming force (whether military or not). He's quite right about this; it's a huge concern, and one I trust Bush not at all to navigate properly. In fact, I think I'm more concerned about it than Momus evidently was as of January 22nd, when he didn't think we should put such things off until "nobody has any vested interests any more."

Possibly I'm just a dumb American, though, because he's been picking at me since around that day, and it's still totally beyond me what his issue is. Thankfully, he kind of explains it upthread. He has some kind of notion he wants to write about, and he'll do whatever it takes to make me disagree with him about it, because it "helps him to define where he stands on things he's still thinking through."

xpost

You seem to suggest that it's only the invasion we object to, though. -- No I don't. I have not yet offered a list of methods I object to. I have not yet offered a list of methods I endorse. I "seem to suggest" = your reading comprehension is staggeringly poor.

And lordy lord, Momus, you realize calling me "an apologist for the Bush regime" doesn't actually make me one, right?

"I think we should commit to the spirit of the long-term project, if not the invasions -- which is that breaking down extremists demagogues and empowering people in the mid-East to participate fully in their own societies will lead to new generations for whom this kind of fundamentalism has no appeal. This is a big project, but it's the only thing that can work."

...is saying the Bush approach is both right and the only one that will work.

And it's wrong and not working.

What I meant, gypsy, and it's not as if nab needs any help here, is that I can agree with the gist of his propaganda without necessarily agreeing with his actions, the devil being in the details etc...

Can I just say, that were this a FAP, this is the point where I would buy you both a drink and vocally mention how fetching X's breasts were.

So when you say "it's the only thing that can work" you don't mean it's the only thing that can work?

right, yeah. i can agree with the gist of his propaganda without thinking he even believes it, or understands what he's saying when he talks about democracy and human rights. he's framing the discussion in fundamentally liberal terms, which i think is something that actual liberals can take advantage of. theoretically. and i think it's telling and to some degree hopeful that even the most ideologically anti-liberal government in american history feels compelled to put a liberal gloss on its international projects.

which is not to say that bush & co. haven't done a great deal of damage to the prospects of actual liberalization. as momus notes (and i don't think nabisco disagrees with, but i can't really tell what that argument's supposed to be about), bush-cheney unilateralism has strengthened extremists and provoked reactionaries across the board. that they've done it in the name of "democracy" has not done a lot of credit to that word, and so any future american administration more genuinely interested in global liberalization is going to have to do a lot of rehabilitation.

For the reading-impaired among us, I'll break down exactly what that sentence says and means. I have serious misgivings about that, since it just means offering Momus more words to willfully misinterpret, but what the hell. Here is what the sentence says:

"We should commit to the spirit of the long-term project" -- and note use of word "spirit" -- means we should try to have a positive influence on the politics and culture of the mideast. That's the "spirit" on which I and Bush and you, Momus (as of January 22nd) agreed -- i.e., it means the same thing as "influencing situations as they happen."

The sentence goes on to specify two elements of how we might try to have that positive influence. One is "breaking down extremist demagogues," though what methods we might use to accomplish that aren't spelled out. "Break down extremist demagogues" means basically the same thing as "fight the things we disagree with," which you, Momus, were very keen on, as of January 22nd. You and I seem to agree wholeheartedly that Bush's methods are not accomplishing this, and that in fact they seem to be encouraging and empowering extremist demagogues. The other suggestion is to "empower people in the mid-East to participate fully in their own societies." Again, no specific methods of doing this are mentioned. In fact, you'll notice that the word "democracy" isn't even mentioned, for many of the same reasons you keep harping on about here -- just that people need to be able to participate in their own societies and governments. You want desperately to claim that this is Bush rhetoric, which is kind of hilarious: you might just as well say it's terrorist rhetoric, given that they, and many of their sympathizers, are equally interested in participating in their nations' politics.

So, once again: ha, no, dude!

"Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers.

...He said the people’s religious convictions should be respected at all costs and the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths. He said the media could criticise any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths."

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article345947.ece

As always, appeasement of the intolerant doesn't placate, it just leads to ever greater demands.

Meat of the story:
The cartoon was not part of the series, first published by a Danish newspaper last fall and since widely reprinted, that has led to violent protests in many parts of the Muslim world. The Russian illustration portrays Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Moses and Buddha gathered around a television screen showing two groups going into battle.

"We never taught them to do that," the caption says.

And the paper was shut down.

Russian Paper Ordered Closed Over Religious Cartoon
By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer

MOSCOW — A city-owned newspaper in Volgograd has been ordered closed after publishing a cartoon depicting the leaders of the four major religions that illustrated an article intended as an appeal against racism, authorities said Friday.

Facing complaints from the pro-Kremlin United Russia Party and Islamic organizations over the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, the city administration ordered the closure of Gorodskiye Vesti and the municipal corporation that publishes it to prevent religious "hostilities" and to "stop the abuse of freedom of mass information."

The cartoon was not part of the series, first published by a Danish newspaper last fall and since widely reprinted, that has led to violent protests in many parts of the Muslim world. The Russian illustration portrays Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Moses and Buddha gathered around a television screen showing two groups going into battle.

"We never taught them to do that," the caption says.

Although newspapers have been shut down and editors fired in connection with the cartoon controversy in places as diverse as the Middle East and Malaysia, the Russian newspaper appeared to be the first closure of a paper in a nation without a Muslim majority. Russia has about 20 million Muslims, about 15% of the population.

"It's a disgrace for Russia," Igor Yakovenko, general secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, said of the order to close the paper.

"What's important here is that no person of faith, no Muslim, voiced any indignation about this immediately after the publication, as was the case with the Danish newspaper," he said. "It turned out that the most sensitive and vulnerable Muslim souls in Russia were the prosecutor general's office, the parliament and the Public Chamber."

Islamic organizations launched written protests only after Russian government officials decided to open an inquiry, he maintained, though several Muslim leaders denied they were influenced by the government.

Gorodskiye Vesti staff members said Friday that editor Tatiana Kaminskaya, who has apologized, was at home due to illness. Irina Sidelnikova, a columnist with the paper, said in a telephone interview that the staff planned to publish an edition today and would appeal to subscribers for support.

"This has been an emotional reaction, and I hope common sense will prevail. We are being swept away by this huge wave spreading around the globe," said Sidelnikova. "Today, all our phone lines are hot with readers calling us and expressing their support. There has not been a single negative response."

Acting city administrator A.O. Doronin gave the newspaper, which reaches 12,000 readers in the southwestern city once known as Stalingrad, one month in which to comply with the closure order. Analysts said many staffers might keep their jobs if the city elects to open a newspaper under another name.

Russian media reported that it was United Russia's branch in Volgograd that initiated the campaign against the newspaper. But Kamilzhan Kalandarov, the leader of the Muslim human rights organization Al Khak, had announced this week that the organization would push to have the newspaper's license revoked. Kalandarov is a member of the Public Chamber, a new quasi-official civic advisory panel designed to broaden public input in the government.

"When the Danish newspaper first ran the caricatures, we appealed to people of faith not to respond to this, not to take the bait. We asked people not to go out into the streets, not to react violently," Kalandarov said in a telephone interview. "I never expected that this provocation would be repeated in the Russian press."

Kalandarov added, "It's a shame that the efforts of patriotically inclined Muslims have gone to waste, and all our attempts to preserve peace and harmony can be crossed out with one stroke of a pen."The Russian Council of Muftis said this week that the cartoon in the Volograd newspaper was "regarded with aversion by Muslims."

Several senior Russian officials also criticized its publication. "These clumsy moves which provoked the public outcry, to put it mildly, in the West must not be repeated, must be prevented in our country," Culture Minister Alexander Sokolov said in remarks carried on NTV.

But in an environment of shrinking press freedom in Russia, journalist Yakovenko said he believed officials were motivated as much by politics as cultural sensitivity. "One motive was to use the situation to scare the media a bit, and to put them under even harsher control," the union chief said.

Volgograd, a city of about 1.1 million on the Volga River, has had a substantial increase in ethnically motivated violence in the last two years. Sidelnikova said the article and cartoon were an attempt to urge an end to religious hatred, not incite it.

"The sense of the drawing," she said, "was that none of the main religions teach people to attack each other, to fight among themselves."

muslims in Pakistan protest gratuitously offensive cartoons.

However, I did see where Momus inferred from his reading that Nasisco supported a particular position and therefore imputed it to him, and then I saw where Nasicsco consequently repudiated this position in the clearest possible terms, after which I saw where Momus continued to impute this position to Nabisco, leaving me no choice but to believe Momus was 1) utterly oblivious, or 2) mentally incapable, or 3) acting in bad faith.

No matter which of these is operative, any combination of them makes the rest of what Momus has to say about Nabisco, or his ideas, or his positions presumptively worthless. So, I left off reading them.