I’m always impressed by the “do the impossible” mentality that American military forces exhibit. I mean, backing a helicopter into a ravine to recover a dead comrade before Taliban fighters can spot you? That’s some pretty amazing stuff.

NPR – Missions Leave No Soldier Behind In Afghanistan

It’s Sunday morning, partly cloudy and threatening to rain. I’m blown because my “wretched body of death” missed church, but I said, ‘Hey, I’ll pray and read my Bible from home.” And then I was thinking, “O, I’ll blog today about the conversation I had with some friends on whether ‘Arab Money’ by Busta Rhymes is offensive or not.” And then, in my haplessly-wandering internet mode, I came across #4 on WordPress’s “Fastest Growing WordPress.com Blogs” – Jaded Heaven. Dope name, right? But that first post had me thinking “WTF are you on?” Here’s a snippet:

I find myself increasingly repulsed by Muslim practices and beliefs. Middle Eastern, African, Asian, American, the country of origin makes no difference. Women and children treated as chattel, genital mutilation, child brides, honor killings, culturally accepted pedophilia, the black drapes and head coverings, no rights, no votes, little to non-existent educational opportunities, no voice, no choices, no recourse. Persecution of homosexuals. Imprisonment, stoning and whipping for morality crimes. Lack of free speech. The foul treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. The demented hatred of Jews. Sharia Law. Wahhabism. Madrasas. Blind obedience to Mullahs. Praying towards Mecca – a place on the map few will ever see. Individuality is shut down, originality and freedom of the mind discouraged. Islam pisses on human talents that fall outside the dark walls of its faith. Hell, I even dislike their dislike of dogs.

Honestly, this could be the most ignorant shit I’ve read all year – and I’ve been reading Scalia and Thomas opinions for a lot of that time. Who authorized this? Like, the blog author amalgamated all the worst aspects of practices found in Islamic countries (mind you, that includes a lot of countries), distorted them, exagerrated them, and then spewed it out as reasoned justification for her disgust with Islam. It’s fine to disagree with the religion, but damn, you sound ignorant. Like, you put no thought at all into your writing. I’m sure we can point to more than enough examples of offensive things in Western tradition. I mean, how long ago did women get the right to vote in America? When was it cool to be homosexual in the Western world? How are Muslims treated in non-Islamic nations? And we don’t even need to touch upon the anti-Semitism that has been rampant not only throughout US history, but throughout Western history. Like, pound-for-pound, point-for-point, the blogger’s argument sucks simply because it can be countered by examples in the United States, in Western tradition, and in the nebulous notion of Judeo-Christianity.

But no, it gets better, let’s get to the point about Moderate Muslims.

Sure, I know most Muslims aren’t carrying out jihad, many don’t financially support those activities, millions don’t dance in the streets and rejoice death. Answer me this though, of all of those billions who don’t participate, how many are actively fighting the Islamists? How many are working to moderate and depoliticize the Book, men, rulers and countries who support terrorism? I have yet to see the Middle East street riot to overthrow the mullahs, dethrone the Saudis, crush the morality police or stone the acid throwing scumbags who attack school girls. Where are the millions of women demonstrating for their natural human rights to keep their labias, show their arms and hair, go to school, drive a damn car? Where are the protesters when a filmmaker, writer or cartoonist is killed for expressing their thoughts on Islam? Show me the Muslim groups vocally trying to protect children or homosexuals. There is absolutely no movement among their theologians to modernize, secularize or temper the Koran. I haven’t even touched on Southeast Asia, a predominately Muslim region full of Islamic terrorism that our media regularly ignores. The vast majority of supposed moderates wallow in the same foul cesspool that breeds extremism. They don’t give a shit. Insha Allah.

No seriously, this really was posted up on the internet. Lol, hold up, hold up, hold up!! So you’re telling me that Moderate Muslims now have a duty placed on them to right the wrongs that other people have done just because they share the same religion? Even in US criminal doctrine, there is no duty to save or help others if you have not done anything to put them in that position. So why are you raging against the “Moderate Muslims [that] don’t exist” again? O, “they” collectively have a duty to conform to your standards of what is right and wrong. O right, I forgot about that word I learned in high school – ethnocentrism. Sigh.

But let’s take this a step further (partly because someone obviously needs to address this racist crap and partly because I haven’t had this much fun smashing an argument in a long time). So because you don’t see any organizations trying to address some of the issues that you point to, that serves as grounds to say that “Moderate Muslims don’t exist.” WTF? So because you don’t see something, it doesn’t exist? Once again – who authorized this argument? I mean, damn, when was the last time you turned on the TV and saw some Native American organizations fighting hard to address the problems that blight many of our nation’s reservations? …right. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. That doesn’t mean that they’re not out there doing the unpopular work. That just means that you haven’t seen them. And do you really expect Fox News to do a story about moderate Muslims?

But you know what the author may be thinking? “I’ve been hearing about these issues for a long time and because they’ve been around for a long time and no progress has been made on them, that must mean nobody is working on dealing with them.” I feel like I’ve wasted enough blog space, so I won’t address this point. Hopefully, whoever reads this will be able to smash this without my help.

Okay, last nail in the coffin regarding the author’s conception of moderate Muslims. Google.

Google search #1: moderate muslims
Google search #2: moderate muslim site:npr.org
Google search #3: moderate muslim site:cnn.com
Google search #4: moderate muslim site:foxnews.com
Google search #5: moderate muslim site:english.aljazeera.net/

Ah, yes – you’re fired.

So I check the comments to see what type of response this post is getting… and people were like, “Amen” and shit! I cannot believe how ignorant people can be sometimes. See, that’s the thing about the internet, it truly is a double edged sword.  When I was younger, people were heralding the internet as being the “information highway,” “online classroom,” “endless library,” “passport to the world,” etc. etc. The internet does serve many of those purposes. Yet, at the same time, that anonymity that allows me to blog whatever I want to blog, applies to the next person too. That Web 2.0 function that engenders a somewhat intelligent discourse on certain topics, allows for the fomenting of ignorance and hatred. But you know, this is what comes with free speech.

To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense, not a sign of weakness but of strength.
Cohen v. California

This is also in line with Justice Holmes’ first articulation of the free marketplace of ideas. See generally Holmes’ Dissent in Abrams v. United States. Where you’ve got an open debate with relatively few restraints on discussion, you’re going to have a lot of ignorant and some very ignorant expression. Hopefully, the currency that the ignorant ideas have will be washed away in favor of ideas that are actually rational and we’ll get to the “truth.” But, who knows?

In the end, this boils down to some pretty ignorant, well-written, horribly-reasoned sentences stringed together in the guise of an argument. It’s not an argument but a racist, bigoted, one-sided, ignorant, emotional diatribe against Islam. See kiddies, this is what happens when you don’t critically think about things. When you watch TV, read the newspaper, or browse the worldwide web, make sure you ask youself one thing: “Really?”

My friend just passed me this post from the Huffington Post…

Russian Professor Says U.S. Will Break Up After Economic Crisis

By Robin Stringer

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — A professor at the diplomatic academy of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the U.S. will break into six parts because of the nation’s financial crisis.

“The dollar isn’t secured by anything,” Igor Panarin said in an interview transcribed by Russian newspaper Izvestia today. “The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse.”

Panarin said in the interview that the financial crisis will worsen, unemployment will rise and people will lose their savings — factors that will cause the country’s breakup.

“Dissatisfaction is growing, and it is only being held back at the moment by the elections, and the hope” that President- elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he said. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The U.S. will fracture into six parts: the Pacific coast; the South; Texas; the Atlantic coast, central states and the northern states.

“Now we will see a change to the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will cease to be the world’s regulator,” to be replaced by China and Russia, he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us

Sounds like propaganda if I’ve ever heard of it. Okay, China’s rise I can understand – but Russia!?!? That day has come and gone, Igor. Stop living in the past and thinking that a winning a war with Georgia means Russia is a future super-power. Excuse my nationalism.

So, I’ve noticed that I’m getting more and more search engine hits, based simply on the title of this blog, “El Caudillo.” So for those people who are looking for something substantive and useful, quite unlike most of the material that is posted up here, here’s an unscholarly explanation of the term.

I’ll start off with some definitions of the term that I found on the internet. The Yahoo Spanish Dictionary (which is a really good online dictionary) defines “caudillo” as “1. (military, politics) leader, chief, commander; 2. (America) political boss.” And Google’s Language Translation services translates the term as “warlord.” That’s a good place to start at because it gives you the general idea that a caudillo is some type of leader, with strong political influence and military strength.

In Latin America, caudillos were prominent regional leaders with substantial political influence and control based upon their military strength. After the wave of Latin American independence that occurred in early 1800s, the political stability of Latin American countries was in a chronic state of flux. The struggle for power ravaged most Latin American countries. The problem was that, although the new Latin American republics had elegant constitutions with provisions for political and economic rights and liberties and clauses detailing the form and functions of government, the reality on the ground was a different story. The criollo-dominated central governments who were supposed to control the wide expanses of Simon Bolivar-liberated land were unable to actually do so. So in the midst of a political vacuum, a new type of politician arose, the “caudillo.”

Now that I think about it, I’m not quite sure just where these individuals, these caudillos, came from. But looking at the times, I suppose they were former captains or commanders of the colonial armies or independence forces. And they probably came out of the upper-crust criollo classes, but I’m sure there are probably many exceptions to that assertion. Regardless of where they came from, these guys were regional powerhouses. They held the power that the central governments were supposed to have. Backed by sizable military forces, they wielded political power, sometimes being referred to as “strongmen,” or “warlords,” and even “governors.” And they were often characterized by a charismatic and populist image. As power consolidated, the warlords fought each other and the central governments to try to gain power. Typically, the caudillos would gain provincial power and move on to the capital to cement their rule. But because their power was born from violence and various power relations they had with other political actors, they were always being challenged by other caudillos. It was a pretty violent time.

Throughout history, there have been prominent caudillos. They include Porfirio Diaz (Mexico), Juan Manuel de Rosas (Argentina), Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Mexico), Jose Rafael Carrera (Guatemala), Jose Tadeo Monagas (Venezuela), and Ramon Castilla (Peru). Infamous Spanish dictator Francisco Franco also took on the title of “caudillo.” Interestingly enough, his taking on of the moniker sort of demonstrates the military-politico attributes of historical caudillos. Even today, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, is often called a “caudillo.”

Anyways, that’s pretty much it.