Thankfully the Democrats in the House Science Committee took care of dismembering this forward, so I don’t have to.

OUT OF FOCUS: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SENATE REPORT, “THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: UNDER THE MICROSCOPE”

The issue of reliable news sources is another major problem, but at least this email goes beyond the usual “my cousin Jim heard about how Obama isn’t an American citizen…”, giving the reader a chance to verify the reliability of the information.

On to the email!

It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women. Sadly, it’s not.

Just take a look at the top 10 shocking, crazy things Republicans have proposed in recent weeks. If you think this constitutes a war on women, please share this email far and wide—forward it, and post it on Facebook and Twitter.

I wish I could say these were the only examples of the Republican war on women. But it’s just a sampling, and more is sure to come—unless we raise a ruckus and call them out. So please, share this email today.

Thanks,

Kat

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like, burglary, would remain “victims.”

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8.) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).

Please share this email today. Just click the links to post on Facebook and Twitter.

Sources:
1. “‘Forcible Rape’ Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding,” The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=6

“Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced,” Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=7

2. “Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As ‘Accusers,’” The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=8

3. “South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors,” Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=9

4. “House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows,” National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=10

5. “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion,” Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=11

6. “Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids,” Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/

7. “Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli,” The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=12

8. “House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy,” The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-

9. “House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding,” MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=13

“GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds,” Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=14

10. Ibid.

Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women,” Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-462163-sL0sBix&t=15

For the brave among you, read on!

When you receive a chain letter, keep in mind that in the vast majority of cases—and this is especially true of political chain letters from the extremes (either extreme)—the letters will be riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies. If the letter is coming from someone who shares the general views of the letter they’re passing on, they’re almost certainly suffering from an acute case of confirmation bias.

This letter appears to fit the mold perfectly. Let’s start from the top.

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Fwd: SCARIE………….??

Telltale signs of chain letter

1) Fwd
2) All caps
3) Excessive punctuation
4) misspelling

—–Original Message—– :

Take the three minutes to read this. Maybe he is wrong, but what if he’s right?

>

Terrible formatting from going through so many different email clients causes “>” to be placed at the beginning of every line, making not only the content but also the formatting of such a letter obnoxious. I’ve taken the liberty of removing every subsequent occurrence of “>"

David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad
range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in
1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities:
Washington D.C. , Albany , New York , and Dakar , Senegal .. He attended Harvard
University , graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in history. He then spent
several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in
1976.. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.

He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States
Naval War College . He has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams
College and Harvard University . Kaiser’s latest book, The Road to Dallas, about
the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University Press.

This is true. David Kaiser is a respected historian. Much of these paragraphs (if not all of them) come from Dr. Kaiser’s Wikipedia page. However, also on his Wikipedia page is this:

In April 2009, a viral email comparing Barack Obama to the rise of the Third Reich was wrongly attributed to Kaiser. Kaiser has stated that the email is a forgery.[1] The email does not reflect Kaiser’s actual views. Snopes.com traced the email content to an anonymous commenter on Pat Dollard’s blog.

So the first paragraph asking “what if he’s right?” is moot. He’s not anything. He’s not a part of this email. He’s just a guy whose accomplishments are being used to give the absurd paragraphs that follow it the veneer of authority and respectability.

Continuing on:

Dr. David Kaiser
History Unfolding

“History Unfolding” is the actual name of Dr. Kaiser’s blog. Nothing below this line ever appeared in this blog.

I am a student of history. and I have studied history all my life. I have come
to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is
simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these
exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only
now coming into a sharper focus..

Translation: “I’m an expert on this issue because I’m writing under the guise of a historian. All your irrational fears can now be justified historically!”

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know
how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a
perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our
country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has
dramatically quickened in the past two.

Translation: “You’re right to have irrational fear of Obama. It’s his fault. I know the bailout happened under Bush and that the spending problems were precipitated by someone you supported, but it’s ok: Obama’s the one who’s really got the ball rolling, so you don’t have to feel bad about supporting Bush.”

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive
loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

“The crisis was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act even though the data show this to be wrong. I’m saying this so that you can blame the crisis on the Democrats and on the lower class, you loathe the former and don’t have occasion or desire to talk to the latter. I’ve therefore kept you and your friends in a bubble of blamelessness.”

We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real
oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is
$2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or
why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three
times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past
September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a
government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders.
Apparently not.

Translation: “Be angry at elected officials over the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, even though the bank is not beholden to anyone within the government and Bush nominated Bernanke. Because hating the direction of the Federal Reserve as an independent system would mean the only elected official towards which you could direct your ire would be a Bush appointee, we’ll just ascribe to president Obama all actions taken by the federal reserve for the past 4 years.”

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our
economy… Why?

“Don’t worry, I’ll work this sentence back around to Obama. I promise.”

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no
longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are
worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or
articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards
continue to back mediocrity. Why?

Translation: “You’ve been asking yourself how an America-hater like Obama got elected. I’ll tell you. It’s because our schools aren’t teaching patriotism anymore! They’re not teaching about those good old-fashioned American values that you view as immutable! Pay no mind to slavery, internment, colonialism, etc. We need to teach ‘America: The Good parts Version’.”

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election
(violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it
simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman.Did you
ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our
sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that
radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN
and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Translation: “Judicial activism is new. Contested presidential elections are new. Read all about it in ‘America: the Good Parts Version’ (Marbury v. Madison and the elections of Thomas Jefferson and Rutherford B. Hayes omitted.) And everyone’s been talking about ACORN, so let’s throw them in there.”

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major
industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social
security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government.

Translation: “I’m strongly implying that all the problems in the news are caused by right wing buzzwords like ‘Judicial Activism’, ‘voter fraud’, and ‘ACORN’. Does this make sense? No, but I don’t have to defend it not making sense because I didn’t explicitly draw the causality. I just implied it with the structure of my paragraphs. Fun, huh?”

Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely
what I am talking about)

“I mentioned this before, but I’ll mention it again as I just remembered I’m pretending to be a college professor, so this’ll carry weight.”

– the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and
depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten…

“I’m working my way up to something, but let me hit all the touchstones of American horror. We’ll start with the great depression.”

And we are at war with an enemy we cannot
even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn,
cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to
do so.

“And we’ll continue with some fear of terrorism through a lovely little bit of Islamophobia.”

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who
has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla ,
Alaska ..

“We won’t talk about other people who never ran anything before becoming President (John McCain, John Kennedy, Harry Truman, and some guy named Abraham Lincoln. However, a couple of these are Republican heroes, so we’ll contrast Obama with right wing hero Sarah Palin.”

All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their
chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is
unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his
idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our
military for use inside our borders?

“I love trotting out this canard. People eat it up! This all comes from Obama’s commitment to using diplomacy as much as military might, but why let the truth get in the way of a good chain letter?”

No? Oh, of course. The media would never
play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s
pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

“I know I’m dating my email with this little nugget, but people covering ridiculous but true stories about Republicans infuriates me to the same degree that making up things about Democrats excites me!”

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

“Are you ready? Here comes my malarkey-de-resistance!”

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever
done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along
philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a
new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes,
you will never see the same nation again.

“Be afraid! I’m about to break Godwin’s Law in 3…2…1…”

And that is only the beginning..

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what
the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the
“savior” was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom
the average German knew next to nothing.

Nevermind that Hitler grew famous while in prison for attempting to overthrow the government. He grew rich from sales of Mein Kampf. So in the mid-30s, people already knew a) that he hated Jews and b) that he tried to violently overthrow the government.

What they should have known was that he
was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with
whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great
oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.

All of this was well known.

And there were the promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing
jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot.

Translation: “He was a politician.”

And
people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown
shirts” would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did – regularly.

“This has nothing to do with Obama, as I haven’t even attempted to draw parallels, but because other prevarications I’ve told have tenuous and dubious parallels, your mind will assume this one does too! Psychology 101!”

And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis
bloomed at hand – the Great Depression.

A new leader comes to power in bad economic times? You don’t say! (Hoover –> Roosevelt, Carter –> Reagan, Bush –> Clinton, etc. etc. etc.)

Slowly, but surely he seized the
controls of government power, person by person, department by department,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first,
encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly
what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,

“More things that Hitler did that have no corollary! But you’ve already bitten by this point and you’re not going to let go!”

How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless,
money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex.

A politician who promises jobs, an improved economy, and a strong military. Name me a presidential candidate who hasn’t campaigned on that in the last 50 years.

He did
it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all,
better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the
country, across Europe , and across the world.

Let’s break this down: a) indoctrination: no corollary. b) gun control: no corollary (gun control was never a strong plank of the Obama platform, and he has done only one thing to change gun rights since he’s taken office: he’s now allowing them in national parks). c) health care cooperatives developed first in Germany, this is true. The only trouble is that they developed (in the form that continues today) in the late 1800s under Otto Von Bismarck. So that doesn’t work. d) reinstilling pride in the country? Once again, find me a presidential candidate who didn’t promise this. It certainly would fit the campaign of Ronald “It’s morning in America again” Reagan.

He did it with a compliant media
- did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and …. . …
change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It’s all there in the history books.

“Actually, I’m telling you to look it up as a derisive dare. This will reexert my authority as a (faux) historian and make you less likely to look it up. Because boy, I’m in trouble if you do even five minutes of research into this!”

So read your history books.

“But not really.”

Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were
shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill
pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lordsin
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a
crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the world came to regret that he
was not listened to.

Yes. He was right about Hitler. This has nothing to do with Obama. Incidentally, he also thought that England under the Labour government that came to power after the war would institute a Gestapo in England, so let’s not go saying he’s some kind of Nostradamus.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and
universities.

As were most western European countries.

And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two
terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing
others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors
against neighbors..

“I’m going to ignore all the historical and social factors that enabled Hitler’s rise to power, because they don’t have parallels in the modern world at all. I won’t mention the pervasive anti-Semitism endemic to all of Europe (the only thing approaching this in America right now is the Islamophobia that this essay endorses), nor with the psychological blow that Germany had suffered with its defeat in World War I.

All with the best of intentions, of course.. The road to
Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a
choice:

You’re not a practical thinker. You are prone to hyperbole and hysterics.

I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even
if they make me cringe with disgust);

“You know, the pieces of evidence I made up out of whole cloth to fit my preconceived notions!”

I can believe what history is shouting to
me from across the chasm of seven decades;

“I made some of that up, too!”

or I can hope I am wrong by closing
my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..

Please do. For the love of truth, please close your eyes and have a latte.

I choose to believe the evidence.

“My evidence!”

No doubt some people will scoff at me, others
laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both.

I not only think that, I think you’re a fraud. No, I know you’re a fraud. And a liar.

To some degree, perhaps I am.

Finally, some truth!

But
I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I
believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

You don’t have to pray. You are wrong. To an absurd degree.

Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the
next elections.

No, our only hope is for people on both extremes of the political spectrum to stop being so easily led around by snake oil salesmen like whomever you are.

David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island
United States

“But not really”

By passing this along, perhaps it will help to begin the awakening of America as
to where we are headed.

Or perhaps it will spread lies and idiocy around the Internet. Which, my friends, it the purpose of most chain letters.

People who send political chain letters around, I have found, are dogmatic to the point of intellectual myopia. I befriended a Tea Party guy at the Health Care protests I photographed. He sent me about 10 chain letters. All of them—to the very last one—had serious lies in them. Many of them were debunked on snopes. I replied to all that I could with corrections and exhortations for him to be more sceptical of what he reads. The funny thing is that he considers himself to be very sceptical. That’s the truly pernicious nature of confirmation bias. It blinds us to our own weaknesses.

If you ever get chain letters—especially ones like these—please forward them to me. I have a side project with a friend of mine debunking them. It’s sporadic, but we do it. And I enjoy it, strangely enough.

Stay alert. Stay sensible. Stay logical.

Andrew.

If you made it through that letter, congrats. I hope my commentary was caustic, trenchant, and amusing. OK, I actually just hope it was readable. As I read through the chain letter, I became more and more frustrated that someone I know bought into it uncritically.

What I found frustrating is that the other person in the discussion was extremely forceful and aggressive in conversation. When she asked a question that was simple in its wording, but far-reaching in its implications, I would start to answer, and would immediately be attacked with another question. If you have political discussions on any sort of semi-regular basis, you’ve probably been in a similar situation.

I use the word attacked very specifically. Throughout this conversation, because I believe that people do have obligations to one another, that the social welfare state is actually a good model, and that (therefore) taxation (with representation) is legitimate; because my PhD research is funded by DARPA, my father was in the military, and I have connections to the military,  I was accused of being an advocate of violence. The word murderer even came up.

I’ve had discussions with people who straddle the line between libertarianism and anarchism in the past, and they have generally managed to be polite. We don’t yell at each other, and we don’t get in each others’ faces. We do interrupt each other at times, and certainly we’re condescending to each other, but we are not aggressive.

My point here is always be polite in political discussion. It’s difficult, but that’s what this blog is about– cases in which people lose their self-control, and debate breaks down into violence. The second point is that violence is not merely physical. Violence can be created with words just as easily as with fists. Calling someone a murderer and an advocate of violence is an act of violence in itself, especially when accompanied with volume and questions meant not to guide discussion, but to attack the beliefs of another.

I do not know if the person I was arguing with counts herself as a pacifist. I suspect she may, because of her emphasis on the invalidity of the use of force. If you are to call yourself a pacifist though, and object to the use of force, I believe you’re directly contravening your own principles when you make use of an aggressive style of argument.

My response to her aggressive style was not to yell back, or make accusations, or resort to personal attacks– I finally, frustrated with not being able to fully respond, said one word: “Hush”. This ended the conversation, as she refused to speak to me because I was disrespectful.

I respect her opinions, and upon some googling, I respect that she is involved in her local community in trying to make her ideas take form. I disagree with her, of course, but I’m not opposed to the idea that I could learn something from her approach. She completely shut down that possibility in discussion by her approach.

Political debate that turns aggressive and verbally violent only generates further animosity. Politics is about compromise; it’s about persuasion. It’s about finding the place where we agree, and figuring out what violations of our principles we can live with for the sake of living with other people. If you want to teach people, or help them understand why your way is better, you should never resort to verbal violence.

In keeping with this new tradition, a friend of mine recently sent me one of the first emails I’ve gotten from him that doesn’t mention the nascent socialist takeover of the United States at all. No, this one was all Islam, all the time. Actually it was just a link to a YouTube video. Have a watch, and then read my lengthy response below the jump.

Have you watched it? Good. Here’s the email:

Below you will find my response to the video link that you sent me. It’s long, but I think it’s worth reading. A few notes, though, before I begin:

a) Islam is not monolithic any more than Christianity is monolithic. Not all Muslims ascribe to Wahhabism just as not all Christians subscribe to the Christian Identity[1] movement. Videos like this one attempt to paint the entire Muslim world as Wahhabi, when that’s not true at all. Wahhabism is a movement within Sunni Islam that has a very rich sponsor in Saudi Arabia and had a nice base of operations in Afghanistan. It is not, however, particularly common in the Muslim world.

Here’s a map of the major legal and belief systems in the Muslim world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Madhhab_Map2.png

To which is the video referring? They’re way too diverse and divergent for it to be referring to all three.

b) It’s easy to believe the malarkey in this video at face value if you don’t actually know or interact with Muslims on a daily basis. Dehumanization of any group of people is easier if you keep your distance. I haven’t had that option. Not at college, not at work, and not in my social life. And I’m very glad I don’t. I’d be more likely to believe the lies in this video if I did.

OK. Onto the analysis:

I did not think our country, the Western World, or the World (for that matter) was at war with Islam, so I watched this video and learned.

The first thing I learned is that whoever made this video had plenty of money for a very high-value production (even if it is just text). I watched it all the way through. And then I did 30 minutes of research. It’s what I do with any article or video that makes claims but contains no evidence to back up its claims.

The second thing I learned is that it’s astoundingly false. Not just one or two of the three points it makes, but all three are AMAZINGLY misleading.

The intro talks about how people surround themselves that agree with their preconceived notions. Ironically, that’s what this video relies on. And it seems to have worked. This video managed to make it to me with absolutely no comments about the content of the video other than a paragraph of glittering generalities about the West vs. Islam.[2]

I guess I’ll issue point by point refutations of the video.

1) Abrogation.

To say that the concept of abrogation is universally accepted in the Muslim faith is incorrect. It is widely accepted, but far from universal.

To say that every peaceful phrase in the Qur’an has been abrogated by the Verse of the Sword is very, very wrong. The Verse of the Sword was temporally constrained to a battle that took place against certain Pagan tribes that had broken a treaty with Muslims and had previously slain them on a pilgrimage.

There is no universality among those who ascribe to the doctrine of abrogation as to which verses have been abrogated. In fact, in the Middle Ages, the general consensus was that somewhere in the vicinity of 200 verses had been abrogated. Nowadays, most scholars claim only a handful of abrogations. The majority of Muslims do not accept abrogation of the “peaceful” phrases by the Verse of the Sword.[3] Abrogation is meant to resolve differences in laws, not differences in the laws of war vs. the laws of peacetime.

2) Sharia.

This one is even more false than the first one. Qur’anic verse states that “dhimmi” (“people of the contract”, or certain non-Muslims living in Muslim-governed land) need not abide by and are not tried under Sharia law. In much of the Muslim world, “dhimmi” is seen to refer to any non-Muslim living under Muslim rule.

Additionally, many Muslim countries (Turkey, Indonesia, Mali, Kazakhstan) are secular. These are countries ruled by Muslims and ruling over Muslims that do not have Sharia law. In its place are a constitution and a legislature.

The video tries to scare people by saying that EVEN IN THE U.K., Muslims are trying to establish and enforce Sharia law. It’s true. If both parties agree to have their claims arbitrated by a Sharia court rather than try the case in civil court, they can do so. It’s kind of equivalent to going on Judge Judy or The People’s Court. It’s an alternate forum that can be used if both parties agree to it. The U.K. has been doing the same thing with Jewish Beth Din courts for 100 years. Where have the videos been on that issue?

3) Taqiyya

If the filmmakers wanted me not to immediately do research to figure out how full of it their claims were, they should have left this one off the list. The problem is that I already knew about taqiyya. I came across it when studying the Druze religion, which is an 11th century offshoot of Islam. It’s a fascinating religion. It’s completely closed to outsiders, proselytization is strictly forbidden, and they keep their beliefs very private.

Here’s what taqiyya is all about: if you are living under a government that persecutes your religion, you’re allowed to hide your religion from those who would persecute or kill you. Taqiyya was used by Sunnis living under Shi’a rule and even more commonly by Shi’a living under Sunni rule. These are the limits of Qur’anic taqiyya. Any claim that this doctrine is designed for political doubletalk knows nothing of Taqiyya, and those who say its intended use is to deceive non-Muslims ignore history.

So there you have it. Some facts behind the slick production values. Thinking for yourself is good; researching what people tell you is even better. It’s the best expression of skepticism there is.

You told me to remain skeptical, and I do. I hope you continue to send these email forwards you get. I enjoy learning from and researching them.

In closing,

| If you never watch another “youtube” video, you should watch this one!

The only way I would never watch another YouTube video after this one is if someone reliably told me that all YouTube videos were this spurious. If that were so, I would swear off YouTube videos at a moment’s notice.

Andrew.

PS: I hope you had a good time in DC when you were up here for the rally. I’m sorry we didn’t get a chance to meet up.

Footnotes:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

[2] The paragraph reminds me greatly of Oswald Spengler’s book, The Decline of the West (1918, revised 1922), about how the West is doomed to fall to the “Magian” Semitic societies of the Jews and the Arabs, while the “Faustian” West withers away. The book prompted a very eloquent refutation in The Rise of the West by William McNeill, excoriating Spengler’s flawed “clash of civilizations” analysis of world history.

[3] http://www.nicheoftruth.org/pages/the_quran_and_the_theory_of_abrogation.htm

The first two articles address the estimate of frequency of guns being used in self-defense; the third addresses churchgoing numbers.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/07/counting_church.html

* The first article strengthens my position on this. I generally find the defense against home-invasion case uncompelling, or self-defense while strolling around the city. I do find it a more compelling argument for women, especially for women who frequently travel alone or live alone.  Women do, unfortunately, still face situations that men do not. Please note that I do not advocate blanket bans on firearms, or excessive restriction, but I am in favor of reasonable levels of regulation. I do not think that the self-defense argument forces a higher bar for justification of regulation.

So now’s as good a time as to relink to that original post of mine and have you folks read it again. Because apparently you didn’t get it the first time.

Here’s what USAA wrote:

Dear Mr. Heckel:

Rarely in our 87-year history have we turned to USAA members to weigh in with elected representatives on an issue of great importance. But, we are now.

The U.S. Senate currently is considering legislation (S.3217) that would impose new rules on the nation’s financial services industry, including USAA.

As the leading provider of financial services to America’s military community, USAA supports financial services reform.

However, the current Senate bill would disproportionally impact USAA because we are a unique and fully integrated association. USAA is not like the banks and other companies that helped bring down our economy, and we never took a penny of TARP funds. We do not engage in the harmful practices this legislation seeks to resolve.

If unchanged, the bill would:

• Prevent USAA from managing the association’s portfolio as we have for the past 87 years.
• Jeopardize our ability to continue offering many of our competitive products.
• Limit our ability to return money to our members. Last year, USAA returned $1.2 billion to our members in the form of distributions, dividends, and bank rebates and rewards.*

So, we are asking all USAA members and employees to urge their U.S. senators to amend a portion of the bill, known as the “Volcker Rule,” to eliminate its effect on a company like USAA. Please know that this legislation does not impact individual member’s investments.

Regardless of the outcome of the legislation, USAA will remain a unique and enduring association that’s all about you — the military and their families.

Please take action on this matter by immediately contacting your U.S. senator. You may click here to access a special website that will enable you to quickly send an e-mail message to your senator.
Thank you for your help and support,
Joe Robles Signature
Josue (Joe) Robles Jr.
Major General, USA (Ret.)
President and CEO

Unfortunately, the detail mostly stopped there. I spent a good bit of time last night trying to understand what is going on with this, and, well, it wasn’t entirely clear. Still, in the end, I chose to go ahead and send a message on USAA’s behalf. Why?

First, what is USAA? The United Services Automobile Association started as an auto insurance company in 1922 by Army Officers who were having difficulty obtaining insurance. Not long thereafter, it opened membership to all services in the armed forces. It eventually branched out into other types of insurance, banking, and investments. Business was conducted entirely through mail for many years, and eventually moved to telephone service, then internet. USAA does not have any traditional bank branches or its own ATM machines; unlike your bank, however, this isn’t a problem. It doesn’t charge ATM fees to members, and it refunds fees charged by other banks. It received no TARP bailout money. USAA insurance premiums are quite low, and their investment returns are pretty good. When the new credit card rules went into place, USAA went a step further and– while late payment fees still exist– stopped increasing late payment interest rates. Profits from the insurance side of the business are returned to members quarterly. It is consistently rated as having the best customer service of any company in the United States. Seriously.

In short, USAA generally does everything right for their customers, and they’re certainly not doing anything shady with FDIC-insured deposits.

USAA is unique in the US, though (or nearly so– State Farm also would run afoul of the Volcker Rule). Because they provide a full array of financial services, this also means they can run into unique problems.  Specifically, the Volcker Rule would affect them because insurance premiums are invested into higher risk (but still not actively shady)/higher yield investments. So their insurance premiums would necessarily increase due to the fact that USAA has both banking and insurance arms.

Now, unfortunately, the email that USAA sent out was a bit light on the details. As such, they’re taking some flack for it: USAA’s anti-finreg campaign. This is not entirely undeserved– except for calling USAA anti-financial regulation– because while USAA did provide more information ( see http://tinyurl.com/32ny6r2 ), it’s still not quite enough. And honestly, when you search for information about the Volcker Rule, it’s hard to find a clear explanation of what’s going on with it.  So here’s my attempt to explain what the fuss is about:

The Volcker Rule aims to prevent FDIC-insured banks from risky investments, and the subtext seems to be that this would bring the investment arms of these banks into line– or encourage the banks to completely close up the investment shops attached to them. While the idea is perhaps good on its face, it seems way underspecified so that it hits places like USAA, and perhaps overly restricting in that it cuts off a lot of reasonable investment activity which, while riskier than government bonds, are still not shady financial products. And other things I’ve been reading have suggested that it wouldn’t actually do a whole lot of good, given that it wouldn’t apply to some of the major offenders, since they’re not depository banks. (The other things I’ve been reading: The Volcker rule ).

In addition, my friend Branen Salmon adds:

The impression I get is that this is a response to some depository banks investing FDIC-backed deposits in an attempt to make mad dollaz, thus hitting the FDIC hard when their risky investments hit the skids. It’s true that a lot of the major offenders of the recent mess were not depository banks (though a few were). Also, to the best of my understanding, USAA’s proprietary investments are performed solely with its insurance capital, not with its deposits, and I believe that several states exert tight regulation on insurance capital investments.

So that, as near as I can tell, is what the Volcker Rule does, and how it affects USAA. Based on all of this, as well as USAA’s strong customer service record and general competence, are the reason that I decided to support USAA’s campaign to have the Volcker Rule modified to prevent it from negatively impacting their business.

If I’ve gotten anything wrong here, please let me know. While I’m confident that this information is basically correct, I realize it is unlikely to be perfect– though at least it should be a more clear explanation of what’s going on with this issue.

I should note that while my knowledge of economics is, well, lacking, I found this pretty fantastic. Discovered through winged and finned.

These posts are a two part response to a Jonah Goldberg piece. Goldberg is a clown; he pointed to Swarthmore as a hotbed of liberal fascism a couple years ago, which, well… Sort of isn’t worth responding to. Anyway, Goldberg is, surprise, complaining that those taxes the liberals inflict are just awful and fascist and so forth. So the first post breaks down tax burden by GDP, and also by the different types of tax:

Jonah Goldberg, Quarter Slave (Conceptually)

The second article is more interesting, in my opinion. It looks at the GINI coefficient, which represents income distribution, and compares the US to other developed nations, both before and after taxes:

Jonah Goldberg, Anti-Maldistributionist

I found these articles pretty fascinating, and it provides something to think about as the tax deadline approaches.