“No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar.” – Professor Donald Foster, recanting a previous argument of his own research in the New York Times today. What an uplifting sentiment.
THIS IS A RELIGIOUS WAR: I’m going to re-read Stanley Fish’s critique of my essay last fall in the new Harper’s before responding in detail. But it sure was refreshing to read an honest, open and careful argument (unlike the Goldstein screed). One of Fish’s points is that there can be no rational dialogue along universal, objective lines with Islamists. Therefore we cannot say we are right and they are wrong in any absolute sense. Here’s a quote from the mother of a “suicide murderer”. What Fish is arguing is that we cannot say that her sentiments are simply wrong:
“I am a compassionate mother to my children, and they are compassionate towards me and take care of me. Because I love my son, I encouraged him to die a martyr’s death for the sake of Allah… Jihad is a religious obligation incumbent upon us, and we must carry it out. I sacrificed Muhammad as part of my obligation. This is an easy thing. There is no disagreement [among scholars] on such matters. The happiness in this world is an incomplete happiness; eternal happiness is life in the world to come, through martyrdom. Allah be praised, my son has attained this happiness… I prayed from the depths of my heart that Allah would cause the success of his operation. I asked Allah to give me 10 [Israelis] for Muhammad, and Allah granted my request and Muhammad made his dream come true, killing 10 Israeli settlers and soldiers. Our God honored him even more, in that there were many Israelis wounded. When the operation was over, the media broadcast the news. Then Muhammad’s brother came to me and informed me of his martyrdom. I began to cry, ‘Allah is the greatest,’ and prayed and thanked Allah for the success of the operation. I began to utter cries of joy and we declared that we were happy. The young people began to fire into the air out of joy over the success of the operation, as this is what we had hoped for him.”
“This is an easy thing.” In this, perhaps, Fish is onto something. How can we understand the logic of this deepest form of religious faith? On the other hand, if we cannot say that this is wrong, what useful thing can we say?
BLAIR TAIL-SPINS: The British prime minister better hope England beats Brazil on Friday. He’s now suffering from Clintonitis – a sense among voters that he simply cannot be trusted, that he is more concerned with spin than substance, that rhetoric matters more than delivery. Blair is not immune to the general European impatience with the center-left in power. Alas, the Tories still seem unable to provide a cogent opposition.
THE MARKET VERSUS SEX: Sean Gallagher notes how television shows featuring lots of sex tend to lead to viewers not noticing the commercials. Here’s the Washington Post story on the same phenom. For the first time, I see evidence that freer markets don’t lead to more sexual material being available to more people. Now if only I’d stop getting spammed by “teenage Japanese girl sluts.”
JEWS IN FRANCE: This report made my hair curl. Could it get any worse? I guess I don’t want to know the answer to that question.
ANTI-ANTI-STEROIDS: Testosterone therapy saved my life. But there’s no doubt that excessive steroid use can be deeply damaging to people’s bodies in the long run. The problem is that steroids work – amazingly well. And they will only get more sophisticated and less onerous in the future. So what to do about steroid use in sports? The always interesting Steve Chapman argues – persuasively in my view – that there’s nothing we can practically do. The financial incentives for football players, for example, to get bigger than 300lbs are exponential, which is why we have more and more of these monster athletes. One option – in football – is simply to create a maximum weight for players, and allow them to pump whatever chemicals they want into their bodies, as long as they stay below that weight. It would be more honest than the current sham.
GOLDSTEIN RETRACTS: An email from Richard Goldstein:
I just read your posting and wanted to respond. I certainly had no intention of twisting your words. The quote I attributed to you has been in wide circulation for some time. When I first used it, in a piece last year, I found it in several other writers’ pieces–in precisely the context I described. Still, repeating an error is an error, and I’m sorry to have done that. I would much rather contest your statements as they are.
Well, he deserves points for conceding he completely distorted the meaning of my words in the Nation – and relied on third hand smear artists for his research. Alas, in his book, he does it again and again. In one section, he details how I am “appalled by camping, prancing, or any expression of effeminacy.” Elsewhere, he claims that my ideal society would be “a singularly muscular place, where anyone who didn’t fit the mold can be medicated to enhance his masculinity.” He claims that I have “contempt for those who deviate,” and that I have said that drag queens and androgynes are “at war with their nature.” His source for this last quote is a lecture he attended last year under the auspices of the New York Times. Happily, I have a recording of that lecture and tracked down the actual quote and its context. It was part of a question and answer session. See what you think:
YOURS TRULY: I have no objection to people wanting to be queer or being queer. I have no objection to that. That’s a choice and, in some respects, it’s a wonderful choice.
Q: But it’s unnatural?
AS: Well, it’s at war with their basic nature.
Q: People who aren’t butch enough or androgynous: they’re at war with their nature?
A: No. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that. That’s not true for everybody. There are some people’s natures that are naturally, biologically androgynous, or more geared to being queer or effeminate or masculine or up-ending certain social roles, because that’s how they feel their nature is. And, my God, do I defend their right and would I defend their right to be who they want to be; and nothing I say about the importance of encouraging most gay men and most gay women to embrace their own gender means that we should therefore exclude people who do not feel that way. There is an absolute central part in our community for the drag queen as well as the leather bar. And my own commitment to the First Amendment and to true diversity means I will defend them too… It doesn’t have to be either-or. It does not. Just because the vast majority of gay men think of themselves as men doesn’t mean they have to punish or exclude those who don’t feel that way… We can bring everybody along. Leave no drag queen behind.
My point is obviously a subtle on
e, an attempt to find a way both to bring gay people into the center of our society without oppressing those whose difference may result in hostility or alienation. But Goldstein – even though he heard all those words of inclusion – takes five words I did not say in order to argue that I mean something far cruder. This is not intellectual debate. It’s conscious deception.
The Dish 