Arab Spring, Riotous Fall

Recently, a large portion of the Arab world has erupted in protests against America. It seemed to kick off with the bombing and attack of the American Embassy in Libya, where our Ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed.

The protests were supposedly over outrage about a video posted in YouTube by a Christian Coptic Egyptian person living in America. I don't know whether the person was born here of Egyptian parents or moved here, and whether he became naturalized or is not a citizen, so I'm not sure if they are even mad about the actions of a "true American". It doesn't matter, because anyone can post anything they want on YouTube, and if you don't like it, don't watch it.

It seems bizarre that anyone would get mad at a whole country for what one person in that country did or said. What was done may have been in poor taste, but it was not illegal. The protesters seem to be further enraged that the man has not been arrested or put to death by hanging.

I have no sympathy for these enraged protesters. I can appreciate that they have no understanding of our legal system or the rights we enjoy in this country, but even so, I cannot fathom why they want to hold our whole country accountable for an insignificant and poorly produced video. I had to see what it was all about, and couldn't stomach watching it because of the terrible quality of the clip. I can't believe this guy was able to get as many actors as he did to make such a stinking piece of garbage. I can't even get to the content, you have to wade through too much embarrassingly amateur footage to even stick around that long. It's about as painful to watch as a Barney video. Or reality television, for that matter. One report I heard said that most of the people that were protesting had not seen the clip. Perhaps if they had, they would not be so mad at America for harboring someone with such terrible views, but they would be mad at the studio for letting someone waste their money and time producing this crap.

The Muslim world rioted after some Dutch cartoonist wrote a cartoon critical of Islam some years back. I didn't understand that, either. I can't believe anyone can be so thin-skinned about their beliefs. I guarantee that their behavior is not getting them any converts in the world at large for their cause when they can see such lunacy.

When we invaded Afghanistan, I assumed that many people in their country thought that we were overstepping our bounds to invade an entire country for the actions of one man. However, it wasn't that simple, the country had a religious leadership that was harboring and protecting people that wanted to launch attacks on us, so you justify the action with a "rogue nation" argument, that a lot of people can agree with, relate to, and support. It still doesn't stop individuals from getting extremely angry about the occupation when bystanders are also killed in the military strikes against legitimate targets (or when the occasional mistake happens and a wedding party is bombed). I can see why those people would get mad at our actions and think our actions were unjustified. Iraq is just a more egregious example of this kind of thing, a situation where people are legitimately uncomfortable with our presence and incensed when it leads to the killing of innocent lives. In my mind, I was leery of the possibility of our presence being a recruiting tool for the jihadis.

Then these protests and the violence directed at Americans makes me take another look at my views. Any sympathy anyone may have had against an Arab person because we invaded their country has to realize that the fundamentalist Islamic masses have just validated our course of action. If someone saying something they dislike is cause to kill our Ambassador and bomb our Embassies, then they must understand perfectly why we would invade a country because someone killed a bunch of Americans. I should stop feeling guilty that we use a strong arm against anyone in an Arab country, because surely they condone that level of action if mere words justify rioting and attacking a country's embassy.

My emotional reaction to these countries is to want nothing to do with them. I think we should just pull our entire diplomatic missions out and put travel advisories on each of the countries. We should urge Americans to stay out, we're not welcome anyway. I think this should be backed up by cutting off trade. I don't even want to engage with these countries. I realize from a practical standpoint this is not realistic. No one will advocate this kind of reaction, and no trade restrictions will be considered. Many individuals faced with the prospect of travel to any of these cesspools of unrest should think twice about going there. Your life is cheap and you are not welcome. There's plenty of other places in the world that would welcome you and your dollars. Go there instead.

I'm guilty of the same mistake that the Arab protestors are making, which is to generalize from the actions of a few to the motives of the rest. However, they are generalizing from the actions of a single individual who is only exercising his right to free speech. There is no actual harm being done by this speech, and they can simply ignore the film and there will be no effect whatsoever. On the other hand, while the number of protestors compared to the general populace is a small percentage, these are large mobs, and they have killed people for simply being
American. You would not have the option of simply ignoring them, as they have the option of doing with our miserable individual. So while I am extrapolating on the actions of a few and criticizing them for the actions of an individual, my hypocrisy protects individuals from being harmed in a real way, blown up by a mob. We felt the same way about the French Revolution, so it's not even a Muslim or Arab thing, it's a stupid enraged mob thing.

Missouri Amendment 2

I was getting ready to go vote during this summer's second Missouri Primary of 2012 and wanted to know what was going to be on the ballot. This was a really particularly sleepy election. For someone in the political middle, disenchanted by both parties, a primary is a not something that raises much motivation. Even though I complain that most elections give you two bad choices and you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, I still don't want to try to influence who is going to be on the ballot.

I looked up the ballot and discovered that there was going to be a state constitutional amendment on the ballot. That's pretty rare. I know that the U.S. Constitution has not added any amendments for a long time and the process to get the constitution amended on the national level is almost impossible when the country is evenly divided on most issues (try to imagine an amendment about guns or gay marriage making it to through congress).

The proposed change was to insure school prayer was a protected right in the state. No one can prosecute anyone that wants to pray in school. It seemed pretty straightforward and completely unnecessary, as this was already guaranteed. No one else in my office knew about the amendment until I told them. My brothers, who I immediately called, both knew about it, but had only just found out about it.

I considered this a really poor choice of elections to put such a supposedly important matter on the ballot. If you are truly up in arms about a subject to the point where you think there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment over it, why do a sneaky stealth move and put it into an almost ignored primary election?

This primary happens to be one that insures that the majority of voters going in would be conservatives and Republicans. Not many Democratic positions were even being contested, but the Republican field was rife with candidates, and many races had far right candidates poised against moderate Republicans. So this field was really heated up.

After the election, the results came in and the amendment passed with about 80% of the vote, an almost unheard of majority. I was disappointed, and still riled about the sneaky way that the measure was put onto the ballot, but I moved on and started to forget about it.

Then I heard one of my science podcasts report that the measure would mean that people that did not want to learn evolution in schools would have the right to refuse to learn it, and that the measure would be challenged.

My first reaction was that this was not what was on the ballot. It said nothing about the conduct of people in classrooms being able to refuse to learn something, it simply said that you couldn't stop someone from praying in school.

I got online to see what the language of the ballot was, and found that it was already taken down from the election board's website. I did find the original Amendment as approved by the General Assembly and read it in full. It did indeed say that anyone that disagreed with any subject in school on religious grounds could not be forced to participate in the curriculum.

That's alarming on two levels. One, the ballot did not even hint about his aspect of the Amendment, and the language of the ballot was both abbreviated and deceptive in that respect. Two, the original article 5 of the state constitution had language in it that already specifically provided for religious freedom, and the ballot language didn't sound that different than the original section. The Amendment was to replace article 5 so most people reading the short ballot description would naturally draw the conclusion that religious freedom in schools was not something that was already a right. The only thing that really changed was the ability to opt out of any education that one deemed against their religion.

It seems to me that there would be no limit to what you could opt out of. The obvious courses would be those including Evolution and Geology, because not only do people not want to be taught something that they feel contradicts Genesis from the Bible, but many people believe the 17th century theologian's accounting of the years in the Bible that puts the age of the earth at about 6,000 years instead of the generally accepted 4.65 billion years. So Geology is, by definition, blasphemy. I can see people opting out of Chemistry because it fails to say that an intelligent creator designed all the elements and molecules. People could probably figure out ways to opt out of English class and Gym class. Once you put a vague exception that allows people to get out of the hard work of learning, they will expend considerable effort in applying that exception to anything and everything they dislike and hope that their feigned religious piety will get them out of it.

We look to the Muslim world and see people in some countries educating their young in Madrases where they read the Koran for 12 hour a day while being beaten and yelled at and we shake our heads at what a shame it is that these people will use their religion to keep their people willfully ignorant. Yet we have plenty of people in this country that will gladly follow that model and hand our youths all the tools they need to avoid opening their minds and learning something true about the world.