Friday, August 06, 2004

All We Are Saying Is, Give Creative Tasks a Chance

Why do terrorists blow stuff up, and what might we do to stop them? The answers to these tough questions have been discovered by an expert on terrorism at our very own alma mater, the University of Missouri at Columbia.

First, why do they blow stuff up:

“People struggle to defend their beliefs to protect themselves from anxiety over their own mortality,” Assistant Professor of Psychology Jamie Arndt said.
People are afraid of dying, you see, and so naturally they lash out at other belief systems to stave off their anxiety about visits from the Grim Reaper. For example, the 9/11 hijackers were so scared of dying that they flew planes into buildings in order to stave off ... Oh wait--never mind.
“We may see this phenomenon, understood through Terror Management Theory (TMT), in a variety of beliefs, including religion, ethnicity, political preferences and even through sports team preferences. People can react to those ‘world view’ threats with prejudice, which can lead us to the world conflicts we find today.”
Sports team preferences? When was the last time a Yankees fan flew an airplane into a building or blew something up because somebody else was a Mets fan? Note how trivial Arndt's point is: people often don't like challenges to their beliefs, and some of them resort to violence. The only interesting claim is that they do so as a way to cope with anxiety about death, but this seems to be false, if not absurd, on the face of it. Islamic terrorists don't fit the hypothesis. They are quite willing to martyr themselves in hopes of an afterlife of conjugal bliss with comely virgins. Anxiety about their mortality isn't much of a motivator for them; killing jews and Americans is what drives them.

Second, what do we do about terrorism?

According to Arndt, one key to effective terror management is self esteem, and those with a higher self worth, particularly people whose self esteem comes from within and is not based on accomplishing certain goals, are less likely to attack people who are different.
I used to mock the self-esteem movement by joking that self-esteem advocates think that all Hitler needed was a hug. Little did I know that I wouldn't be far from the truth. Although to be fair, Arndt doesn't think that terrorists need hugs. Don't be silly. They need creative tasks:
“With higher self esteem, people have a stronger shield and are better able to repel the anxiety that comes with understanding their own mortality,” Arndt said. “We, and others, also have explored creative engagement and tolerance and found that giving people creative tasks may facilitate a more open-minded outlook.”
A little macrame perhaps. Some basket-weaving. Learn how to make those seasonal marshmallow treats shaped like bunnies and baby chicks.
OSAMA: You know, Mohammed, now that I am making sugary marshmallow treats shaped like bunnies and baby chicks, I don't want to kill Americans and jews anymore.

MOHAMMED: Neither do I! I want the infidels to taste the sugary goodness of my treats rather than the cold steel of Allah's blade.

OSAMA: And you know what else? I like me now, I really, really like me.

MOHAMMED: And I like me! And for no good reason, either!

I can think of a few creative tasks for the terrorists of the world.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

iBook and Safari Test

I've gone over to the Mac side, so this post is just to see if I can use Safari and my Apple iBook to post messages.

We're Coming Back

Ernie and I have not updated in quite some time, but I've been itchin' to blog again. Of course, I don't know if anyone still reads Saturn, but if you do, stay tuned.

Saturday, February 14, 2004

A Reply to Professor Brandon's Defense

Professor Brandon, Serious and mature discussion of an issue does not involve implying that one's opponents are "stupid," let alone by committing a gross logical fallacy (the distributive fallacy of composition [1]) as you do in your seriously intentioned "joke."

The graver fallacy that you're committing here is "red herring." The subject of this debate is not academic indoctrination (that is merely a potential negative consequence of what is being discussed), but diversity in the faculty being regarded as a -inherently- good thing for the academy, where -racial- diversity is seen to be a positive goal to be achieved while -intellectual- diversity is eschewed.* In its most gross and offensive form, this attitude assumes that diversity of skin color EQUALS diversity of thought, which is a patently racist attitude. Happily, your fallacious statements put you out of that class of arguers, since, for you, diversity of thought is "stupid" for "white" academics as well.

Finally, your comparison of the sciences and the humanities is fallacious on categorical grounds. For the sake of argument, I'll consider your red herring. While ideological indoctrination is not unknown in science (as your erstwhile colleagues in the English Department used to "bloviate" about), the subject matter of mathematics and its method is not a subject of debate -within its own discipline.- A putative Lysenko of mathematics would be put down by his own leftist "allies" as a destructive influence.

The same is not true in those disciplines which deal with the humanities, where discussions of values and political and philosophical positions have precedence. It is there that a diversity of views in the faculty about the pertinent aspects of the disciplines would have prima facie desirability. This is the substantive point at issue.

Yours truly,

Ernest Brown

(1) http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/distributive.asp

* It has to be noted here that Horowitz and company are -not- arguing that since there is a lack of intellectual diversity on campus, there should be no racial diversity either. Rather, their argument is that the primary purpose of the academy is to inculcate ideas and critical thinking skills, and thus intellectual diversity exemplified by qualified faculty members of all races, creeds and beliefs should be the aim of academia.

Correction to my original post there, I am currently not in grad school, but I plan to return this fall.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

"History's greatest monster"-it's not a joke

The Pharisee from Plains vents his anti-Semitism openly in the N.Y. Times (registration required)

"Mr. Carter, when asked in an interview whether the absence of progress so many years after Camp David was bittersweet for him, replied, "It's not bittersweet, just sweet."

But then his frustration over twists in history and missed opportunities spilled out. "The bitterness comes from the fact that the top leaders have not been willing to move with this degree of effort," he said.

Mr. Carter, defeated in his quest for re-election by Ronald Reagan in 1980, speculated that "had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a -final solution."- (endquote)

What would that "final solution" have entailed?

From Jay Nordlinger's article "You Didn’t Ask for It, You Got It: Carterpalooza!" Arabs are heavy-duty funders of the Carter Center, and they get a lot for their money.

No one quite realizes just how passionately anti-Israel Carter is. William Safire has reported that Cyrus Vance acknowledged that, if he had had a second term, Carter would have sold Israel down the river. In the 1990s, Carter became quite close to Yasser Arafat. After the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia was mad at Arafat, because the PLO chief had sided with Saddam Hussein. So Arafat asked Carter to fly to Riyadh to smooth things over with the princes and restore Saudi funding to him — which Carter did.

You who read Impromptus have heard me say: When I was growing up, I perceived the Arab-Israeli conflict as a great civil-rights drama. The white oppressors were the Israelis, and the black sufferers and innocents were the Arabs, in particular the Palestinians. Menachem Begin, I thought, was George C. Wallace, and his defense minister, Ariel Sharon, was Bull Connor. (This was in the early ’80s.)

Well, blow me down. I had never heard anybody else — a soul — say anything like this. But here is Carter, to Douglas Brinkley, Carter’s biographer and analyst: “The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham.”

The Carter-Nordlinger axis rides again (but, hang on, I’ve changed my mind — had “an evolution of thought,” as we say).

In The Unfinished Presidency, Brinkley writes, “There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat.” The former president “felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition with unremitting sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, decade after decade.” Neat, huh?

At their first meeting — in 1990 — Carter boasted of his toughness toward Israel, assuring Arafat at one point, “. . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis.” Arafat, for his part, railed against the Reagan administration and its alleged “betrayals.” Rosalynn Carter, taking notes for her husband, interjected, “You don’t have to convince us!” Brinkley records that this “elicited gales of laughter all round.” Carter himself, according to Brinkley, “agreed that the Reagan administration was not renowned as promise keepers” (this, to Arafat).

If you are sickened by the thought of a former U.S. president and a former First Lady of the United States and the career terrorist Yasser Arafat all sitting around bashing Ronald Reagan . . . you and I think alike.

The fact that they found it amusing to laugh it up with the man who planned the assassination of a U.S. ambassador says everything that you need to know about the filthy Uriah Heep that once was a U.S. President. Although he falsely claims that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a hero of his, Carter just keeps urinating and projectile vomiting on the memory and legacy of the great anti-Nazi theologian.

UPDATE: Let me make this point, while I doubt (hope?) that Jimmy the Dhimmi is not actually advocating genocide, I believe that he DELIBERATELY used the term "final solution" with regard to Israel out of the foulness and evil of his heart to cause pain and anger in those who support the Israeli right to exist as a nation. It's a more "refined" version of the Loony Liberal/Left's filthy "Zionazi" libel. Just to make it clear that I am not "cherry-picking," I include some commentary from one of Jimmy's fellow Democrats:

Jimmy Carter Still Doesn't Understand Israel Ed Koch August 3, 2001 Newsday

FORMER President Jimmy Carter betrayed his ongoing hostility toward Israel when he criticized President George W. Bush's policy on the Mideast in a newspaper interview last week.

"My policy, as was all the other presidents' until Clinton, was that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were both illegal and an obstacle to peace....George Sr. took a very strong position on that issue, as did I," Carter said.

In 1980, the United States supported a UN Security Council resolution denouncing Israel for its "occupation" of East Jerusalem, which was won in the 1967 war. Heading into a tough national election against Ronald Reagan and desperate to keep the Jewish vote he had alienated, Carter asked that I come to the White House. At lunch, Carter told me he had been unaware of the language in the UN resolution regarding Jerusalem and asked if I could help reassure his Jewish supporters.

"Mr. President," I said, "the Jews for 2,000 years have had people sell them out. There isn't a country on the world's face today except for the United States that hasn't at one point cast its Jews out. When Shakespeare wrote 'The Merchant of Venice,' there wasn't a Jew in England. The Jews had been expelled 300 years before." "I didn't know that," he said.

"And what they see, Mr. President, is that in the one country which has consistently given them support, the support has eroded." I suggested he hold a press conference and take questions. In his statement, Carter called the Security Council vote "a genuine mistake" due to a "breakdown in communications." He blamed his UN ambassador, Donald McHenry, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance for not keeping him informed. Indeed, McHenry later said he read the language on Jerusalem to the president before the vote.

Carter should have known the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza are not illegal under international law. They are designated by the U.S. State Department as simply "impediments to peace." In any ultimate peace settlement, they are bargaining chips. The Israeli government maintains that, since Jordan never had legal sovereignty over the West Bank, and Egypt never had legal sovereignty in Gaza, these areas are not "occupied territories" under international law. Further, Israel retained control over them for self-defense.

As we got closer to the general election, Carter needed me to campaign in the Florida condos where many Jewish retirees lived. I told Carter's emissary, Hamilton Jordan, if the president wanted my help, he would have to announce that future UN resolutions on Israel were to be even- handed or they would be vetoed. The next day, the president issued a statement on U.S. policy toward Israel: "We will withdraw from the Assembly if Israel is expelled. We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Henceforth, flawed resolutions on Israel at the United Nations will be vetoed, not simply abstained on. We will pledge not to sell Saudi Arabia bomb racks for its F-15 planes." There is an ongoing effort by Saudi Arabia's supporters and other Arab nations to change the U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel, making it more favorable to the Arab states and Palestinians in exchange for oil, commercial contracts and military alliances. Leading the charge are former Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush. The elder Bush called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, a vocal critic of the current Bush administration's support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"His heart is in the right place," the elder Bush reportedly said of his son, adding that the president was "going to do the right thing." To George W. Bush's credit, he has resisted his father's importuning to turn against Israel.

The Israeli government will and must protect the security of its people, even in the face of condemnation from former presidents and bystander nations who covet Arab oil and contracts.

In 1980, I agreed to campaign for Carter. Reporters asked why, in view of his record on Israel, I was in Miami on his behalf. "He's changed his position," I said.

"Why do you believe him?" a reporter asked me. "If he lied to me, he should rot in hell," I replied.

That afternoon's New York Post carried my warning on its front page. Carter lied then and he lies now. If there is a God with memory, and I believe there is, Jimmy Carter will find it hot down there.

Amen to that, Ed.

Amen to that...

Monday, November 03, 2003

The Reason for Inexcusable Casualties

Fred Kaplan at Slate posted a chilling story Friday which served as a grim prophecy of yesterday's highly avoidable shoot-down. For now, I'll just say that the prejudice against human intelligence gathering (HUMINT) in both the armed forces AND the CIA in favor of signal intelligence (SIGINT) is going to get more people killed.

Sunday, November 02, 2003

Inexcusable Casualties

Rantburg has news and commentary on the Chinook shootdown near Fallujah. My giant, economy-sized question is -why- are unescorted, thin-skinned helis like Chinooks flying over the Iraqi "bandit country" during a state of high terror alert? The Army needs to get the brass's heads out of their collective fundaments and start reading the Marine's "Little War" manual instanter, or there will be more needless deaths like this.

Sunday, September 14, 2003

Sweden puts thumbs down on the Euro, thanks France!

The Swedish electorate has voted to reject the Euro, due in no small part to France's EU scofflawry. It's a good blow for freedom against the Kafkaesque hellhole bureaucracy that the Union represents, and one can only hope that it is the first step in destroying that abominable institution.