Michael Palin on "Has the World Changed?"

This webpage was brought up on a conversation over at Street Prophets, and even though it's old (originally published October 11, 2001), this particular quotation by Michael Palin (of Monty Python and travel documentary fame) is still very much relevant today, especially on the need for people not to be so Islamophobic and xenophobic. Sadly, a lot of people haven't listened to Palin's advice.

It's certainly widened our horizons and forced a lot of people to find out more about in the hope of understanding a part of the world they know very little about. What I've read and heard since 11 September does encourage me in one way - the idea of the monolithic and slightly obscure Muslim world has been broken down and people are having to learn more and understand more about Islam, and the Muslims and that's a good thing because it is ignorance that causes problems. As someone who has traveled a lot, I'm only beginning to learn about the differences in cultures and religions - there's a tendency to forget that there are many different opinions and views across the worlds. We can't be an island, however much we want to and we need to not see different religions as a threat and not dismiss foreign countries as somewhere else.

John Gray: A Shattering Moment in America's Fall From Power

I thought I'd take a few minutes to write up some commentary about John Gray's essay that I posted a few days ago.

In fact, if there is any period of history that recent American history reminds me of, it is that of Louis XIV:

Louis' numerous wars effectively bankrupted the State (though it must also be said that France was able to recover in a matter of years), forcing him to incur large State debts from various financiers and to levy higher taxes on the peasants as the nobility and clergy had exemption from paying these taxes and contributing to public funds. Yet, it must be emphasized that it was the State and not the country which was impoverished.

When John McCain said on September 14th that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," there is some small truth to that. The ability of the American economy to rebound, pay off its debts, repair its infrastructure, and put its people back to work is strong. But as John Gray points out in his essay, the United States' ability to influence other governments has weakened dramatically. A creditor nation holding the debt of a debtor nation is like a leash on a dog: the creditor nation limits the ability of the debtor nation to do what it wants. The U.S. has long practiced this tactic to its own benefits over the decades (I wrote about this in a term paper when I was working on my MBA), but now a number of nations either have the potential to use the leash on the U.S. (e.g., China and Russia) or feel emboldened to thumb their noses at America (e.g., Venezuela).

The only way out of this situation is for America to pay their debts through lower government spending and (much) higher taxes, and to reverse its current accounts balance from a negative into a positive. "Declaring bankruptcy" by defaulting on its debt is not an option. That, in fact, would be a death sentence for the Republic. America must humble itself by reforming the government and financial sectors away from its predator state greed. This "humbling" is going to be extremely painful economically and politically, but it must be done; the alternative - other nations leading the U.S. where they want America to go - will be even more painful.

From The Guardian:

Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.

You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity. Yet the setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalization of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy. China in particular was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are currently going bust. How symbolic yesterday that Chinese astronauts take a spacewalk while the US Treasury Secretary is on his knees.

Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its over-stretched military commitments. Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future.

Which version of the bail out of American financial institutions cobbled up by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is finally adopted is less important than what the bail out means for America's position in the world. The populist rant about greedy banks that is being loudly ventilated in Congress is a distraction from the true causes of the crisis. The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment that these same American legislators created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the present mess.

In present circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however, will be that America will be even more starkly dependent on the world's new rising powers. The federal government is racking up even larger borrowings, which its creditors may rightly fear will never be repaid. It may well be tempted to inflate these debts away in a surge of inflation that would leave foreign investors with hefty losses. In these circumstances, will the governments of countries that buy large quantities of American bonds, China, the Gulf States and Russia, for example, be ready to continue supporting the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency? Or will these countries see this as an opportunity to tilt the balance of economic power further in their favor? Either way, the control of events is no longer in American hands.

The fate of empires is very often sealed by the interaction of war and debt. That was true of the British Empire, whose finances deteriorated from the First World War onwards, and of the Soviet Union. Defeat in Afghanistan and the economic burden of trying to respond to Reagan's technically flawed but politically extremely effective Star Wars program were vital factors in triggering the Soviet collapse. Despite its insistent exceptionalism, America is no different. The Iraq War and the credit bubble have fatally undermined America's economic primacy. The US will continue to be the world's largest economy for a while longer, but it will be the new rising powers that, once the crisis is over, buy up what remains intact in the wreckage of America's financial system.

There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling that is going on in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the last 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire has imploded.While the impact of the collapse will be felt everywhere, the market economies that resisted American-style deregulation will best weather the storm. Britain, which has turned itself into a gigantic hedge fund, but of a kind that lacks the ability to profit from a downturn, is likely to be especially badly hit.

The irony of the post-Cold War period is that the fall of communism was followed by the rise of another utopian ideology. In American and Britain, and to a lesser extent other Western countries, a type of market fundamentalism became the guiding philosophy. The collapse of American power that is underway is the predictable upshot. Like the Soviet collapse, it will have large geopolitical repercussions. An enfeebled economy cannot support America's over-extended military commitments for much longer. Retrenchment is inevitable and it is unlikely to be gradual or well planned.

Meltdowns on the scale we are seeing are not slow-motion events. They are swift and chaotic, with rapidly spreading side-effects. Consider Iraq. The success of the surge, which has been achieved by bribing the Sunnis, while acquiescing in ongoing ethnic cleansing, has produced a condition of relative peace in parts of the country. How long will this last, given that America's current level of expenditure on the war can no longer be sustained?

An American retreat from Iraq will leave Iran the regional victor. How will Saudi Arabia respond? Will military action to forestall Iran acquiring nuclear weapons be less or more likely? China's rulers have so far been silent during the unfolding crisis. Will America's weakness embolden them to assert China's power or will China continue its cautious policy of 'peaceful rise'? At present, none of these questions can be answered with any confidence. What is evident is that power is leaking from the US at an accelerating rate. Georgia showed Russia redrawing the geopolitical map, with America an impotent spectator.

Outside the US, most people have long accepted that the development of new economies that goes with globalization will undermine America's central position in the world. They imagined that this would be a change in America's comparative standing, taking place incrementally over several decades or generations. Today, that looks an increasingly unrealistic assumption.

Having created the conditions that produced history's biggest bubble, America's political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers the country now faces. Mired in their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape.

HT: Juan Cole

Psychopathic American Politics, Giuliani-Style

Personally, I don't think I could ever vote for any Republican ever again. Not even for a dog catcher's position. Republicans have shown that they can't be trusted to run any administration. They lack American values.

And then there's Rudy Giuliani.

The Guardian has produced a video that intersperses clips from a rally for Giuliani in someone's home in Manchester, New Hampshire with clips from an interview with Giuliani's biographer, Wayne Barrett, who's ... shall we say ... less than impressed with him.

What immediately caught the attention of other people (e.g., Crooks & Liars) was a comment made by John Deady, co-chair for New Hampshire’s Veterans for Rudy:

...(Rudy Giuliani has) the knowledge and judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history. And that is the rise of the Muslims. And make no mistake about it, this hasn’t happened for a thousand years. These people are very, very dedicated. They’re also very smart, in their own way. And we need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people ‘til we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or in other words, get rid of them.

While Deady's words are certainly ignorant and offensive, another man interviewed in the video comes out as saying (at the 3:15 mark of the Guardian video), "You have to say, 'Enough with this; we're going to protect what is ours. If it means we got to shoot you in the head, so be it.'"

Yeah, that's going to win hearts and minds, all right. Welcome to psychopathic American politics, Giuliani-style.

Update: According to Faux News, John Deady has resigned from the Giuliani campaign after making his Islamophobic comments:

Official Statement from Rudy Giuliani New Hampshire Chairman Wayne Semprini:

“Mr. Deady offered his resignation from his volunteer position in the campaign and I accepted his resignation.”

Karen Armstrong: An Inability to Tolerate Islam Contradicts Western Values

Karen Armstrong has written a recent article for The Guardian entitled, "An Inability to Tolerate Islam Contradicts Western Values" (published July 21st). The article suggests two problems: a lack of self-confidence on the part of some Muslims who are unable to cope with certain comments and criticisms (true, of course, to a degree), and a lack of tolerance - a hypocrisy - on the part of the West to be able to tolerate and respect Islam and Muslims, through Islamophobic commentary and by trying to deny Muslims the ability to worship in their own buildings (e.g., the east London "mega-mosque").

Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides.

In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarized world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.

Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardized social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolize the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernization learn to accommodate one another.

It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.

Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his "Comment is Free" piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.

Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

"It's a Glory for All Muslim Women!"

Back in September 2005, I began writing several posts about the controversy surrounding Sania Mirza and her clothing on the tennis court. In the comments to one of those posts, I began discussing whether women tennis players would be hampered if they wore, say, sweat pants on the tennis court, comparing the issue to baseball players who wear both pants and long-sleeved shirts as part of their uniform. My conclusion then was that, no, both men and women playing tennis really wouldn't have their performance negatively affected by wearing more modest clothing.

Enter Ruqaya Al Ghasara, a 24-year-old Bahraini sprinter who took the gold in the Women's 200m and the bronze in the Women's 100m sprints at the Asian Games, currently playing in Doha, Qatar. Ruqaya is different from most sprinters, though, in that she's an observant Muslim and won while having covered her legs, arms and hair.

The debate whether Muslim women can succeed at high-profile track and field competitions without compromising their beliefs on attire may have been buried for good at the Khalifa Stadium yesterday [December 11] when Bahrain’s Ruqaya al-Ghasara sped to a spectacular 200m gold at the Asian Games. “It’s a glory for all Muslim women,” she declared after crossing the finish in 23.19 seconds, adding an extra emotional dimension to her achievement by falling to her knees and kissing the turf.

It marked the first time in the history of the Asian games that a Muslim woman kitted in a full tracksuit and a hijab has won a track gold medal and that too in the draining 200m sprint which calls for a tremendous burst of energy and mental resolve.

"I want to say I'm very thankful for being a Muslim; it's a blessing," said the sports management student. "Wearing conservative clothes has encouraged me. Wearing a veil proves that Muslim women face no obstacles and encourages them to participate in sport."

"Wearing traditional Muslim dress has encouraged me. It's not an obstacle – quite the opposite. Wearing the hijab shows that there are no obstacles. I've set my best times wearing the hijab and even qualified for Osaka in it," she said, referring to the Japanese city which is hosting next year's world championships."

Congratulations, Ruqaya!

Sources:
Ruqaya Steals the Thunder
Veil No Bar to Glory for Muslim Women Says Doha Champion
True to Her Faith

More Reactions to the Danish Cartoons

More reactions around the blogosphere (and elsewhere) to the Danish cartoons (and a few of my comments):

"My opinion is pretty much the same as anybody’s… 'Cause and effect (said in the Monica Belluci Matrix Voice), my love.' Yeah, call it freedom of speech if you want, I call it freedom of speech to say something racist and then hide behind your gauche caviar/champagne liberal selves. I mean, at least Jean Marie Le Pen comes out and says it. He’s my type of racist. Don’t talk about how ignorant you are about Islam, how you hate Muslims and how politically aware your cartoon is, and then call it freedom of speech."
-- Dictator Princess [Note: I added the links to the above post.]

----------

"I don’t agree with the actions of some of my Muslim brothers who resorted to burning Danish flags and pillage the Danish embassies throughout the Muslim world. We are much better than that. We shouldn’t stoop to the level of those blasphemous and ignorant pigs and [pardon my French] assholes who drew those abhorable cartoons in their portrayal of the Prophet (P) as a 'terrorist'. Of course what we object is not merely their stigmatisation of Islam as a 'terrorist' religion, but the fact that they even dared to draw a caricature of the Prophet (P) in the first place!

"If they can stake a claim to 'free speech', then we Muslims too can do the same and through peaceful means. By all means, be outraged at this provocation. Hold demonstrations and carry placards denouncing their actions. Boycott their goods and urge others to do the same. These are within our rights and conforms to 'their' standards of freedom of speech and expression. But we must remember never, ever resort to violence such as pillaging or flag-burnings which can be interpreted as a vindication of their claim.

"Do not stoop to their level of hatred."
-- MENJ

----------

"Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

"The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

...

"Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: 'I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.'"
-- The Guardian: Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

----------

"It's said that the Danish newspaper has apologized, but what I saw was a sort of, 'Sorry if you got yourselves all offended, but we're not sorry that we printed the cartoons'. I saw the 'culture' Editor, Fleming (or Flemming) Rose on BBC's Hardtalk and on a fairly long interview on CNN International. He was not at all apologetic, and when asked if he was happy that other European papers were also publishing the cartoons, he said, 'I'm not dissatisfied'. When asked if he had learned anything, or whether he would make a different decision if he had the chance again, he said he couldn't answer a hypothetical question but his comments then made clear that he would do it again.

"Also, I'd like to know more about the children's book that started all the controversy. It's been portrayed as a nice, educational book by an author who wanted Danish children to learn about Muslims. But then I saw pictures from the book, and they seemed to be sort of a checklist of the negative points used by Islam-bashers and/or Orientalists to demonize the Prophet (peace be upon him). Then I saw some blogs that said the author wrote the book after his children had been intimidated by Muslim children, and it was definitely a negative portrayal, which puts things in a different light."
-- Ann's comment on IJB's post, "Cartoon controversy"

----------

"On CNN (TV, not the website), they reported that JP is unrepentant regarding the publication of the cartoons, which obviously negates any "apology" that they've made.

"Personally, I'm hoping that all these businesses and governments that have suffered on JP's behalf will take the American approach and sue the bastards for all of their losses. Bankruptcy would be the best revenge."
-- My comment on IJB's post, "JP wouldn't lampoon another prophet..."

----------

Birthe Rønn Hornbech (as translated by Svend White):

"It goes without saying that Muslims in Denmark must also accept that they've come to a country with freedom of expression. It goes without saying that a country with freedom of religion is also a country with freedom to critique religion. But drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his turban obviously has nothing to do with serious religious critiques.

"We didn't get freedom of expression to offend each other merely for the sake of offending others. [...]Far too often, [the invocation of] freedom of religion has has been guided by an uncivil desire to introduce personal grudges into both press articles and reader responses.

"It is as if freedom of expression had been sancitified as some kind of fundamentalist religion whose purpose is to promote the demonization of others. Muslims are demonized in particular by the childish expection that since there are some Muslims who we think behave strangely or immorally, that all Muslims need to understand how [much better] we are.

"[...]Demonizing isn't just primitive and stupid. Demonization increases minorities' difficulties in understanding our society and heightens their feelings of marginalization. And that is lethal.

"It could be of momentous consequence for our country if we don't quickly grasp the risks in a situation where large groups residing in Denmark feel marginalized and seek comfort in the most extreme forms of religious fundamentalism which reject democracy."

----------

Also, Svend White's translation of Rune Engelbreth Larsen's blog

"Perhaps we should also recall these days how when the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen obtained permission to paint a Jesus with an erect member in a public mural in Birkerød, Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief at the time, Asger Nørgaard Larsen, demanded it removed. Today, he's the chairman of the newspaper's fund [Am not sure how to translate that.] and has the exact opposite view of the cartoons of Muhammad.

"When the mural of Jesus was painted over at the order of traffic minister Arne Melchiors, Asger Nørgaard Larsen wrote in a leader in Jyllands-Posten that the traffic minister "had shown both good sense and courage in demanding the removal of the painting, even though he can expect new screams about the constitution and censorship" (Source: Politiken, 2005-10-23).

"As the chairman of the Jyllands-Posten fund today, howevever, he writes this of the cartoons of Muhammad: 'Freedom of expression is subject to secular law and is the foundation of our democracy. The overwhelming majority of Danes understand this... Freedom of expression must be used and tested.' (Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30).

"So, 'used and tested' is reserved for propaganda purposes against Muslims, but censorship has its place if it concerns a pornographic representation of Jesus..."
-- Hypocrisy of cartoon architects revealed

----------

"Before I launch into this report, I want to underline that few places in the Muslim world have seen violence over the caricatures, so far mainly Damascus and Beirut (which are unexpected in this regard.) Protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere have been nonviolent. This is not to play down the seriousness of what happened in Damascus and Beirut over the weekend--acts which can only inspire horror and condemnation--only to set it in context. There are 1.5 billion Muslims. A lot of Muslim countries saw no protests at all. In some places, as in Pakistan, they were anemic. The caricature protests are resonating with local politics and anti-imperialism in ways distinctive to each Muslim country. The protests therefore are probably not mostly purely about religion.

...

"Reuters reports, 'Syria's grand Mufti Badr Eddine Hassoun, told government newspaper al-Thawra that the attackers did their country harm. "We feel sorrow that these people who were driven by passion reached the stage where they have undermined our dialogue with the Norwegian and Danes," he said.'

"The Grand Mufti is the country's chief religious authority on Islamic law.

...

"Nor is it true that things were quiet after the immediate publication of the cartoons. Nor is it true that the Danish prime minister or the Jyllands-Posten expressed any sympathy for the hurt feelings of Muslims early on. Indeed, they lectured them on being uncivilized for objecting."
-- Dr. Juan Cole on "Caricatures Roil Muslim World"

The Guardian (UK) reported August 1 that Yvonne Ridley, the British reporter who was captured last October by the Taliban, is becoming a Muslim. According to the story, "...one of the conditions of her release was that she read up on "the faith". This she did, and now she is ready to put her drinking days behind her." Funny what a little reading and an open mind can do! Read the whole story at Side lines.