Random Thoughts

Nader & Robbins 2001

Although I empathize somewhat with Tim Robbins, his observations are naive and unrealistic. It seems as though he did not understand the implication of the terrifying map on election night — the Confederacy is back. Progressives have never had the luxury of leadership since FDR because of the solid south, which was never really Democrat but simply against the party of Lincoln. Civil rights ended all that. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were elected because they were southern brothers — this will never happen again unless the brother is right of center. In addition to the south the Democrats have to contend with the growing confederate mentality in parts of the Midwest and the West. Even though the Democrats win back Florida, which is highly probable, the Republicans to counterbalance, will appeal to other states engulfed in single-issue nonsense.

Still, the electoral possibility of a Democratic sweep, does not mean the party can get off the dime of centrism. There are simply too many blue dogs and conservatives, such as weak-kneed senators from Louisiana, Montana, and Georgia.

As Tim Robbins said renewed liberal movements are in their infancy; meantime the central government is being reduced to rubble. True the abolitionist contributed to the end of slavery, the reality of which, however, did not fit the vision they had in mind. Nor does Nader’s quixotic vision broach the sad realties of the time. Nader sucked the breath out of the last chance the Democrats had.

The Annual August Ritual 2001

Unlike many who lost their memory, I do not apologize for Truman’s decision. As a marine who had experienced bloody Okinawa and having witnessed the Kamikaze off shore assaults on the Navy which lost 8,000 sailors as a consequence, I am reluctant to believe that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway despite the so-called five out of seven five star officers who in hindsight disagreed with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki decision. Admiral Halsey — in his air attacks on Okinawa was not concerned for the women and children there — nor should he.

Nevertheless, some of the top brass might have resented Truman pulling the rug from under them as they were preparing for the glory of the greatest beachhead in history, dwarfing even the Normandy invasion. Moreover, in Guam where marines had been convalescing after Okinawa, were ready to embark either to Formosa or the Japanese mainland and fully aware that the “fanatics” would never surrender their cherished homelands; for the closer the landings got to Japan — Iwo Jima and Okinawa — the bloodier they got.

And if indeed the Japanese sent “feelers” to the Soviets, how is it on the day of Hiroshima, Russian soldiers by the tens of thousands crossed the Manchurian border? I say hogwash to these Monday morning quarterbacks. For years now critics never mention that the Japanese had ample warning of the terrible weapon and time to surrender, yet chose to sacrifice the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Furthermore, the waves of B-29 napalm attacks on Yokohama — the entire city burned out — were far more destructive than both atom bombs. Nor do critics ever mention that contrary to popular belief of an unconditional surrender, had MacArthur not agreed to the condition not to hold the Emperor responsible for his war crimes, the war would have continued.

I just wish this annual ritual of blame be put to rest and realize that untold destruction and millions of lives were spared, thanks to Truman.

Another View of History Nov. 01

There had been much talk, invoking fulfilment on the part of Muhammad of the Old and New Testaments. Jesus too claimed to fulfill the Mosaic code and was crucified. Though well-intentioned, prophets possess an arrogance that incites traditionalists and ensuing generations to take umbrage, eventuating in schismatic sects from the papacy to the religious right from Sunnites — institutionalizing tyranny of the “consent” — and wiping out shuri, indigenous Muslim version of democracy, even before Muhammad — to Shi’ah infallibility. Obviously, then, there does not exist a “monolithic Islam” any more or less than Christianity or Hinduism; yet this does not rule out during perceived crises a bloc mentality of mighty opposites, such as now resulting in a terrifying hot-cold war. As Bush says either or is the war cry of the day.

It is no secret that the Islamic Empire, in looting the great libraries of the fallen Byzantine Empire, re-introduced Greek philosophy to the West, but often forgotten — once ancient classical literature was translated by Arab Christians — is that the great Islamic philosophers of the Mu'tazilah movement were excoriated by the elders of the unyielding Shari'ah and the writings expunged from the madrasah, college system. The Shi’ah, however, did continue to exploit philosophy for religious gain. Also forgotten, even against the barbarian invasion, is that the Church had preserved classical literature, which it had long before synthesized into education.

By shoddy misreading, we ignore the glaring premise that any religion, as well as any monolithic ideology — that imposes its unswerving, unforgiving rule on its people in the material domain is doomed to failure. What is worse is misuse of — as in virtually all Muslim nations that demonstrate modernization or feign democracy — the spirit of the religious base to insure the continuance of authoritarianism.

Those who whitewash a world faith bent on proselytizing a corrupted view that religion — opposed to the wisdom of separation of religion and state — must reign over the socio-political dynamics of developing nations. It is time for Islam to grow up and merge with — not surrender to — the realities of a secular world as moderate Muslims, particularly here in the states have done by balancing spiritual depth of their faith with that of practical needs in the material world of modernity. Had Muslims heeded — pathetically lacking in most early Islamic philosophers — the political philosophy of Al-Farabi, whose thrust was that without philosophic wisdom it is impossible to legislate practical laws to form just societies, perhaps Islam today would be more adaptable. Because the orthodoxy continually opposed rational thought, philosophy in most of the Arabic world was forced underground and essentially in the guise of theosophy, rather than pure intellection. Ironically, Islamic philosophy was appreciated more in the West.

A sample of what