Tshorey’s ChangeLog

When Rusty set up this space for me, I was unsure how I would use it. I have given quite a bit of thought to how I will utilize this wonderful gift.

As many of you know, I am starting my PhD program in the Fall semester. It is going to be a long, grueling process, as I will be doing it part-time around my work and martial arts schedule. However, I have come to the conclusion that this space will be extremely useful to my endeavors. I intend to post my papers out here (mostly book summaries). It should allow me to consolidate my thoughts - which is essential to preparation for my qualifying exams.

I am sure I have a ton of things I could be writing about - but nothing else is coming to mind.

That is all for now.

Lately, I have been pondering the comment "Where is the Muslim outrage?" American commentators have been asking this question in the now international debate about extremism. The question is often used to either (1) throw Islamic moderates on the defensive, or (2) appeal to Islamic moderates to act as an interpreter between American interests and the Islamic world.

I am beginning to suspect that there is a third, ulterior motive in the question. The question implies a moderate American position—America as the victim of the aggressive policies of an aggressive religion. As you are reading this, you are probably anticipating my next comment…You might even be salivating to swat down my now obvious assertion that American foreign policy may be construed as aggressive, and may be contributing to a cycle of extremism. If you agree with me, then you are probably saying, "So what?" This article is not for you…

I am writing to and for those that are still steaming up right now at the thought of what I am suggesting. Before you blow your top, consider this: Why is your reaction so vitriolic? Could it be an unconscious fear that our (American) arguments might be successfully refuted in a rational debate? I have not heard or seen anyone calmly attempt to rebut the argument that American foreign policy has squeezed the Islamic world and that increasing pressure is increasing the ranks of those who would kill innocent people to strike out at America and the West.

Right after September 11th, merely suggesting this was dangerous. My gut feeling is that those who react violently to my suggestion (whether they are Democrat, Republican, male, female, left-handed, or any other classification you can think up) would be quick to point out the atrocities that have been committed throughout the world in the name of Islam and demand to know why the Islamic world has not condemned these acts.

Allow me to posit: the Islamic world is looking for an alternative to Western foreign policy, which seems heavily biased against them. The only voice that has risen against the West is a radically violent one. Quick quiz: name a respected Islamic moderate opposed to Western policy…Times up…How many did you get?

Perhaps Americans need to first accept that our foreign policy is not necessarily correct all the time. Once we get over that divide (if we get over that divide…), then the next step is to accept that opposing American foreign policy is not always threatening (one calls to mind French and German hesitation to go to War, and American reactions). Finally, perhaps we could find moderate Islamic leaders opposed to the West and make sure that their position is clearly heard so that Muslims around the world have someone to turn to that doesn’t want to solve problems with suicide bombers.

Just a thought…

I have always considered myself an anarcho-communist. I am a big fan of personal freedom and social responsibility. Lately, though, I have found myself politically leaning in other directions. Much soul searching has revealed something disturbing: I am a bleeding-heart Liberal.

Thats right: capital L. No one could be more shocked than I am. Want proof?

1. I am for gun control. Right inline with the liberal ideologues, I do not think the founding fathers would have approved of the use of assault rifles by the every day citizen. I am not anti-guns. I endorse the second amendment. Still, I consider it ridiculous that you have to wait three days in the state of Florida to get married, but only have to wait two days for a gun.

2. I am for affirmative action. Simply put: I do not think America is ready to give minorities a fair shot at jobs and higher education. I also think it is the government’s job to make sure they get one.

3. I am for big taxes and big government. This one really surprised me. Coming from the intellectual position of anarchism, how can I justify this? I can’t. But I am in favor of government protection of social security and socialized healthcare. "There!" you might say, "you are actually a socialist!" To a degree, you might be right. But aren’t socialists really just pissed-off bleeding-heart Liberals? I do not consider myself pissed-off quite yet. At any rate, I favor Keynesian economics—I believe in healthy government spending and acceptable budget deficits. Government spending spurs the economy. And that spending money comes from taxes. As such, I am offended by Bush’s "more government, less taxes" strategy. I think it is ruining the economy. Tax the rich, tax the middle, tax the poor, that is what I say! So long as the government is giving back quality public services (something that Democrats and Republicans have failed to do).

4. I am pro-enviroment. I believed that the indian was really crying over the state of the environment in those commercials we saw while watching saturday morning cartoons as kids (maybe you don’t remember, but I do). You can say that I was indoctrinated at an early age, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that large oil conglomerates could care less about the environment unless governments are willing and able to slap significant fines and sanctions against polluters. Also, I like trees. *hug*

I could go on, but you get the point. But let me qualify my political orientation. While I am fiscally and socially Liberal, I do not subscribe to any party. I am anti-Democrat, anti-Republican. I find the reduction of choices to a pair of (supposedly) polar opposites troubling and disgusting. I think a lot of people are excluded from our representative process by reducing the choices to "either/or".

More troubling still is the fact that both sides are really on the same team. I am not talking about both being "pro-American". I mean they are in collusion to eliminate alternatives, manipulating the machinery of government and media to give people the illusion of choice without actually sacrificing their hold on power. Wait a minute…

…Maybe NOW I am a socialist!