CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists, that terrorism and suicide bombings are not the way to make political points.

In the hearts and minds game, Egypt progressed past its beginnings to reach this point.  It has to be noted that Egypt worked hard at this and came about it only after many years, through the force of a moderate leader who was assassinated. (side story:  UN investigation into Hezbollah’s <funded by Iran> hand in the assassination is what brought down the Lebanese government) Culture is after all a generational problem (or benefit).

To see the full context, Stratfor’s piece on Egypt written in light of recent terrorist attacks within Egypt by Muslims against Christians is an excellent resource.  Stratfor starts by providing context, detailing Egypt’s ruthless efficiency for dealing with terrorists, even after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981.  Giving an underpinning to the reason why the terrorist attacks in Egypt deserve special attention; Egypt is entering a time of leadership change.  Therefore the two sides of Egypt, the more liberal side (liberal for the Middle East that is) against the Islamists (read entire piece here):

What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.

This time up, it’s Representative Peter King of NY.  Not to be outdone by Paul Krugman’s idiocy, Mr. King is trying to parlay one lone gunmen into a brand new set of gun control laws (here):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the gun-free zone in the immediate vicinity of federal officials…. he planned to introduce legislation next week incorporating his proposal….

It should seem obvious that this legislation has little chance of preventing or even acting as a deterrent to another such terrorist act, but not surprising the legislation is being pushed anyway.

As is usual with any legislation, it existed prior to the ‘crisis’ which was used as reasoning to pass it right now.  Truly the only way in which this is related to the Arizona shooting at all is in timing (article cont’d):

But many lawmakers have been concerned about the safety of themselves and their aides since Saturday’s shootings in Tucson and might be more open to King’s proposal than they would have been a week ago.

In a more perfect world, maybe we could point to this as the exception of a reasoned public debate, unfortunately this is just one of the idiotic ideas being pushed.

Their commonality?  Almost all arguments brought to the public so far ignore the very essence of a society: its culture.

Which is insulting to a degree; to think that given the wrong language or opportunity to carry a weapon near any sacred politicians, the average citizen might well use violence as a standard debate tactic.  However in America, and indeed most civilized societies, a basic thought is held by the vast majority of citizens is that the proper response to speech is speech.

For instance, we all know exactly what it means to say “sticks and stones” and as a society, we have a pretty firm belief that no matter what someone says to you, no matter how disgusting, no matter how insulting, violence is never an appropriate response to words.

To juxtapose, let’s look at the Islamists.

Their  religious and moral leaders constantly tell followers that violence is an appropriate solution to perceived or real slights.  They argue not just that violence is an answer, but specifically that it is a respectable solution even when it’s being used against those who are only using speech.

Remember the Mohammed cartoons?  That was 2005, but even in mid-2010 a Islamist religious leader was still pushing the idea of killing as a punishment against those exercising free speech (from Stratfor here):

In July 2010, AQAP released the first edition of its English-language magazine Inspire. One of the articles in that issue was written by the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who wrote, “If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.” He added: “Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.”

Additionally, the Pakistani clerics’ warnings after the assassination of a regional governor killed due to his support for repealing blasphemy laws (here via Rueters):

“More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer nor try to lead the prayers,” the group said in a statement.

“Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the Prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.”

So whether you hear others calling all your opponents rhetoric vitriol as Mr. Krugman chose to do, or calling for irrelevant legislation like Mr. King, or like Mr. Boehner and many, many others, just calling for more civility based upon this incident, know each idea misses the basic point.

We are already adults and already know how to disagree without violence.

Other societies however, whose culture and moral leaders tell them that assassinations and suicide bombings are perfectly acceptable forms of retaliation in response to “religious slander” (note slander means speech)…. well then. Talk of being armed or getting your pitchforks could have an entirely different result.

Puzzling in that I’m not sure what the argument would be, when the blogosphere is the definition of an open forum.  So I read further to find out that Freddie began the argument:

There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing.

Um… okay.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone assert this “myth” before, don’t know anyone who believes it, and certainly don’t know anyone advocating it strongly.

I have heard several arguments along the lines of, the increase in the blogosphere has increased the number of views overall, but nothing like “media reports, blogosphere decide”.  In fact, many of those arguing that the blogosphere has increased the number of voices don’t agree that this has been a good thing, nor that it’s in any way equal in presentation of all ideas.   Just that it can help and has increased the total number of ideas available.

But I digress… the more puzzling part is this:

The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.

Puzzling because the one thing the blogosphere is above all else: a free market.  Yes, it’s not completely free as costs do exist, but costs for bloggers have been decreasing dramatically over time and are close to being zero from a casual level.

Now to maintain a consistent blog of course takes time and additional money, but thanks to aggregating sites, search engines, social networking channels, and a number of other technologies, getting a blog post in front of 1000 people isn’t all that hard (getting 100 to read on the other hand….) and the costs for doing so can be minimized to only include the cost of the internet connection itself.  All these other products can be used for free.

Of course larger operations can afford advertising, preferential search engine listings, possibly advertising revenue to the point of having a staff, as well as other advantages, but in the marketplace of ideas – the NY Times’ or Freddie’s or my opinion on say, health care reform (assuming they are all different), all stand on equal ground.

True, the NY Times’ opinion on health care reform will likely be given an air of credibility, that potentially isn’t given to the standard blogger, but the basic message rises and falls on the ideas presented.  This truly is a marketplace of ideas, where the wisdom of crowds can show itself.

& I’ve made a point before of this meme about the increased number of views and whether the average person is really taking advantage (here):

In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill [Maher], only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions….

But none of this seems to be Freddie’s point.  His view as stated is:

That the blogosphere is a flagrantly anti-leftist space should be clear to anyone who has paid a remote amount of attention.

Which amounts to little more than a having temper tantrum, while repetitively screaming, “You’re not paying attention to me!  You’re not paying attention to me!”

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign….

 Now it’s obviously impossible to know whether Mr. Krugman was honestly surprised about the horrendous events of this past weekend or not, but it seems hard to believe that anyone who heard about the incident thought, “yep – saw that coming.”

But in the grand scheme, it really doesn’t matter whether he was truly surprised as that’s not his main point.  Before he gets there though, he has to set up the framework (article cont’d):

…And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again….

That’s some prescient vision he has there.  Without any proof, without any examples, without anything at all, he can “see” what was inevitable.  Not sure why he didn’t stop it or call for the possibility as loudly as possible.  It seems like the only moral actions when you “know” violent acts committed against innocent parties is inevitable. 

Additionally, this uncanny ability of his makes one wonder if the people from Miss Cleo’s office has contacted him yet to see if he’s looking for a career change?   Or maybe the CIA would like to test his capabilities?

But I digress, extra-sensory perceptions aside, Mr. Krugman continues framing the argument using a government report (article cont’d):

The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: In April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence….

Which would be interesting to note, if only it were true.  There was and is a DHS report detailing the potential for increased radicalization and recruitment due to a very unique climate, but the report itself begins with this easily comprehendible statement:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that doemstic righwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report continues as it details what it sees as specific climate variables for which rightwing extremist groups might exploit, but noted, in the 2nd paragraph the threats which concern Mr. Krugman so much, are “largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts“.

But Mr. Krugman sees, so a potential for increased recruitment and radicalization based upon societal factors and an increase in the potential for real harm are now the same.  I doubt that’s true for most objectively viewing the same data, but I don’t think most people think like Mr. Krugman.

Nonetheless, our vaunted author continues.  With an increase in threats (real) and vandalism (possibly real, no studies, no proof offered), Mr. Krugman’s vision sees the obvious results (article cont’d):

One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has….

Who was that guy again? 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled.  But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate….

So even though Mr. Krugman believes the shooter is likely insane, the national climate is somehow involved.  Not only involved, but (article cont’d):

…something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

His proof?  Increased levels of violence?  Increased crime rates?  Nope.  Crime rates only exist up to 2008 and show a consistent decline.  But he has something…. sort of (article cont’d):

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent….

Notice the nice little conflation trick here, as Mr. Krugman uses an increase in threats to ALL members of congress as a sign on increased rightwing extremism. 

In the very article he mentions, Politco notes some of the threats with names of Congress members and as you’d expect, Republicans and well as Democrats were targets, but notes those are the very few examples they were able to access directly as most threats from 2010 are still being investigated. 

Therefore at this time, the 300% increase is an FBI number, but one without context.   They don’t note any pattern in who was threatened, patterns from whom the threats originated, total number of threats (300% increase of 8 isn’t a reason for alarm), nor any past patterns to determine whether this is an anomaly or a continuous trend regardless of office holders.

But when you’re Mr. Krugman, logic isn’t needed; so he continues (article cont’d):

And there’s not much question what has changed.

There’s not much question what has changed?  Really?  I know people tend to pine for the good old days as they mature and I know many people readily agree that society is coarser today than it was in yesteryear (whose time frame noticeably differs by the age of the one evaluating), but I have yet to see anything resembling objective proof.

Not only have I not seen any objective proof demonstrating things were indeed better in some period in the past, but I don’t know that an effective way of answering such a question is possible. 

The problem is that real analysis would require a selection of variables, defining the weight of each variable, then finally a review of all those variables and their changes over time.   It’s not hard to see how even selecting which variables to be used is fraught with subjectivity, but also defining the weight of each variable as well.

For example, let’s say you are evaluating whether 2010 is better or worse than 1950.  The problem is that even if we could all (read: vast majority) agree that politeness isn’t what it used to be in the golden laced, greener grassed place known as yesteryear, how do you weigh that against say, increased rights for women on the domestic front?

Should domestic rights for women be given the same weight in an evaluation of 1800 as 2010 since the culture was so vastly different.  It’s possible the lack of rights in 1800 versus the rights women enjoy today may not have been “missed” in the 1800s by the majority of women.  Does it even matter if they weren’t missed?

But I digress…. the point is still the same.  Assertions, but no provable ones are all we get so far.  As expected, Mr. Krugman continues with his only available recourse, conjecture. 

& when making things up, who better to use as evidence than the “investigating” Sheriff.   You recall; the guy who “feels” vitriol is bad and believes “millions agree” with him about the evils of talk radio, even though he admits they don’t vocally agree with him and he offers no real proof… that guy?

Yes.  Him…. so with reasons to the contrary, Mr. Krugman uses the Sheriff as a reliable expert (article cont’d):

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”

 Again  – an assertion which is not provable.  The issues?  Much the same with the prior question: define vitriol, explain how bad it is, and let me know how vitriol on tv in the 1950 when only 3 channels existed, none of which broadcasted a full 24 hours a day, relates in degree to vitriol on tv when there are well over 100 channels, as well as many other things to distract us such as Netflix, dvds, internet, etc, etc, etc…

This of course doesn’t stop Mr. Krugman, because when you seek only to confirm previously held beliefs, rational thought is a nuisance.  But we still don’t have his real point, so let’s continue. 

With only conjecture swirling around improvable assertions, Mr. Krugman and our logic impaired Sheriff still firmly believe that this situation is very, very bad.  And they know not only that, but also the main perpetrators. 

They know who is perpetrating evil on us right now through vitriol and hate filled rallies.  Through their exhaustive research and understanding of humans and logic, the purveyors of evil just happen to be the Sheriff’s & Mr. Krguman’s political opponents (article cont’d):

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: It’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

His proof?  Nothing, though not surprising at this point, as once again his assertions are not provable in any objective sense.

But he continues, ad nauseum, with all kinds of statements about how the left has caustic figures, but the right is the only party using the language of armed resistance.  He names names of those on the radio and TV, yet never actually attributes any direct quote to anyone named using any of this evil language (except one Republican politician, but fails to mention politicians on his side saying similar things).

& note here too that trying to objectively evaluate which side of the isle uses more pernicious language has the same set of problems as deciding whether yesteryear was better or worse than today.  It’s a completely subjective question, with completely subjective variables, each of which will be weighted in a completely subjective manner.  Not to mention the problems inherent when defining sides:  like whether a Democrat from Texas is a true liberal or a Republican from Vermont is a true conservative.

Not to mention any context within which to place such pernicious language.  Like, is it ok to use language of violence and revolution when trying to free the slaves?  Trying to fight for women’s suffrage?  How about when trying to fight against censorship?

But for Mr. Krugman, all these complexities and nuances are no challenge at all.  With his SuperMan like mental abilities, all logical concerns can be leaped in a single bound.  You see, he knows this is the truth because he can sense it.  & really, if you take Mr. Krugman at his word, his conjectures which he morphs into his assertions, this whole thing works out really well for him. 

Maybe he didn’t notice this at first, but amazingly enough, his narrative all fits perfectly for his side.  Must be comfortable position to know that the most malignant evil vitriol is over there, with those other people, all while your side might be overly caustic, sometimes, but certainly not evil.

As Dana Carvey playing the Church Lady used to sneeringly say, “How convenient….”

"How con-VEEN-ient!"

Gutcheck:  If you ever find yourself in a position where  you strongly believe that the people and groups with whom you disagree are doing everything wrong and your side is doing everything rights, you are probably too invested to objectively evaluate that situation and in all likelihood, wrong.

Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.