Today's
Stories
February
13, 2006
Michael Neumann
Respectful Cultures and Disrespectful
Cartoons
February
11 / 12, 2006
Alexander
Cockburn
How Not to Spot a Terrorist
Ralph Nader
Bringing Democracy to the Federal Reserve
Paul Craig Roberts
Nuking the Economy
Pat Williams
John Boehner's Dirty Little Secret:
Flying Lobbyist Air at $4,000 a Junket
Fred Gardner
Dr. Mikuriya's Appeal: a Last Minute
Twist
Saul Landau
From Munich to Hamas
John Chuckman
Cartoons and Bombs: Was Rice Right
for Once?
Roger Burbach
Evo Morales: the Early Days
Seth Sandronsky
Economy on Ice
Website of the Weekend
Just Say Know
February 10, 2006
Carl
G. Estabrook
A US War Plan for Khuzestan?
Sen.
Russell Feingold
A Raw Deal on the Patriot Act
Roxanne
Dunbar--Ortiz
How Did Evo Morales Come to Power?
Saree Makdisi
The Tempest Over the Hamas Charter
Website of the Day
The
New York Art Scene: 1974--1984
February 9, 2006
Dave Lindorff
Bush
and Yamashita: War Crimes and Commanders--in--Chief
Mike Marqusee
The
Human Majority was Right About Iraq
Paul Craig Roberts
How Conservatives Went Crazy: the Rightwing Press
Peter Phillips
Inside
the Global Dominance Group: 200 Insiders Against the World
William S. Lind
Rumsfeld the Maximalist: the Long War
Christine Tomlinson Innocent
Targets in the "Long War": False Positives and Bush's
Eavesdropping Program
Will Youmans
Church of England Votes to Divest from Israel
Robert Robideau
An American Indian's View of the Cartoons
Richard Neville
The Cartoons That Shook the World: All This from the Danes, the
Least Funny People on Earth
Peter Rost
The New Robber Barons
Website of the Day
Eyes Wide Open
February 8,
2006
Ron Jacobs
The
Once and Future Sly Stone: Soundtrack to a Riot
Stan Cox
Making
and Unmaking History with General Myers
Sen. Russ Feingold
Why
Bush's Wiretapping Program is Illegal and Unconstitutional
Robert Jensen
Horowitz's
Academic Hit List: Take a Class from One of the CounterPunch
16
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Bush Should Have Wiretapped FEMA and Chertoff
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Alberto Gonzales Channels Mark Twain
Don Monkerud
Covenant Marriage on the Rocks
David Swanson
Inequality and War
C.L. Cook
Nuking Ontario
Christopher
Fons
Chill Out Jihadis: They're Just Cartoons!
Jeffrey Ballinger
The Other Side of Nike and Social Responsibility
Website of
the Day
Encyclopedia of Terrorism in the Americas
February 7,
2006
Edward Lucie--Smith
An
Urgent Plea to Save a Small Estonian Museum from Neo--Nazis
Robert Fisk
The Fury: Now Lebanon is Burning
Paul Craig Roberts
Colin Powell's Career as a "Yes Man"
Neve Gordon
Why Hamas Won
Joshua Frank
The Hillary and George Show: Partners in War
Peter Montague
The Problem with Mercury: a History of Regulatory Capitulation
Jackie Corr
The
Last Best Choice: Public Power and Montana
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Rumsfeld's
Enforcer: the Secret World of Stephen Cambone
Website of the Day
Negroes with Guns
February 6,
2006
Christopher
Brauchli
Spilling
Blood: Two Sentences
Robert Fisk
Don't
Be Fooled: This Isn't About Islam vs. Secularism
John Chuckman
What Did Stephen Harper Actually Win?
Jenna Orkin
Judge Slams EPA for Lying About 9/11's Toxic Air
Paul Craig
Roberts
Who
Will Save America: My Epiphany
February 4
/ 5, 2006
Alexander Cockburn
"Lights
Out in Tehran": McCain Starts Bombing Run
Mike Ferner
Pentagon
Database Leaves No Kid Alone
James Petras
Evo Morales's Cabinet: a Bizarre Beginning in Bolivia
Alan Maass
Scare of the Union: Dems Collaborate with Bush on Surveillance
Fred Gardner
Annals of Law Enforcement: a Look Inside the San Francisco DA's
Office
Ralph Nader
Bush's
Energy Escapades
Bill Glahn
RIAA Watch: Speaking in Tongues
Saul Landau
Freedom 2006: Buying Sex on the Net or Those Older Freedoms?
Laura Carlsen
Bad Blood on the Border: Killing Guillermo Martinez
James Brooks
Our Little Shop of Diplomatic Horrors
Mike Roselle
Hippies and Revolutionaries in Carcacas
John Holt
Black Gold, Black Death: Canada's Oil Sands Frenzy
Sarah Ferguson
Cops Suing Cops ... for Spying on Cops
William S.
Lind
Beware the Ides of March
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
The Price of Globalization: Free Trade or Free Speech?
Seth Sandronsky
The Color of Job Cuts in the Auto Industry
Derrick O'Keefe
Rumsfeld's Hitler Analogy
Michael Donnelly
Hop on the Bus
Ron Jacobs
Religion and Political Power
Elisa Salasin
RSVP to Bush
St. Clair / Vest
Playlists: What We're Listening to This Week
Stew Albert
God's Curse: Selected Poems
Poets' Basement
Guthrie, LaMorticella and Engel
Website of
the Weekend
Killer
Tells All!
February 3,
2006
Toufic Haddad
A
Parliament of Prisoners
Heather Gray
Working with Coretta Scott King
Tim Wise
Racism,
Neo--Confederacy and the Raising of Historical Illiterates
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Proliferation: the Gathering Storm
Eva Golinger
Rumsfeld and Negroponte Amp Up Hositility Toward Venezuela
Daniel Ellsberg
The World Can't Wait: Invitation to a Demonstration
Dave Zirin
Detroit: Super Bowl City on the Brink
Robert Bryce
The
Problem with Cutting US Oil Imports from the Middle East
Website of
the Day
The Chavez Code
February 2,
2006
Winslow T.
Wheeler
Pentagon
Pork: How to Eliminate It
Stan Cox
Outsourcing
the Golden Years
Rachard Itani
Danes
(Finally) Apologize to Muslims (For the Wrong Reasons)
Mike Whitney
Afghanistan Five Years Later: Buildings Down, Heroin Up
Amira Hass
In
the Footsteps of Arafat: an Interview with Hamas' Ismail Haniya
Norman Solomon
When Praise is Desecration: Smothering King's Legacy with Kind
Words
Michael Simmons
Stew Lives!
Christopher
Reed
Japan's
Dirty Secret: One Million Korean Slaves
Website of the Day
State of Nature
February 1,
2006
Sharon Smith
The
Bluff and Bluster Dems: Alito and the Faux Filibuster
Jason Leopold
Enron and the Bush Administration
Cindy Sheehan
Getting
Busted at the State of the Union: What Really Happened
Joseph Grosso
Oprah
and Elie Wiesel: a Match Made in "Neutrality"
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Coretta Scott King was More Than Just Dr. King's Wife
Steven Higgs
Life After Roe. v. Wade
Robert Robideau
"God Given Rights": Palestine and Native America
R. Siddharth
Tales of Power: When Gandhi Rejected a Faustian Bargain with
Henry Ford
Jim Retherford
Remembering Stew Albert: the Quiet Genius
Rep. Cynthia
McKinney
The Legacy of Coretta Scott King
Paul Craig
Roberts
The
True State of the Union
Website of
the Day
Candide's Notebooks
| February
13, 2006
Respectful Cultures & Disrespectful
Cartoons
East Meets West
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
The
Cartoon Affair is to an unusual extent about ideas Whatever deeper
causes are involved, the dispute involves religion, speech, and
thought, not oil, borders, or weaponry.
This
makes the incident a very pure example of the problems caused by
bad ideologies, and the ideas that lie at their core.
The
lesson of the cartoon controversy is not that Islam is offended;
it is not a lesson about Islam at all. Nor is it that the West is
'hypocritical', even if that's true. Rather it is that Western culture
has bought into an ideology whose chickens have come home to roost.
This new orthodoxy is built on inflated notions of rights and respect,
skewed ideas of injury and punishment, and the reliance on 'voices'
in establishing truth.
Rights
Jeremy
Bentham said that rights were nonsense, natural rights, nonsense
and stilts. Rights, very carefully defined, can have their uses,
but their entrance into the cartoon debate perfectly exemplifies
how rights 'inflation' makes them a mere encumbrance. We are told
there is a right to free speech.
Where
it comes from, no one says. No one ever says, though sometimes we
may hear it is 'fundamental, which I suppose means: 'don't ask',
or 'I really like this one'. But two -- or billions -- can play
this game. Suddenly other rights rise up out of the ground like
the warriors Jason fought: rights to offend and rights not to be
offended, rights to worship in peace and rights to disturb that
peace, rights to fire employees and rights to not to be fired --
you name it. And it gets to be a big joke, because everyone realizes
that (a) none of these rights are absolute, (b) they must often
be 'weighed' against other rights. Well, how the hell do you do
that? Check your big box stores and mail--order catalogues to see
if they have any Rights Scales. Because as things stand, no one
has a clue how to weigh rights against one another, so all the earnest
talk of rights is not even hot air -- which has, at least, its uses.
Respect
In
the cartoon debates, rights generally are invoked on the side of
the cartoonists. On the side of the anti--cartoonists, the equivalent
is Respect.
In
some cases, 'respect' just means 'respecting rights', so we are
back at the same vapid nonsense as before. No doubt you should respect
persons in the sense that you should not, by and large, torture or murder or rob them;
we knew this before anyone spoke of Respect for Persons. We can
just say that people have a right not to endure such treatment.
But then there are the hard cases, when, if you do not inflict pain
or kill or steal, the rights of other persons will be violated.
So we are back to 'weighing' the rights of many against few, of
one sort against other sorts -- in other words, we are nowhere.
In
other cases, Respect for Persons means actually respecting something
or someone -- persons, cultures, religion. As some moral ideal,
this is a non--starter, and for several reasons.
First, actually respecting someone is a matter of what you feel.
People typically don't have much control over their feelings: you
have little choice about whether you feel respect for, say, George
Bush or Saddam Hussein, Oprah or Paris Hilton, Wayne Newton or Sinead
O'Connor. So, except in very rare situations, there can be no right
or wrong about feeling respect.
Second,
it really flies in the face of reality to hold that all persons
or cultures or religions are worthy of respect. Is this supposed
to be some absolute truth? What is inconceivable about the notion
of a contemptible person, culture, or religion? Not long ago, and
not only in Western culture, the great sin was pride, and self--esteem
was considered quite inappropriate to so insignificant and paltry
a thing as a human being. You need not go nearly so far to the surely
reasonable idea that some people really haven't done or been anything
of which you should stand in awe.
As
for cultures, it seems as if everyone agrees that some human institutions,
attitudes, and practices are pretty awful. They are not all concentrated
in one place. Has someone done a balance sheet to show that, all
over the world and throughout history, the good things about cultures
always outweigh the bad ones? How was this accomplished? Why haven't
we heard about it? If this hasn't happened, why on earth should
I assume that any culture is worthy of respect? And,
to return to the first point, how can I be expected to muster a
feeling of respect for all these cultures?
Maybe
'respecting cultures' is just supposed to mean that you shouldn't
insult them. If so, why not just say that? Would it be, perhaps,
to avoid giving a reason for this supposedly absolute
rule? Wouldn't it be nice to have a reason, though?
Should
we respect religion, then? When something contemptible is done in
the name of religion, we invariably hear something like 'this is
not Christianity, or 'this is not Islam'. Is that so? Here's a way
of finding out. Pick up a good dictionary or encyclopedia and look
up the religion. It will tell you, in a sentence or two, what all
members of that religion are taken to believe, and it will come
to very little -- for example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God,
that he died on the Cross for our sins , or that there is one God,
and Mohamed is his prophet. Any practice consistent with those few
very basic beliefs can be part of that religion -- all it takes
is for someone who holds those beliefs to incorporate those practices
into their faith. Indeed, to say that these practices 'are not Islam'
or 'are not Christianity' is just the sort of dogmatism that people
who say these things pretend to avoid. By this reasonable measure,
all religions contain much that is contemptible. Why then should
any of them be 'respected'?
Respect
is not a duty; it is not even desirable in many cases. Where 'respect'
means not beating people or putting them in jail or driving them
from their homes, it is a fine idea. But you shouldn't do those
things even to people you hold in contempt. To call this sort of
restraint 'respect' is to disguise clear moral values in gummy slush.
Injury
The
bogus value of respect now looms so large in North American culture
that virtually every high school code of ethics refers to it. But
the ideology of respect cannot itself cut much ice, because you
need to know what to do when you encounter disrespect.
If disrespect is such a big deal, shouldn't we be able to see the
damage? The question gets answered with new, expanded concepts of
injury. Simply to be in the presence of 'offensive' material, like
pinups, is not merely annoying; it is damaging to the mind. The
sight of Janet Jackson's breast is said to have caused damage to
millions, and drew the largest fine, $550,000, ever levied against
a television broadcaster. The creation of 'atmospheres' is injurious.
When someone is convicted of an offense, victim impact statements
may help to determine whether or for how long someone goes to jail,
where the psychological injuries won't count and the physical ones
will go unrecorded, let alone punished. Unkind words, construed
as emotional abuse, can create serious legal liabilities. Murky
ideals lead to previously undiscovered harms.
Evidence
With
the increasing importance of elusive ideals such as respect and
elusive injuries to those 'respected', the very concept of evidence
is on the ropes. That someone says they feel bad is taken to be
proof that they feel bad. That some says their identity has been
damaged, or outraged, is proof that this mysterious injury has afflicted
them. That someone says an experience has ruined their life proves
that their life is ruined, and by that experience. Courts of law
have acquired unexpected abilities to determine such subtleties
as when an image is degrading. Written materials are said to incite
hate; no one even thinks to ask whether anyone has actually come
to hate something as a result of reading those materials. The question
of whether any of this supposedly incited hate actually leads to
injuries, in the old--fashioned sense, never arises. 'Communities',
whose existence is established by the mere assertion that they exist,
are known to suffer injuries on the basis of mere assertions coming
from someone who merely claims to be, or is claimed to be, a 'member
' or 'leader'.
Worse
than this, degraded notions of evidence have rehabilitated dangerous
ethnic myths. The 19th century notion of a 'people' has somehow
become anthropological and historical fact. The people is the Volk,
and the connection with Nazism is a matter of historical record.
If a particular Volk is in fashion, their assertions come to determine
historical record and even scientific fact. If they say they have
inhabited an area for 20,000 years, they have done so, whether or
not there is any evidence that anyone living today can trace their
descent back to any Paleolithic ancestor. If a spirit is said to
inhabit a river or lake -- anyone who listens to 'good' radio will
hear this dozens of times a year -- then, by gum, that's the truth.
If the Gods of the land said to be angry, there are such Gods, who
are angry. Assertions by someone who commands Respect are known,
from the fact that they are asserted, to be true. And the fact that
a People really, really feels close to some land proves their right
to that land. To doubt any of this would, after all, be disrespectful.
Degraded standards of proof invites killing on instinct. Now there
are Bad Guys and, just by looking at them, we know who they are.
When it comes to fighting crime, or policing the Middle East, appearance
or suspicion suffices for conviction, and conviction for punishment.
Punishment
and Wrong
What
with cloudy moralities, rights inflation, elusive injuries and Neanderthal
notions of evidence, there is no longer much sense of the difference
between what is wrong and what is, or ought to be, forbidden and,
in consequence, punishable. Obscenity, lechery, sacrilege blasphemy,
desecration, insults, sometimes even rudeness or disrespect are
considered permissible only if they are morally defensible. If I
ought not to be treated a certain way, instantly I have an important
Right not to be so treated, and others are not merely in the wrong
for treating me so: they are also to be punished. So certainly,
if I ought not to insult a Community, the presumed members of the
Community must have rights not to be insulted, and I should be punished
for insulting them. The punishment may be jail time or 'merely'
dismissal from your job, but it is punishment all the same.
Piety
Taken
together, and despite the secular, even left--wing contribution
to these developments, official Western culture has become a culture
of piety. It traffics first and foremost in the Unseen, in respect,
in rights, in mysterious injuries, communities and offences, whose
existence is founded in faith -- faith in That Which is to Be Respected
-- rather that even the most elementary, the most minimally rational
forms of reason. Respect, the foremost value of this culture, translates
into behavior as reverence. Disrespect, its foremost sin, becomes
punishable.
Suppose,
for example, someone displays pictures which insult your life--style,
way or life, or cherished beliefs. Suppose these pictures make make
you feel you are hated, whether or not anyone can trace
some causal link between those pictures and hate, whether or not
the hate does you any but mysteriously internal harm -- perhaps
you feel your identity is under assault. Displaying
the pictures is now not merely objectionable. It is profoundly immoral,
because it is disrespect. What society considers profoundly immoral,
it is now likely to consideer criminal as well. Displaying the pictures
is probably a hate crime. It might well be emotional abuse, punishable
in domestic contexts.
This
must all sound familiar. I cannot say whether the official Western
culture of piety, enthusiastically promoted worldwide, played a
role in the reaction to the cartoons. I do know that Western piety
has left the West without a leg to stand on in this dispute. It
is no good trumpeting rights of free expression, because these rights
are now supposed to have nebulous but severe limitations. From the
moment Western countries started criminalising topless posters in
locker rooms, hate speech, emotional abuse and many other sins of
impurity, free expression was at the mercy of Western piety. It
cannot be invoked against piety of another sort.
The
point here is not that the West is hypocritical. Maybe it is; maybe
it is just inconsistent: who cares? Hypocrisy is among the most
harmless of sins; indeed that it has become such a fetish is one
more indication of a culture of piety. The point is rather than
the West has put ideological weapons in the hands of those it now
wants to repel, and thrown away the weapons that might have proved
useful in such an effort. The most basic notions of the rule of
law -- that you should not be punished for what you cannot help,
like the feelings you have, that no one should be expected to obey
laws so vague that the criteria of obedience are mysterious -- were
thrown away years ago. They cannot be picked out of the trashcan
and held up as shiny Western ideals just because it is now convenient
to do so.
The
comics dispute should show the West that it has to make a choice.
It can abandon the culture of piety, and go back to defending real
civil liberties. It can go back to judging real crimes by real standards
of evidence. It can turn its attention to real, vulgar, observable,
concrete human needs -- like decent food, clothing, and shelter
-- rather than chase the wild elusive butterfly of respect. Or it
can keep up with its piety -- but then it cannot complain when others
do the same.
Finally,
though many commentators have juxtaposed Islamic and Christian fundamentalism,
it might be more instructive to juxtapose Islamic fundamentalism
and political correctness.
Both
arose from the ashes of an effective secular left: the left that
was suppressed all over the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s,
and the kiddie left that imploded as the Vietnam war drew to a close.
Both gave up on effecting a real change in the material conditions
of their societies and gave themselves over to carping, otherwise
known as a critique of prevalent life--styles and 'hypocritical'
policies. Both quickly discovered that governments or ruling elites
found these life--style goals and displays of sincerity much more
pleasing than attempts at radical change: better to inculcate respect
and piety than to worry about trying to eliminate poverty and other
social atrocities. So both found that their ideologies became semi--official,
adopted by governments for their convenience and gently rebuked
if things 'went too far'. Now we have smug professional Islamists
who preach respect, and smug baby boomers who bask in their Sixties
war stories as they remember the days when they invented the idea
that respect was progressive.
Islamist
culture and the culture of respect now reign with complacent authority,
incredibly sensitive to everything that doesn't matter, and incredibly
insensitive to what does. With all the supposed concern for 'the
oppressed', no one sticks their neck out for these people. There
are still leftists, as there are still fundamentalists, who genuinely
care about real injustice; they are an isolated lot. The ideology
of respect has decreed that piety trumps justice. Changing that
priority will not be easy.
Michael
Neumann is the author of The
Case Against Israel. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca |
Now Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case Against
Israel
By Michael Neumann
Click Here to Advance Order Philosopher Michael
Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz
Coming This
Fall
Grand
Theft Pentagon:
Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror
by Jeffrey St. Clair
|