Bill O'Reilly Comes Close to Making a Valid Point But Then Misses A Golden Opportunity

Some days ago, Bill O'Reilly had on his show a woman who had come from an Islamic background. She explained, in heavily accented English, how the tenets of the Islamic faith were abusive to women and their human rights.

The next day, Bill O'Reilly put on a Muslim chap, who disputed the earlier woman's contentions. When O'Reilly pointed to passages in the Quran that seemed to buttress what the woman had said, the Muslim said that such passages were open to many interpretations and that the interpretations that Bill was suggesting were not correct.

When Bill read passages from the Hadith that further supported what the woman had said, the guest said that while some Hadith were valid, others were not. Somewhere near the end of his remarks, the Muslim fellow said that he knew these things because he was an Ahmadiyya Muslim.

I suspect that O'Reilly along with most of his viewers missed the significance of this Muslim identifying with the Ahmadiyya. My own view of this Muslim man immediately softened. I recognized him now as one of the really good guys. But, here is the thing; Muslims in Pakistan forbid the Ahmadiyya from identifying themselves as Muslims. Indeed they have a deep hatred of the Ahmadiyya and have set upon them and murdered them. Indonesian Muslims also despise them. They have suffered abuse in virtually all Islamic lands.

Are the Ahamadiyya Muslims? India accepts them as such. However, the Muslims in India do not. Here in the U.S. we do.

The point is that, while I might agree with this Muslim and his interpretations of the Quran and with those Hadith he holds to be valid, his views are shared by precious few Muslims in Islamic nations. In short, he really doesn't represent the Islamic view on a great many matters, not the least of them being the Islamic view of women as expressed in Islamic nations.

The Totalitarian Mind

I must preface my remarks with a confession. I thought my ideas on totalitarianism were novel. And, perhaps, as applied to the Middle East they are. But, the concept if totalitarianism is not. A bit of research shows that an Italian historian, Giovanni Amendola, in 1923 or thereabouts, was one of the first to articulate the concept of totalitarianism. Not long afterwards, the Italian, Giovanni Gentile reworked the concept to put a positive spin on it so as to favor Italian fascism. Mussolini, himself, referred to fascism, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism (call it what you will) as an ideology of the state that politicizes everything spiritual and human.

I also learned of efforts to distinguish between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs attempted to outline such such distinctions. But they have been subjected to critical review and have been found to be far from universally accepted. From my point of view, the critique of totalitarianism by Karl Popper is far more relevant. A key element in his critique is that those who would impose a totalitarian order on society turn to "nature," or "The Law of History." Or, I would argue, they turn to God to legitimize their authority.

Others who have written on this subject include Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Their analysis has been challenged by Karl Dietrich Bracher as being too narrow. The historian, Walter Laqueur strongly favors Bracher's analysis.

Much that has been written on this subject, but the writings have has centered largely on that period of history when communism and fascism were the the dark forces being faced by the West. What seems less appreciated is the extent to which these writings can be applied to more current history.

I'd like to turn to the era of General Augusto Pinochet. Liberals, and forces on the left, bemoan what was America's tacit support of Pinochet. Was Pinochet an authoritarian leader? Unquestionably. But, the forces he fought were leftists whose methods were hardly less authoritarian. These two contending forces differed primarily on their views of the laws of history and how they perceived these laws. The leftists focused on social justice and the inequities in Chilean society. They sought to correct these inequities through central direction of the economy by the government.

Pinochet looked to free-market economics. He supported the efforts of his economists; men, who had come under the influence of Milton Friedman's teachings. Pinochet, as it turned out, had the superior idea. Poverty in Chile has gone from 40% to 14%. There is still poverty in Chile, but improvement has been dramatic. The one last peg for leftists to hang their hats on is the disparity between the very rich and the rest of Chilean society.

I would finally note, on the matter of Pinochet, that the man turned over power to democratic forces in a peaceful manner. Perhaps he had had no choice. Perhaps he did. But his having done this in a peaceful manner is greatly under appreciated. Also, greatly under appreciated is his having instituted sound economic principals for his nation to follow.

Today, the west faces another totalitarian force; namely, Islamic fundamentalism. This force has succeeded in befuddling the western mind. I think it's because of its religious underpinnings. In short, the Islamist justifies everything he chooses to institute based on the word of God as given to man by Mohammed.

In the West, religious conflict is something that was experienced hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean that such conflict hasn't lingered in one form or another to this day. But what emerged in the interim is the growth of secularism. In the U.S. we have a Constitution that sets forth a separation of Church and State. Religions still try to have laws passed based on their views of God's will, e.g. "right to life." But, ultimately, whether the views of parties to a particular religious point of view prevail is determined by the larger population. In the west, that population is largely secular despite various religious affiliations.

A religion that seeks to make its will manifest through force (based on God's will) is something

relatively new to our society. But, clearly, it's something we must come to grips with and to do so pretty soon.

There May Be A Peace With The PA On The West Bank, But Israel Will Never Achieve A Peace Treaty With Them

I saw Zbigniew Brzezinski expound on the Israeli-Palestinian problem the other day on "Morning Joe." He told one and all that, on their own, Israel and the Palestinians will never achieve peace. He's right, but for the wrong reason. His explanation is that Israel is too strong and the Palestinians are too weak. (As a consequence, the U.S. must impose a peace.)

A "peace" imposed by the a third party is no peace. Also, the odds are that Israel will get screwed.

The weakness of the Palestinians is that they can not free themselves from the Islamists. It's not merely the Islamists on their own turf, but Islamists in all the Islamic nations surrounding them. When Al Jazeera leaked on how far Abbas was prepared to go as regards Jerusalem, it caused such a hue and cry among the Arabs that Abbas had to duck.

Islamists will never accept a Jewish state. They certainly won't concede Jerusalem. And, they will demand that "Palestinians", regardless of when they, or their parents, or their grandparents, left Israel, Israel must allow them to return. Neither they, nor the Syrians, will accept the fact that when you launch a war and lose, you've lost. The Syrians want the Golan back. The Palestinians want the Israeli's to return to boarders of an earlier age. I have no idea what the Israelis will do, but to accede to Arab demands would be crazy.

America, and especially Pres. Obama, must realize, at some point, that the problems of the Middle East have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein not because he was a Muslim, but because our allies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others) implored us to do so.

We went into Afghanistan, because the Taliban had given sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden, someone who had set in motion the destruction of the Twin Towers. And, now Pakistan is going to hell. They posit India as their main enemy. Why doesn't Obama impose a peace on Pakistan and India? Is it because peace simply can not be imposed?

But on Israel, everyone wants to impose a peace. Rockets from Gaza are fired at Israel, but Israel is not to retaliate. It's crazy.

Political correctness towards Islam is going to damage many more countries than just Israel. If someone who is Roman Catholic wants to get closer to God, he might become a priest. If a Jew wants to become more observant, he might move to Orthodoxy. But where does the Muslim go who wants to become more observant? He goes to Salafism. He begins to see non-Muslims as an impediment to Islam. Blasphemy becomes a crime before Allah. He wants Sharia. He wants the reestablishment of a Caliphate. Where does that leave the secular West, or, for that matter, the secular East? Israel is simply the nation that's at the point of the spear, but in truth all secular societies are enemies to the Islamists.

Steve and Cokie Roberts: Nice people talking straight or phonies?

Sandy, my wife, returned from a Hadassah breakfast where Steve and Cokie Roberts had addressed the ladies. They were pushing a new Haggada that they just published.



Steve is Jewish -- but you knew that. Cokie, the daughter of a man who was a powerful political leader, is Roman Catholic. They have two children. So I asked Sandy, "Are the kids Jewish?"



She laughed. "That's what the ladies asked."



"Okay, but what's the answer?" I replied.



"They wouldn't say," she answered.



"They wouldn't say. I don't get it. They come to a Hadassah meeting to peddle their Haggada and, presumably, to speak a little of their lives, the lives of a Jewish boy and a Catholic girl, who fell in love, got married and had children. Okay, I get that. But then to refuse to answer the question they must have known was coming? To not answer the most predictable question any Hadassah group would ask? That's being disingenuous.
That's being phony. Or, is it?

I've seen Haggadas written by anti-Zionist Palestinians. I've heard of Haggadas written by gay couples and by lesbian couples. (The Palestinian Haggada disgusted me. I can't see those written by same sex couples giving me a problem.) In other words, you don't have to be Jewish to write a Haggada. (However, some same sex couples might actually be Jewish.)

So, what does it mean to be Jewish. Writing a Haggada clearly tells you very little.

I think a Jew is one who identifies with what might be described as normative Jewish culture. So what does that mean? To me it means knowing a bit of the theology and Jewish rituals. You don't have to be a rabbi, but, by the same token, you shouldn't be an ignoramus.

First, you should know a bit of Jewish history. The book, "God, Jews, and History," by Max Dimont, is a good place to start. Next, gain some understanding of a Siddur. There is a great deal more, but with a proper beginning, someone interested in being a Jew will be motivated to pursue further studies.

Sounds easy. But with roughly 50% of all Jews marrying outside the faith there is clearly a challenge not being met. A troubled home life probably accounts for a good deal of alienation. Clearly parents have considerable responsibility for showing their kids why it's really good to be Jewish. Still, the community also has a responsibility to show Jewish kids the glory of their heritage. I'm sure Steve Roberts is a wonderful person. But, what does he know of yiddishkeit. Well, apparently enough to join with a Roman Catholic lady; namely, his wife, to write a Haggadah.

Economic Wisdom Beyond the Reach of Our Politicians

Warren Buffett cast some real pearls before TV viewers 3/2/11 on the morning CNBC show. Pearl One: Buffett gives great credit to Obama for having assembled the panel headed by Simpson and Bowles to set forth a series of financial policy recommendatons designed to pull America out of its enormous economic hole. The panel worked hard and came up with a sensible plan.

But, as Buffett pointed out, no one is paying this plan any attention; not Obama, and not the Congress. It would seem our leaders prefer a ship navigated by a blind captain.

According to Buffett, our situation can only go in three possible directions. We can raise taxes. We can modify our promises. Or, we can bring down upon ourselves inflation. However, as he noted, inflation is little more than taxation by other means.

Buffett dismissed arguments that our current rate of inflation is quite low by pointing out that a man falling from a 55 floor building suffers few if any ill effects for the first 54 floors. It's the last floor that kills him.

As to promises made to the public sector workers regarding benefits: In Buffett's opinion, a promise is a promise. You've got to keep them. But future benefits have to be pared back. They are now unsustainable.

Not addressed by Buffett is the moral dilemma posed by keeping unreasonable promises made regarding benefits by venal politicians to our older workers and then leaning down heavily on young workers.

As to taxes: There are negative consequences for our economy if we increase taxes. However, he did point out that our 300 highest earners (a group that includes himself) had their effective tax rate fall from around 30% down to 16%. This, in his opinion, was inappropriate.

Buffett also pointed to the problem of allowing CEOs to escape the consequences of their poor decisions. When they make good decisions they benefit inordinately. But, when they make poor decisions, they still walk away with loads of money. Boards of directors very often just don't do their jobs well. We know why. The CEO appoints them. So, of course, they give the CEO a sweet heart deal.

CEOs and companies must be held accountable. The banks were irresponsible with mortgages because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assumed all the risk. The banks therefore paid absolutely no attention to whom they were giving their mortgages. Buffett believes it's okay for Fannie and Freddie to assume 20% of the risk in mortgages. (This helps keep down mortgage rates.) But the banks should be in it for 80% of the risk. This would go a long way to keeping them honest.

But, who's listening?