I Want a New Left

Senior-Friendly Designs, and Herbert Feigl

I spent the last few days in Minneapolis helping my mother with her taxes. She lives in a building designed for “independent” seniors. When my parents announced they were selling their house and moving there, the only advantage I could see was that one of the building’s residents happened to be the philosopher Herbert Feigl (here). Unfortunately, he died before they moved in, so even that minimal advantage was lost. Exactly why someone who was Jewish wanted to live in a building populated mostly by those of Scandinavian descent is a mystery whose answer I suspect I will never learn. He had retired as a professor by the time I became a grad student, but I did attend one lecture he gave, a wonderful rambling and name-dropping series of reminiscences filled with lines like “I told this to Einstein” and “when I mentioned this to B.F. Skinner....”

Anyway, my mother’s building was built in the 1970s, and they just weren’t thinking much about the problems elderly people might have in dealing with things. The locks on the doors are not easy to open; they really ought to move to the card system used in nearly every hotel these days because cards are much easier to use than keys. The trash room has a heavy door, and it ought to have one of those big buttons that opens doors for the disabled, but it doesn’t. Cupboards are placed in the way every kitchen has cupboards, but my mother has osteoporosis and has lost a few inches in height since she moved in, so it’s hard for her to reach up to those cupboards these days. Laundry facilities in each unit would have been nice, instead of expecting the residents to walk half a block to their floor’s facilities (sometimes to find them already in use). There are probably many other features of her building that could have been designed better, if they had only thought about how the kind of problems the elderly have in dealing with things the rest of us find simple.

But one thing I’ll say in favor of her building is that the dining room makes an amazing pumpkin soup for the Thanksgiving dinner. Yum!

America's and Other Countries' Reputations, and the Kurds

This essay by Victor Davis Hanson is noteworthy because of two points. Here’s the first:

Note the recent Gallup survey of Americans’ views of the world at large. We hear ad nauseam of anti-Americanism, but the Islamic Middle East should consult these polls: Americans, if the survey is correct, despise the entire region. Well over 70% of the American population does not like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Palestinians, and Syria. Why other than the serial ingratitude? To generalize, we are tired of the tribalism, religious hypocrisy, and intolerance, misogyny, conspiracy theory, cheap anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism.

Our elites are constantly getting us to think in terms of whether or not we are liked by the rest of the world, but never tries to get the rest of the world to worry about whether we like them. Yet, if America is the big bully our elites say we are, then the best strategy for any other country is to get us to like them since that would mean we would be less likely to invade.

The other point is that one of the ripples from the Iraq war is that “Kurdistan emerged as a stable, prosperous, and humane pro-American enclave.”

This is probably why we almost never hear anything about it.

Starting One’s Own University

Because of the problems with the higher-education bubble, proposals are being suggested for new types of institutions. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has suggested a “hotel” (with students living together but using online lectures instead of professors), while a counter-proposal by Peter Augustine Lawler suggests locating a college in a small town where rents are cheap (see here) and off-loading the many functions now offered by colleges and universities to private firms. For example, there is no reason why a college needs a gym. If the students want it, I’m sure a gym can be built nearby that will accommodate them. This means that those who are uninterested in a gym or are not interested in the type of gym the school wants won’t have to pay for something they won’t use.

One problem with Lawler's proposal is that it would offer no sciences; it is nothing but the lberal arts. He suggests that those who want science classes could take them at a community college. For some such a college would be wonderful, but people of that age are constantly changing their minds. (One of the virtues of the American system as opposed to the European system is that in Europe people are tracked early and must even choose their major before entering college, a system that just offers too little flexibility.) Those who start this type of college who decide to go into medicine, say, will be forced to quit and go elsewhere. And this happens quite a bit. I attended the local university, as did about one-fourth of my high school class, and I saw what happened to people. Those interested in the sciences (like me) ended up in the humanities, and those interested in the humanities ended up in the sciences.

There were also those who barely made it into college, but who came alive intellectually once there. They went on to get advanced degrees, in one case a Ph.D. I don’t say that that is a problem for Lawler’s proposal; I merely offer it as a fact that many want to deny.

Why Secularism Is the Best Option for the Muslim World

In spite of what most Muslims (and even a few foolish leftists here in the West) think, secularism is their best option. When the West chose a secularist path a few centuries ago, it vastly reduced the number of religious wars. It reduced a lot of violence within states as well. And it allowed for a great deal of freedom of choice by the individual, including that of making no choice at all, of simply opting out of all religious groups. Yes, it’s true that there have been a few problems. In Northern Ireland there has been continuing violence between Catholics and Protestants, though it has died down in recent years. The freedom of choice has sometimes been bad for some people, such as those who followed the Rev. Jim Jones. But for the vast majority of people, secularism has been a great boon.

In the Muslim world, the situation is quite different. In each region one religious group dominates, and this means life for those in other groups is miserable. Osama bin Laden alluded to the truth about such a world: that it is run by the strong horse. And while people tend to follow a strong horse, when there is freedom not all feel compelled to do so.

Take a look at the situation in Syria today. This is typical of what happens when secularism is rejected: sectarian violence is always a threat. In Egypt, Sunni Muslims dominate, while in Iran the Shi’ites do; as I already mentioned, this makes life miserable for those not in the dominant group. A few months ago when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Egypt, Egypt’s top cleric gave him a tongue-lashing for the way that Sunnis were treated in Iran. I don’t know what Ahmadinejad said in reply, but he ought to have complained about how Shi’ites are treated in Egypt.

I know that many Muslims will not be persuaded by what I am saying. If you are a Sunni living in Egypt, you don’t have any worries, and if you are a Shi’ite living in Iran, you don’t have any worries. But all the minority groups of the Middle East will probably agree with me.

The Pre-Islamist Condition

I'm traveling and using my Ipad, so this essay won't be as polished as it otherwise would be.

The postmodernists insist that we are living in an era dominated by the postmodern condition, the condition in which there is no grand narrative and instead there are only narratives, none of which has the right to be considered The narrative.

This is a post-Enlightenment viewpoint, an anti-realist viewpoint that claims that there are no foundations that can be relied on which leads to the rejection of a grand narrative. Those subscribing to this viewpoint attack science, though as I have complained on many occasions, they never raise their voices against those preaching the gospel of global warming.

Postmodernists are perhaps disappointed Marxists who, frustrated at the failure of capitalism to fail, attack it in other ways by focusing not on workers, but on those who are more marginalized (women, blacks, homosexuals, and those from the Third World).

Part of this attack involves saying that "knowledge" is nothing but the vaporings of those in power as they work to oppress the marginalized, and so their discourses can be discounted. Moreover, the self is nothing but a social construction based on one's race, class, gender, and so on.

Instead of accepting this position, I claim instead that we are experiencing the pre-Islamist condition. This condition was brought on by leftists, especially the postmodernists with their insistence on relativism, but it is a condition that they themselves find nearly impossible to see. If you believe that all narratives are equally valid, you aren't likely to be worried about any particular one that preaches disaster. Many narratives do that, after all, but there is no reason to prefer one to another.

Also, cultural relativism doesn't condemn any cultural practices, so postmodernists aren't likely to be fearful of any encroachment on Western society by the Other (in this case, Islamists). And finally, the continual ladling out of guilt to everyone in the West for the sins of imperialism, slavery, and what not by all leftists are hardly likely to make them see any dangers. Indeed, they may even welcome them, for they may believe that Western civilization should die.

The pre-Islamist condition is that condition in which the Islamists are gaining strength at the same time we in the West are losing our will. That the Islamists are gaining strength throughout much of the world has been noted by plenty of other people. In Egypt, for example, women did not typically wear headscarves fifty years ago, but today nearly every Egyptian woman does. A Nigeria that was peaceful thirty years ago is now riddled with sectarian violence. Iran was making progress towards a Western-style state when it was wrenched backwards by Khomeini and his gang.

Here in the West, the Islamists have, to the extent that they can, pressed other Muslim immigrants to adhere to their beliefs. They have been aided by leftists who insist that immigrants don't need to assimilate and who take the most conservative of Muslims as spokesman for all. Accordingly, authorities in the West turn to such Muslims when dealing with any Muslim-inspired problem, instead of looking at those who are more moderate.

Meanwhile, the will to resist by Westerners has been seriously weakened by leftists, who as already mentioned are ladling out the guilt with all the gusto they can. With respect to Muslims, they are pushing the line that any criticism of Muslims is racist and is to be avoided. It's nothing but Islamophobia. Saner heads who point out that there are Muslims who are beyond the pale are brushed aside. Most on the left who would be appalled at this development aren't concerned because they believe the Muslims are too weak to present any problem. It's part of the pre-Islamist condition that those who are inadvertently pushing us into it are the least likely to see that it's a problem. I've already explained why the postmodernists won't see it, but those leftists who aren't postmodernists won't see it either because they have such a weak sense of who has power and who doesn't. For them Fox News is very powerful, while the huge media complex consisting of the NY Times and most other newspapers somehow doesn't have power.

Anyone who has such a view of the world is unlikely to see Islamists as very powerful. Nor do they see them as very abhorrent, else there would have been many protests against President Obama's sidling up the Muslim Brotherhood.

A clash seems inevitable, except that when it happens (in, say, thirty years), will there be any liberals or leftists who will be willing to stick up for the West?

Enough for tonight.

Soccer: "Europe," and a Snowy Protest

According to FIFA (the international soccer governing body), the following countries are part of Europe: Israel, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. Israel was put into the European group because the Arab countries didn't like having to play against it, but why are those other countries put into the European group? I think of them as Asian.

Now that the U.S. has beaten Costa Rica, in a very snowy game, Costa Rica is demanding that the game be replayed. Hey guys, the referee stopped the game in the 54th minute, but the players on both sides wanted to keep playing. It is too late now to complain. You had your chance.

A Leftist Split: The Absolutists vs. the Relativists

I’m still brooding over the incident involving Lawrence Krauss at the University College London, in which he was forced to tell the Muslim organizers of a debate between theists and atheists that they weren’t allowed to segregate the audience by gender. (See here.) Here is a blogger discussing it and cheering him on, but one or two commenters take a different stance and defend the Muslims. Plus, on other sites there was the suggestion that not all leftists were happy with this incident.

It seems, then, that there is a split in the left, and it seems that the split involves those who are absolutists and those who are relativists. Maybe this isn’t quite accurate, but let me take a crack at it along these lines.

The absolutists are those who think that certain claims advanced by leftists beginning in the 1960s have absolute sway over everyone in the world, including even the most fundamentalist of Muslims. These are that women have a right to be treated as the equals of men, that gays have a right to live openly in society without fears of harassment, and that society itself should be run along secular lines without giving any particular privileges to any religious group.

The relativists believe that each culture has its own morality that it is allowed to keep, despite Western pressure to change and to modernize. Any such pressure in fact is immoral since it is simply Western cultural imperialism. Within the Western world, society is moving towards a multicultural ideal in which various subcultures live by their own rules within their own enclaves and are not forced by any other subculture or the dominant culture to live by some other rules.

Soccer: Congratulations, Denver Fans!

During miserable conditions in the snow, a sellout crowd saw the U.S. win 1-0 over Costa Rica in World Cup qualifying tonight. Back in 2001, I attended a game at Columbus Crew Stadium against Mexico that was 25 degrees at game time, but there was no snow on the ground. This looked much worse, so I congratulate those fans who braved the elements to cheer the U.S. on.

Annoying Things on the Internet

1. Commercials on any video that last more than 15 seconds. (Obviously, I’m not including those that allow you to skip the commercial after 5 seconds.) This isn’t television. It’s the Internet where people expect things to be fast and where there are many other sites to look at besides the one with your commercial. Hey, companies, if you can’t manage to create a gripping commercial that lasts just 15 seconds, fire your team and hire some more creative people.

2. Blogs whose comments section begins with the newest ones first. Please. The newest comments are usually commenting on previous comments, so of what use is that? I want to see comments on the post itself, and if I do want to see comments on comments, I want to know how such a thread got started, so it would be nice to have the oldest ones given first. I know I have the option of choosing the oldest ones first, but why not reverse this and make the default mode the oldest ones first while allowing the user to choose the newest ones first if they want?

3. Any site, except YouTube, where sound from a video or an ad (generally off to the side) begins playing even though I did not click on it. I shouldn’t have to suddenly exit the site or mute the sound. And some of these ads are so annoying they can somehow disable my muting of the sound.

4. Articles that are not on one page. I’m not talking about blogs, where there are many articles on each page and where the blogger might decide to have you click on a particular post to see the whole article. I’m talking about those sites where there is a single article on the page, except that the article is spread out over a number of pages. Why? This is the Internet, not hard copy where that is required. Just put it all on one page. Maybe if the article would be five hundred printed pages it would make sense to have more than one page, but what I’m thinking of are articles that occupy two, three, or four pages. Why make me load each of these pages when it could all be done at once?

A Message to Progressives: You Need To Say No to Muslims

A couple days ago I reported (here) on how a former adviser to the Obama administration, Lawrence Krauss, was part of a debate at University College London in the U.K. between theists and atheists and found that the men and the women in the room were separated. He threatened to leave unless things were changed. A few blogs have reported on this incident, but I don’t know that any have appreciated how unusual this incident was. As far as I know, it’s the first time since 9/11 that any progressive has actually said no to Muslims. Up till now, there has been nothing but appeasement by the progressives, so this was a significant moment. We shall see if this represents a change, though I'm betting it isn't.

Most progressives don't seem to understand how these things work. If you want a secular society, you have to say no to those people who don’t want such a society. It’s a simple as that. And while secularists have been very good about saying no to Christian fundamentalists, they cannot bring themselves to say no to Muslim fundamentalists, which is why I’ve been projecting that the secular West will no longer exist at the end of this century.

Here are some progressive answers that won’t work:

1. “Not all Muslims are like that.” This won’t work because the point is that some Muslims are in fact like that. They don’t want a secular society, and they want to impose their rules on all of Western society. That is why progressives need to say no to them, or else give up on their wish for a secular society.

2. “Multiculturalism will solve this problem.” The idea is that one can avoid saying no to Muslims by saying yes to them within a multicultural context. That is, Muslims will have their enclaves where they will live their lives as they wish with their own rules. But as the Krauss incident shows, they don’t want to impose their rules within their enclaves only. They want to impose them on all of society. Progressives need to either say no to them, or else have them ruling us.

3. “It’s racist to say no to Muslims.” What that means is that only Muslims can say no to other Muslims, which means that the future of secular society depends on whether certain religious people (moderate Muslims) are willing to step up and say no to the more reactionary Muslims. As a secularist, I am not willing to depend on them, but it seems that other secularists are willing to take this risk.

4. “We should all be able to live together” or “We can all co-exist.” This isn’t the way life works because there are some people whose motto is “my way or the highway.” To put it differently, it is either their will or yours that will prevail, and if you feel squeamish or hegemonic or imperialist or racist about having your will prevail, that means that their will will prevail. And that means saying goodbye to the secularist society. It means saying goodbye to legalized abortion, it means saying goodbye to feminism, it means saying goodbye to gay marriage or gay anything because gays will be back in the closet. It basically means saying goodbye to nearly everything that progressives have accomplished in the West over the last forty years.

All of this seems pretty elementary to me, yet it seems lost on most progressives, who would rather delay saying no to Muslims forever. But here’s the funny thing. I emailed the link to a few progressives I know, and all were appalled by what the Muslims were demanding. They were outraged by the separation of men and women. Now by no means is this group of progressives a representative sample, but I have to wonder how much of the steady advance of shari‘a in the West is the result of simple ignorance on the part of most progressives concerning what is going on, while a much smaller number of progressives are the ones responsible for its advance.