Islamists for Human Rights

There’s an interesting piece in the NYT today about the nature of secularism in Turkey. A reader adds:

I have to agree with the dissents about Turkey. Thanks for posting them. The normative associations that secularism and Islamic parties usually carry for us may not apply to Turkey. Turkey’s version of secularism is aggressively nationalist and statist, linked to a tradition of authoritarianism, military rule, and a personality cult surrounding Atatürk that ought to make one very uncomfortable. It has been the driving force behind the denial of the Armenian genocide, the ruthless suppression of the Kurds, heavy-handed censorship, and discrimination against devout Muslims. The secular regime in Turkey has presided over the widespread and systematic use of torture, as well as crimes against humanity in Kurdistan. It is not a pretty picture.

Meanwhile, the Islamic "Justice and Development" party has pushed hard for liberal reforms – indeed, no other government in Turkish history has done more for human rights. As far as I can tell, the Justice and Development party is genuinely committed to freedom of conscience, certainly more than the secularist establishment. I strongly recommend Stephen Kinzer’s 2001 book "Crescent and Star" – a fast read. Kinzer has the following quote from Abdullah Gül (the Justice and Development member whose candidacy for president sparked the current crisis):

"When my wife went to MIT in Boston, she wore her head scarf to class every day and nobody said a word. If an exam was scheduled on a Muslim holy day, she would ask the professor if she could take it on another day, and every professor agreed immediately. The United States is a secular country that doesn’t allow religion to influence government but doesn’t suppress it either. That’s all we want for Turkey."

If that’s what a moderate Islamist model looks like, I’m fine with it. But I worry about its inherent tendency to metastasize, just as Christianism has in the U.S.

Clearer Now?

A reader writes:

I thought you might enjoy one of your postings in Live Ink:

     It would be a boon
         to those
             of us
                who are alarmed
                   by what
            Hagel
               has called
             the hijacking
                of the Republican Party.

With sectarian
         murders
            rising
               in Baghdad,
        I can see
            internal GOP chaos
               in the fall,
        as the current crop
            of candidates
               try
           to decide
          if to support
             the president
         (and
            face
               potential electoral doom)
            or
                to run directly
                   against his war policy.

   Under those circumstances,
        a war-critic like Hagel
           could be
              very well-positioned.

     A Nebraska-New York ticket
         could also win many votes
            from Blue State Republicans
                and Independents,
        and reduce
           the Rove Christianist machine
              to a rancid rump.

     Money
          quote
             from Hagel:

     "The president
         may find himself standing alone
            sometime this fall
          where Republicans
             will start
                to move away,
        and you’re starting
            to see trapdoors
                and
             exit signs already
            with a number
                of Republicans.

     The 11 House Republicans
          that went
             to see him
                speak
            for more than
                just 11 House Republicans.

     That’s just
           the tip
              of the iceberg."

     My advice:
        don’t run
            as Independents.

     Run
          as Independent Republicans.

     We may have
         to split
            this party
         in order to save what’s left
            of it.

The Best Response to Discrimination

One way to deal with a major company like eHarmony.com that won’t allow gays and lesbians to meet on their site is to use the law against them. A more effective way is just to set up a rival company that actually caters to the gap in the market. And then run ads touting the difference. eHarmony is trying to stop the ads airing or get them to alter the small print. Pandagon has more. Here’s one ad. I love it when the market penalizes intolerance:

Poseur Alert

A classic of downtown snootiness:

The Bowery Whole Foods tells us something remarkable about its shoppers: how ignorant they are of where they are and how alienated they are from food.  Perusing it, the thing that impresses you most is the pervasive labeling, the enormous amounts of information appended to everything.  Everywhere are little identificatory notes, signs overhead, brochures on what to do with their sausages (eat them?), glossy photos of the smiling man who supposedly dredged up your mussels or baited the hook upon which your (always already headless and filleted) wild salmon met its end.  This is food shopping for people who have come to trust only that which is mediated by text, addenda, explanations, certifications.  It is a website come to life, or a piece of life for those who prefer websites: each piece of signage functions as the hyperlink that clicks through to a capsule review.

I once served some sliced raw albacore tuna doused in soy to a friend.  I had bought the fish not far from Whole Foods from Alex, the fisherman who had caught it and brought it the next day to the Greenmarket.  I’m lucky to live in a city where this is a humdrum and everyday transaction.  My friend, a film producer, remarked, "This is great!  But how did it get sterile?"

"Sterile?" I asked.

"Yeah. How does it get safe to eat?"

Food? Sterile? This is the alienation on which Whole Foods depends.

I guess I’d rather be alienated than puking my guts out.