Headlines versus Reality: Politics Division

Unfortunately, the headline went down the Google News memory hole before I thought to capture it in a link, but I do it justice with:

Stocks Up on Improved Jobs Data

Across from this superficially unremarkable headline on the right margin were that day’s stock market results: the DOW was up 0.26% – noise, essentially. The broader indices were down. Sooo – come again? One narrow measure – the DOW only includes 30 companies – is up an insignificant amount, while broader indices – the S&P track something over 500 companies, the NASDAQ several times that – are down. So, basically, as stated without any caveats, that headline is what we used to call in simpler, more primitive times, a lie.

Then you start digging around. What job data are we talking about? The government calculates employment numbers by doing a statistical projection based on samples of businesses and households. In this latest report, it is stated that businesses reported 110,000 new jobs came into being, yet, in the same report, the number of unemployed dropped by 456,000 – um, did the extra 346,00 die, retire, move to another country? Or just stop looking for work and thereby drop out of the statistics? Inquiring minds would like to know.

But that’s only mildly baffling compared to what comes next:

Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to 58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)

Okay – so, businesses can add 110,000 jobs, while people find 873,000 jobs… At the very least, this calls into question the methodology used to collect data and calculate numbers. And that kind of gob growth would be expected in a booming economy – which, last I checked, isn’t what we have.

If you read to the end of the linked report, you will also find that the last half is corrections to previous reports – in other words, it is taken for granted that these snapshots for the previous month will get revised once more data is available. Stay tuned.

Further bulletins as events warrant.


Makers and Takers in the Real World:

Makers are those people who marry, stay married and raise law-abiding children with a sense of civic duty and morality, as well as those who support, sustain and defend them.

Takers are those who fail to do any of the above, but rather exploit the society and opportunities living in a world made and sustained by the Makers gives them. The selfishness of Takers is a sort of blindness, and a sort of pillaging – blind to what enables the culture from which they take, and pillagers of the fruits of that culture.

Factories, inventions and profits mean nothing without the proper culture to support them.

Back in the old days…

…people were liable to write stuff down. Important things got written down more often and by more people. This provides for us a fascinating possibility: rather than guessing or making up stories about what happened in the past and what people thought and did abou t it, we can read what the people at the time had to say! How cool is that?

Mike Flynn has done a bit of this. Read and be edified.

Of course, if you like making stuff up and then reacting with extreme umbrage when people point out you’ve merely created a fantasy world untethered to reality – Dan Brown, talking to you – this whole ‘history’ stuff might not be for you. But give it a try, you may like it.

Curiousity Beams Back Rock that May Prove Elvis Was a Space Alien

Or that eggs can in fact only be properly opened from the big end, or that I might already be a winner, or that my baby ate a dingo, or anything at all. But what the headline did say was:

Curiosity  Beams Back Rock that May Prove Microbial Life on Mars

Yea, it might. It might not. In fact, what a rock ‘beamed’ back might or might not prove is pretty open-ended.

Bad Science Writer! Bad! and that’s not even talking about the egregious Star Trek reference: “Cap’n! I canna’ beam the rock to the bridge! The dilithium crystals canna’ take it!” Or something, probably involving inverse tachyon particles.  The article actually has something to do with a little pebble that looks like it might have been in a stream bed at some point, but that’s not going to bake the grits of the readers, so let’s make something up. Sheesh.

Science will not be killed by its enemies (most of whom are imaginary anyway), but by its friends.

a thought experiment….

I’m flabbergasted that this one clear historical point about Islam is even argued about: that the several billion people who are living and have lived under Islam over its entire 1400 year history have contributed very little to the well-being of the world, especially when compared to the contributions of the West.

This isn’t clear upon a moment’s reflection? That when anyone – not only including, but *especially* world travelers and scholars – looks at the world, they don’t see that the contributions of the West dwarf the contributions of Islam like an elephant dwarfs a flea? Perhaps someone who was totally ignorant – but you’d need to be *really* ignorant….

So here is a though experiment, to help clear this up: let’s take a single Western city and compare the amount of civilizing creations that come from that one city with the civilizing output of all of Islam. We could chose Florence – or Paris, or Rome, or London, or Prague, or Vienna, or Athens, or any number of other cities, and the exercise still works. Here’s how it goes using Florence:

Imagine a couple square miles of clear land across the Arno, in which we can magically place Islamic contributions to civilization.  The thought experiment is this: place some Islamic contribution to civilization in that area, building as you go a giant museum or monument to Islamic Civilization. Then, each time you add an item to your monument, look across the Arno and pick, from the contributions of Florentines, a comparable contribution.

Any honest and knowledgeable person will run out of Islamic contributions well before Florentine contributions.  And that’s just one Western city among dozens for which this experiment works.


the Taj Mahal:  the Duomo of Santa Maria della Fiore

the Alhambra: the Pitti Palace & Boboli Gardens

the Koran:  the Divine Comedy

all Islamic  scientists taken together:  Galileo (born in Pisa, but funded by Grand Duke, lived in and around Florence for much of his life and is buried there. If this is too audacious for your taste, Google around for a batch of Florentine scientists and put them here – but that’s frankly overkill. BTW – I think Galileo is  overrated – kinda like the Kobe Bryant of science – really, really good, just not *that* good. But still better than anything coming out of Islam.)

all Islamic artistic masterpieces:  the Ufizi (seriously, again, overkill – there are individual works in the Ufizi that dwarf all Islamic art)

and so on. In this experiment, you will build a very nice Monument to Islamic Civilization, one full of fascinating and worthy works, one well worth studying and one that any civilized person can appreciate – and yet, across the river in Florence, is a real, live and far greater monument.

And that’s just one city.

Of course, this presumes the experimenter knows about the contributions to civilization of Islam and Florence – clearly, not a safe assumption – and can roughly judge the relative value of these contributions – also, not a safe assumption. Well, then, Google. An afternoon’s work won’t make up for a lifetime of study, but for any reasonable open-minded person, it should prove the point.

Note also how arguments against any particular pick pretty much prove the point – one may reasonably dispute the claim that Botticelli’s Primavera is a greater work of art than anything Islam has produced – but that is arguing about one piece in one museum in one Western city, versus *everything* inspired by Islam. One may reasonably dispute that Galileo’s contributions are not equal to all the contributions made by Islamic science – but he’s one guy from one city. How about if we add Fermi? Heck, da Vinci taught in Florence, if we want to reach a little.  But the point: we’re responding to ALL of Islam with people and works from ONE Western city – and, at worst, it’s a debate. There’s no conceivable way Islam is clearly superior in its contributions to civilization – to ONE western city. Among dozens of such cities, let alone nations, let alone Christendom.

Conclusion: Islam has not made anything like the contributions to civilization, to human happiness and well-being, as the City of Florence.  Florence is one city among many, and represents a tiny fraction of the total civilizing contributions to the world of the West. The contributions to civilization of the West – of Christendom – dwarf the contributions of Islam.

History, and the late Unpleasantness in Tunisia and All That

First, the mandatory distinction: individual Muslims are often wonderful people, kind, loving, civilized. There are geniuses among the followers of Mohammed, just as there are in every population around the world. And much of the moral code of Islam is perfectly good and wise. What we’re talking about below is the effect, historically and up to the present day, that Islam has on those who fall under its sway or interact with it. Not theory, but what is observable today and over time.

Any objective acquaintance with history, a history which reinforces what we see in the current political state of the world, can lead to only one conclusion:   Islam has been a cultural and human rights disaster everywhere it has taken hold for its entire 1400 year history. Claims to the contrary are dazzlingly inconsistent with what we see in the modern world – in other words, TODAY it is clear that Islamic countries are miserable backwaters, filled to overflowing with poverty, political and social repression, and violence.  To imagine that this state of affairs is the result of some nefarious Western program of empire requires a certain willful blindness – that explanation is only remotely plausible, even in theory, for maybe the last 200 years. But the facts do not support it, nor provide any explanation for the state that obtained over the previous 1200 years.

Now, let’s deal with one of the yawning holes in the common PC understanding of history. Let’s talk about the histories of Christianity and Islam, with emphasis on their first few centuries.

When Mohammed died in 632 AD, he was the commander of a large army that had, over the last few decades of his life, conquered and forcibly converted the Arab peninsula. In 100 years, this army had grown to conquer all the Middle East, all of North Africa, parts of Asia Minor, Spain and parts of France. In the east, the Roman Empire based in Constantinople was the first significant military opponent Islam encountered. The Eastern Romans were able to stop the advance of Islam in eastern Europe at great cost, and spent the next 800 years at war, thereby keeping Europe from being overrun from the east. Finally, in 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, who exterminated the population. This opened Europe to further Islamic conquest, and the Balkans fell, Vienna – right there in the heart of Europe – was besieged by Islamic armies a couple times,  and on other occasions Europe almost fell to Islam attacking from the east. European military superiority to the Turks and other Muslim powers was not clearly established until the 19th century – prior to that, Europeans rightly feared conquest by Islam. All they had to do was look east or south, or at Spain, to see that it could happen.

Meanwhile, in the West, an large Islamic army had landed in Spain, conquered the remnants of the latinized Visigoths who had ruled it since 410, and proceeded, according to plan, over the Pyrenees Mountains and into France. Unlike the East, there was no remnant of the Roman Empire to fight them off, but, in one of the more amazing bits of history, Charles the Hammer, the Mayor of the Palace of the Merovingian king of the Franks (kind of like a Prime Minister) was a great admirer of Roman warfare. He organized an army of heavy infantry, and drilled them on the discipline of foot soldier versus light cavalry fighting in the Roman manner – and they were able to defeat the invading Islamic army near Tours in central France in 732, bringing to a halt the Islamic conquest of Europe from the West.

So, to recap: Islam has spread by conquest. There has been no significant spreading of Islam by any other means. Only by a series of desperate battles has Islam been prevented from conquering Europe.

Them’s the facts.

Christianity arose around 33 AD, in a despised backwater of the Roman Empire, among the Jews, a rebellious and despised people who, in 70 AD, had their nation crushed and dispersed by the Romans. For the first 280 years of its existence, there were no Christian armies, and little if any sympathy for Christians among the rulers. At least many hundreds and perhaps thousands of Christians were publicly tortured and executed. Only in 313 was Christianity officially tolerated within the Roman Empire.

Yet, well before 313, millions of people had converted to Christianity over an area of thousands of square miles, from India in the East to Spain in the West, from the Danube in the North to the east coast of Africa in the South. Early Christianity was not spread by armies and conquest, but by individuals and small teams of preachers who traveled at great personal risk to everywhere you could get on foot or by boat in the ancient West, and then some.

So, to recap: Christianity spread to all the world known to the Roman and beyond over the course of less than 300 years without the benefit of any political or military support, and often in the teeth of violent persecution. Only after 313, after Christianity was well established, was there any link between political and military power on the one hand and Christians on the other.

Compare and contrast: the founding story of Islam is one of military conquest, of soldiers willing to kill for their faith. The founding story of Christianity is one of defenseless preachers willing to die for theirs.  When a Muslim thinks back to the glory days of Islam, he must needs think of great armies and glorious victories. When Christians think of early Christians, they think of martyrdom and the long travels of Paul, Peter, James and Thomas and many others, and of the holy men and women and children who turned the other cheek, often at the cost of their lives.

But what about the great cultural triumphs of Islam, the victim of modern PC education is required to ask . The great cultures of Spain? The golden age of Baghdad? Two points: first, 50,000 Athenians over the course of the 5th century BC, or 50,000 Florentines during the 15th century, to take two examples out of many, made more positive contributions to civilization, art, science and philosophy than all the hundreds of millions of Muslims have made in total over the entire 1400 years that Islam has existed. Admiring Muslim contributions to art and science, when compared to Western Christian contributions, is like hanging a high school kid’s sophomore art project in the Uffizi.

Second, let’s look at the Golden Age of Baghdad. From around 750 AD, when Islamic military conquest was finally slowed down, until the Mongol hordes slaughtered about a million inhabitants of Baghdad and the surrounding areas in 1258, burned all the libraries and handed victory to the more anti-intellectual strains of Islam, Baghdad was a center of art and learning. Key aspect of this flowering: openness to the West. The Califs of Baghdad welcomed Christian and Jewish (and Indian) scholars, and Muslim scholars and scribes copied and, in some cases, extended their works. Once Baghdad was annihilated by the Mongols, very little Western influence was admitted – and, consequently, very little progress was made.

Further, the tendency to overstate the contributions of this intellectual flowering can be tempered by making a few comparisons: they invented trigonometry – Appolonius and Ptolemy might be surprised to hear that;  they preserved ancient texts – all those monks copying all those texts in the west probably appreciated the help; science, whatever that means, flowered – resulting in what, exactly? The 1,000 year near-total stagnation of technology in the Islamic world?

The regime in Baghdad welcomed non-Islamic scholars – a fact that infuriated many other Muslims, and spawned an anti-intellectual school of thought that taught that any attempts to use reason and  observation to understand God were sacrilege. We are required to accept the Koran, etc., not to try to understand the world. To imagine that God acts through secondary causes, as Aristotle would say, is to deny that everything in existence is the direct result of God’s will – in other words, there’s no place for natural laws. According to this school, other than study of the Koran and Haddith, to be a good scholar meant to be a bad Muslim. Once the Mongols destroyed Baghdad, defenders of the more open attitude toward learning were few – divine judgement seemed to have been passed. The Taliban, rather than being some freakish outlier, in fact represents the historically dominant strain of Islamic ‘intellectualism’ since at least the sack of Baghdad.

If, having drunk deeply of PC nonsense, you doubt this, then please explain: how is it that the admitted brilliance of the Muslim, shown intermittently in the likes of Averroes, failed to produce anything like the flowering of science and art seen in the Christian West? There were certainly not constrained by western Military might – the West feared them well into the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire, which twice besieged Vienna, persisted until 1918!

And you can’t reasonably blame the West for holding them down. The Muslim world for much of its history has in fact been more civilized – had more and larger cities run more stably – than the West, outside of Constantinople. Until around the 11th Century, the West was in shambles,  largely ruled by barbarians with no concept of civilization outside tribal loyalties.   If Islam could not produce any meaningful progress in culture, science, art or civil life over that 1,000 year period, and fell woefully behind the West in these areas, it’s not the fault of the West.

Similar story in Spain – far from the heart of Islam, the Moors were free to tolerate Jews and even Christians. Does this represent the main thrust of Islam? Is it in keeping with what we see elsewhere? A further note on Spain – it is often pointed out that the Moors were far more civilized than the Spanish who eventually drove them out in 1492. There is some truth to this: one of the chief issues of the period from 410 – when Rome was first sacked – to, say, 1100 is that, with the collapse of Rome, everyone who could fled to the East, to the Empire that persisted for another thousand years under Constantinople. Who was left? Peasants, barbarians and the Catholic Church. And when we say ‘barbarians’ we mean the real deal – pre-logical, violent and nasty peoples who would just as soon kill you as say hello. Lacking an effective army, the Roman culture attempted to conquer the barbarian cultures by example – many brave missionaries traveled among the Franks, spreading not just the Gospel, but also such basic moral concepts as women and children being people, too and that simply killing and robbing people whenever the opportunity presented itself is wrong. This took some doing and many centuries. When Charlemagne showed mercy to defeated enemies in the 800’s, this was show-stopping news, and represented a triumph not only of Christianity but of civilization. A mere 500 years or so later, the French were very nearly civilized – possibly the greatest secular achievement of the Church.

But what about the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Conquistadors? The Pope’s role in spreading slavery in the New World? The short answer: what about them?  We could compare tragedies and outrages perpetrated by Christians and Muslims all day – a comparison that does, in fact, favor the West – but the fact remains: there’s no remotely sane, civilized westerner – and, especially, a western woman – who would choose to live as a common subject in a Muslim country, versus a common citizen of a Western country.  Even the Christian parts of Africa and the poorer areas of Latin America compare very favorably to any Islamic country. Sure, Dubai and Abu Dhabi – probably the most ‘Western’ Islamic countries – look good in the pictures, and if you’re just visiting and have lots of money, they can be OK. But talk to the Pakistanis and Egyptians who do all the work while the tiny minority of natives live high on oil money – not so good for the commoners. Even the poor Mexicans who live in shacks and work at the maquiladoras have more hope and freedom – and the Mexican women can show their faces outside the home and do not live in fear that their husbands can legally kill them or mutilate the genitalia of their daughters.

What does this mean for our actions today, especially in response to the recent atrocities committed in the name of Islam? First off, moral equivalency must stop now. When Muslims riot and murder in (it is asserted) response to some stupid YouTube video, we can’t excuse it based on the naive and stupid idea that we, after all, do the same kind of things. No, ‘we’ don’t. Remember when – to pick one example out of hundreds – the movie ‘V for Vendetta’ came out, which fantasized that some caricature of Christianity was going to destroy all that is good about civilization, where every character who claimed to be Christian was a vile, murderous lizard? Remember all the riots and  theater burning and how the director was dragged from his limo and hung from a light pole? You don’t remember it, because it didn’t happen. Anyone who did such a thing would be roundly denounced by 99.9% of Christians – and prosecuted under the laws of the land, to near universal approval. That’s not what’s going on in the Islamic world – at the very least, a sizable minority supports such actions precisely because they believe their beliefs require them to.

So, John C Wright calls for a Crusade in the classic sense and with classic goals: to thwart the advance of Islam, to protect the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims , and to put to the lie its claims to military victory proving its truth.  What this means in practice – what a Crusade in fact requires – is a re-ignition of Christian fervor, especially and specifically that aspect of fervor which unites Reason and Faith, and turns a critical eye on the world and its allures and glamor.  At this point, in this world, the Crusade must first take place in the hearts and minds of the West – of Christendom – before any truly charitable and benevolent battle can be waged.

Does the concept of charitable and benevolent battle bounce off your mind? Turns out – of course, I can’t turn a web link up at the moment – that there’s a goodly number of letters written by the Crusaders of history to their families, in which it is clear that their intentions are in fact charitable and benevolent. And it’s clear that the typical Crusader never expected to return home alive. Most, in fact, didn’t.

Unlike wars in general, the people fighting these battles on the Christian  side were not expecting to return home with lots of loot. They expected to die.

They did it anyway. To free the Holy Land. To provide succor to persecuted Christians. To stop Islam.

Pitch Meeting I’d Like to Have Sat in On…

“OK, the basic story is Pocahontas – a tall blue Pocahontas with a tail – with the tool of  English Imperialism played by a tool of the Military industrial Complex. The rest of the plot is ripped off from a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon with a dash of Matrix mumbo-jumbo. There’s a cool plucky primatives versus evil tech  battle – think tall, blue Ewoks.

“The visuals will be great.

“Now give me $300 million dollars.”

I for one will be sorely disappointed if the sequel doesn’t feature Hush-a-boom.