The Dilemma Of Fort Hood
Last night, as I sat watching a TV documentary while breaking news stories scrolled across the screen, I was jolted by one of the headlines - 12 American soldiers had been shot to death by one of their own at Fort Hood, Texas.
The first question that entered my mind, bar none other, was this - Was the killer a Muslim?
A second question immediately followed - If so, was he acting out of hatred toward America that expressed itself in the murder of these American soldiers?
We now know the definitive answer to the first question - Yes.
We have at this early point a tentative answer to the second - Probably yes in the sense that his feelings about America as an entity expressed themselves in his actions against individual Americans.
I would have wished both answers to be different, but I was not surprised that are what they are.
Why is this a "dilemma?
That word signifies a choice between two (or more) conflicting alternatives, wherein either choice is unsatisfying. In deciding how I should feel, or how our society should act in response to Fort Hood, I believe little conflict would exist if either of the following were clearly true.
1. Most American Muslims harbor a smoldering anti-American anger that would find satisfaction in the killing of Americans - not merely the inevitable combat deaths in wars they might oppose (an opposition not limited to Muslims), but the deaths of any Americans who in any sense represented their country. The soldiers who died were killed in a just cause, and their deaths should be celebrated.
2. There are extremist fanatics within all ethnic groups in America. The act of Nidal Hasan might just as easily have been perpetrated by a Christian, a Jew, a black, a white, a man, a woman - no group, certainly not Muslims, is disproportionately inclined to perpetrate or support this type of evil deed.
Here's the problem - both of the above statements are false in my estimation. Like non-Muslims, most Muslims are good people committed to the democratic values of the society we all share. A minority of Muslims are not, and this minority is disproportionately large within the Muslim community compared with Americans in general. Any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity. If any reader disagrees with my assessment, I will concede that I can't prove it, but I would argue it to be plausible enough for us to pursue its implications. If any reader wishes to argue that the killings at Fort Hood are a justifiable response to grievances, real or imagined, I will choose not to argue the point, and proceed under the assumption that most others will disagree. My dilemma, and perhaps the enormously troubling American dilemma we face from this violent act is - how can we confront, both effectively and with fairness, an American community that does not deserve to be stereotyped, but which poses a threat we can't ignore? Pretending the threat is non-existent won't cause it to disappear. Exaggerating or exploiting it to demonize Muslims in general would not only be unfair, but would aggravate the threat.
Anyone expecting an easy answer beyond that of avoiding extremes is likely to be disappointed. My own sense, however, is that the most effective responses must of necessity come from within the Muslim community rather than be imposed on it from without. Based on history, I'm not terribly optimistic. Minorities in general (religious, national, racial, occupational - e.g., the police), faced with unjustifiable actions by one of their own, tend often to adopt a defensive attitude - they quickly condemn the acts and announce that those acts are unrepresentative of their community as a whole. What I would hope to see, but can't demand, is a response by the current Muslim community that transcends the ritualistic responses of other groups faced in the past with similar disapproval from society. Would it not be a powerful, even transformative moment in group responses, if a leader arose to say the following: "We as a community did not commit this act, but we are responsible for ensuring that it never happens again. For those outside who say it was heinous, we will say it louder than you. It is our good name that is at stake, and we are committed to rooting out any of those among us who would bring this disgrace to us again at any future time. If we fail, we deserve to be judged harshly, but we will not fail"?
Will that happen? I would like to think so, but it would be likely only if American Muslims are better than everybody else, and I'm afraid they're just like the rest of us.
American Muslims do appear to be just like the rest of us. The Muslims that I've known, including Egyptians, Iranians, Pakistanis and Turks, have not been noticibly more fervent about their religion than the Christians, Jews, and Hindus that I've known. A couple have expressed strong negative feelings about Jews, but that was due to the number of their relatives killed in conflicts with Israel, rather than a specific religious viewpoint. Altogether, most Muslims appear to have a pretty lukewarm attitude towards religion, just like most members of other faiths.
November 6, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call bravo sierra on this. First, his religious status is part of his total identity. He was also a soldier. Soldiers have had a disproportionate amount of suicides, rapes and murders since these two wars began. At one point does the minority status of one community overlap or supercede the status of another? Should the Army be making the same statement and offer of reparations? If so, why? If not, why not?
He was also a student at Virginia Tech. Now a disproportionate number of mass murderers were students at this college. Should the college issue a similiar statement?
I think by making this particular atrocity an albatross for the muslim community to hang around their necks is wrongheaded and dangerous. If the muslim community were to issue such a statement, the reaction of enlisted men and women (and even some officers) would be to discriminate against muslims in the armed forces. It would also place the onus of motive upon the perpetrator's religion when it could (and likely does) involve a constellation of factors, not the least of which being his experience as a soldier and psychiatrist.
So why should the muslim community take this kind of burden except to admit to that which has not been proven?
"If any reader disagrees with my assessment, I will concede that I can't prove it, but I would argue it to be plausible enough for us to pursue its implications."
I disagree even with the plausibility. This post is a rush, and in my opinion is poorly thought out. Let the Army investigate, let the families grieve, and let's not ask for anything that puts other citizens at risk, even if it makes us non-muslims feel more comfortable with the skeletons in our closet.
November 6, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the albatross is already there, and to pretend otherwise would, in my view, let the problem fester. I've postulated a dilemma - Muslims should not be stereotyped as jihadists killers or sympathizers, but enough of them harbor those views to require attention. You appear to be denying the latter, but although one can't expect conclusive scientific evidence on this point, I believe not only are you wrong, but more importantly that most Americans believe your view to be incorrect.
What will ensue now in all probability are the ritual condemnations by extremists on one side and denials on the other side. Neither approach will be helpful. The problem is not about to go away, and so we can expect, I predict, further acts against Americans by Americans, based on ideological rather than personal grievances, and disproportionately perpetrated by Muslims, who in this case, constitute about 0.2 percent of active duty military personnel. At some point, we will need a rational response that is both fair and protective, and I submit again that the Muslim community can do more than is usually done in these circumstances to ensure we neither ignore nor exaggerate the real dangers that face us.
November 6, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus but you are condescending. Especially when you have naught but inference and supposition at your disposal.
Yout dilemma is a confabulation. 1 in 500 military members are Muslim. 1 Muslim Army officer commits a mass murder. In the meanwhile, a gay sailor named Provost was shot and burned at Camp Pendleton. A Marine was thrown from the third deck of his barracks for being bisexual. And he was my friend. A Marine who used to work in my office blew his brains out last year. A Pakistani Marine in my old office left the Corps in disgust over the way he was treated. A Sergeant was shot by his own troops... His home ransacked and his wife raped and left for dead. A female Lance Corporal is murdered because of her pregnancy as her fiance escapes to Mexico.
Suicide in the armed forces is at an all time high. As is domestic violence, sexual assault, and drug offenses.
Just because that 1 in 500 does an evil thing in a spectacular manner does not give you license to pose mock dilemmas. You don't know what you are talking about. And waving the flag of warning in my face will not dissuade me from criricising your shabby thinking.
I repeat: you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't studied the rise in drugs, alcohol and violence in the armed forces since Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't seem to be aware of the psychic toll this has taken on us. For all we know, Major Nidal was systematically harrassed and threatened by patients and peers because he shares the religion and skin of those they are ordered to kill. You don't know what it is like. You don't know what it means to be trained not to trust anyone in country. General Mattis told us, "no better friend, no worse enemy." This is a polite way of saying that those who you pay or give a pass to today could snipe or blow you up tomorrow.
Instead of focusing on the dominant locus of the event, which is military psychology and war trauma, you create a dilemma that lays the responsibility at the door of Islam.
That is wrongheaded and dangerous. I suggested politely that you rethink this post, but you are a stubborn patrician. From this point, you will get nothing but rhetorical fangs from me. You are doing nothing but legitimizing right wing tropes about violence and at the same time ignoring military culture.
You can take your thought-provoking dilemma and shove it.
November 6, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see my ressponse below to bluebell regarding the significance of the 1/500 figure as a test of a prior hypothesis. I believe the figure provides evidence that can't easily be dismissed, for reasons I explained in that response.
November 6, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, your theory walks you down Nonsense Street, and leaves you with some ugly and irrational conclusions at the end. "Enough of them harbor those views to require attention?" Ugh. Back up.
For starters, it makes little/no sense because you only have a tiny number of cases to begin with. How many massacres you got in your data set? Errrrm, 1 - according to the media. So if that first massacre had been by a white supremacist, what would you be saying? How about a black woman? A theory doesn't get much confirmation from 1 (one) case.
More importantly, have you developed some master list that you're checking these massacres against? You know, male/female, age, religion, sexual preference, political views that sort of thing. 'Cause when I talk to my buddies in the security and spook industry, we talk about...
- My Baptist and Fundamentalist colleagues. Why you letting my brethren off so easy? Think we can't so some serious social damage? My people are hard, Fred. Death is of secondary import to some of these people. Fanatics, you might say. That little Muslim shrink had nothin' on these people.
- And the Nazis and Neo-Nazis that came out of the Eastern Bloc. You think there aren't worries there? My buddies in the spook services say there's more Nazis living in the Greater Toronto area than in some Eastern European countries. They watch them all the time.
- And those radical African American and Native groups. Come on Fred, give us the odds - what are the numbers here? Used to be more militant politicos, but now... a huge proportion are drawn into gangs. How bad would the insults have to be for one of these guys to pop, what with histories of abuse and drug use and racism and such?
- And those Central American Death Squad refugees? We got a bunch from the Honduras living in SW Ontario, the guys interviewed for the Baltimore Sun a few years ago. How're they gonna react if we support the wrong side?
- Checked out the Vietnamese refugees? Laotian? Cambodian? Even Chinese? Hell Fred, we just had a Chinese guy here, had a mental breakdown, chopped someone's head off in the bus outside of town and started eating him. On the bus. I put it down to the Chinese diet.
- And my Scots-Irish blood brothers? We're hot-headed, overly-proud, heavy-drinkers, greater prevalence of mental illness, racist as hell, a militaristic tradition, cultural acceptance of "berserker" states, and frankly... we look down on every other group out there. Especially guys with badges or stripes. So what're the odds that we're gonna do some nasty shit to our fellow citizens?
- And hell. After seeing the Bear Jew in Glourious Basterds, I'm keeping a much closer eye on those guys too.
So. When I hear of massacres and slaughters, what I do is I take out my list. Of all those like me - the inbred, the violent, the fanatical, the tormented, the hotheads, the drunks, the persecuted and the incorrigible.
And then I wonder which part of me's gonna be responsible for the latest outrage.
November 7, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn - I discussed the rationale for my conclusions in my comment below to bluebell. The other groups you refer to could in each case be subject to a testable hypothesis, but that fact doesn't obscure the data regarding Hasan, which is compelling. Most intended massacres have been averted, usually by the FBI, but they add up to a considerable number, and when attempts to gain revenge against specific individuals are excluded, the disproportionate role of Muslim plotters seems to emerge from the evidence. That leads to the hypothesis that was tested by Fort Hood, and confirmed by the statistics. It could of course have been a rare coincidence that a Muslim was the perpetrator, but the nature of hypothesis testing tells us it would have been rare enough to render it an unlikely conclusion.
Even one time events are amenable to statistical inferences, although as I mentioned, there are other examples of would-be massacres that never happened.
The fact that in this discussion, I've been compelled to repeat the same logic on multiple occasions is likely to lead some to conclude I am eager to indict Muslim extremism as a threat to American society. That would be totally incorrect. Rather, I am reluctantly stating what I perceive to be an inescapable reality regarding a tiny fraction of the Muslim community. I've read all the counter arguments, many of them similar in nature, and I don't see any of them as refuting the evidence I've offered. If one wants to hypothesize that some other groups harbor an element of dangerous extremism, that is testable, but is not a counter argument to anything I've stated.
Finally, I've omitted a lot of "soft" evidence, such as the unconfirmed report that Hasan made Internet comments praising suicide bombers and judging the deaths of American soldiers to be a desirable outcome. There is also background material on his conversations with others that is somewhat "squishy" but perhaps relevant. One item is linked to below, but more important will be the information to emerge in the coming days and weeks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110604353.html?hpid=topnews
November 7, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most intended massacres have been averted, usually by the FBI, but they add up to a considerable number, and when attempts to gain revenge against specific individuals are excluded, the disproportionate role of Muslim plotters seems to emerge from the evidence.
Again, could you please give us the numbers?
November 7, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if that first massacre had been by a white supremacist, what would you be saying? How about a black woman? A theory doesn't get much confirmation from 1 (one) case.
If one considers plots that were foiled, the number of cases is substantial, but I'd like to ignore that, because I believe your argument about single cases is wrong, and it's worth discussing even outside of the Fort Hood events.
If a prior hypothesis exists (e.g., Muslim beliefs in the minds of extremists, although they might be a small fraction, pose a threat of mass killing), then a mass killing - even one - constitutes a test of the hypothesis. If the killing was perpetrated by a Muslim, the hypothesis is strongly "confirmed" (not proved) because if the hypothesis were false, a Muslim perpetrator would exhibit a probability of 1/500.
Suppose, however, that the perpetrator in this one instance turned out to be one of the other individuals you mentioned - e.g., a white supremicist - what does that do to the original hypothesis? It weakens it, but only very slightly, because if only 1 in 500 soldiers is Muslim, the hypothesis could still be true and yet not confirmed in this one instance. If, however, a thousand massacres occurred without a Muslim perpetrator, the hypothesis involving a strong Muslim component would be very greatly weakened. To summarize, if the very first test is positive, it provides strong confirmation. If negative, it provides weak refutation, given the 1/500 random probability value.
Sorry to take up so much space on this tangential matter, but it's important in my view not to belittle the value of single tests when they demonstrate the improbability of mere coincidence between what is hypothesized and what is observed.
November 7, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is garbage because you are narrowing the category. 1 muslim commits a mass murder. The USMC has 98 suicides and twice as many attempts. There have been a couple dozen murders, and hundreds of reported cases of sexual assault. There has also been a spike in motorcycle deaths and drunk driving casualties.
Near as I can tell, none of this involved Islam or any other religion. So by taking this one case and applying you inference, you are ignoring the rise in violence in garrison amon the US armed forces in toto. This is selective vision. You are narrowing violent crime to a particular type of crime in order to say that a minority of muslims are prone to its commission.
That is junk statistics. You have backed yourself into a corner here. You are also using a tired and damned ritual: ignoring the culpability of our militant culture in acts of violence. I would say there is a much stronger correlation between our war footing and violence since there is a significantly higher chance of violence in the military and security professions than in Islam.
And you aren't discussing the issue. You are defending your hypothesis with increasingly sophist verbage.
November 7, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, you talk pretty here - but it's still bullshit. Let's reread this little section you wrote, "... that fact doesn't obscure the data regarding Hasan, which is compelling. Most intended massacres have been averted, usually by the FBI, but they add up to a considerable number, and when attempts to gain revenge against specific individuals are excluded, the disproportionate role of Muslim plotters seems to emerge from the evidence. That leads to the hypothesis that was tested by Fort Hood, and confirmed by the statistics."
Now, why are you talking like this, when you have no evidence? Are you telling me you have a database of which massacres succeeded, which ones were averted? And someone went through the trouble of defining massacre and found a way to remove the ones with a revenge motive? How about religion and motivation? Someone knows who's a Muslim and which Muslims take their views seriously?
I'm just going to say you do not have access to such a magical mound of evidence. So your talk about hypothesis testing and data and evidence and statistical confirmation is just you making stuff up.
Which means you have now made the question one of - Why would Fred pretend he has such evidence on hand? Like to hazard a guess? Or would you prefer to go with the preferred hypothesis on this thread - that Fred is a racist, but just can't see his way clear to admitting it? After all, there's quite a bit of evidence which you've submitted yourself, in this very thread. No proof, just confirmation you know.
And maybe.... maybe we should have you watched? Or do you have friends and family who can speak up for you, and persuade us all that they'll keep tight watch on you and your behaviour?
November 7, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I linked to some of the evidence below.
November 7, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link again -
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/mueller011107.htm
November 7, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I think it's just about time for any reasoning person to abandon you to your increasingly embarrassing - and clearly very personal - thesis.
Because after all that, your link IN NO WAY comprises the sort of "database" you spoke of, no weighing out of various groups or sorting out motivations, etc.
What it does is list a whole series of groups which pose a risk - including white supremacists, militias, cyberterrorists, ecoterrorists, black separatists, those allied with foreign nations, and so on. It does NOT count them or weigh out the likelihood they will commit massacres, etc.
There is no "database" that allows quantitative analysis here.
You're just covering your ass now. Your babble about evidence and database and hypothesis and all that was just you blowing smoke Fred. You think the world is this way, and you chose your favourite language - science - to write it up as if it were so.
But it's not science, Fred. You're just faking it up to get what you want.
November 7, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let others review the evidence and judge for themselves. That evidence was only a starting point, in that it generated a plausible hypothesis. As I suggested above, Fort Hood, which was not part of the pre-existing evidence, tested that hypothesis and provided confirmation.
I believe these conclusions would withstand any objective scrutiny, and we should be prepaared for the societal implications. They will be misused by bigots to tarnish the entire Muslim community, and we have an obligation to put them in a proper perspective instead. It would help if you participated in that effort, because you are a person of convictions, capable of expressing them well.
November 7, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who do you work for? Because no one writes this without getting paid to do so.
November 7, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred says:
I believe these conclusions [that Muslims present a greater threat than people of other ethnicities] would withstand any objective scrutiny, and we should be prepaared for the societal implications. They will be misused by bigots to tarnish the entire Muslim community, and we have an obligation to put them in a proper perspective instead.
Well here Fred is right. In fact, we have a great example of how these conclusions can be used by a bigot to tarnish an entire community in Fred's original post:
. . . most Muslims are good people committed to the democratic values of the society we all share. A minority of Muslims are not, and this minority is disproportionately large within the Muslim community compared with Americans in general. Any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity. . . . My dilemma, and perhaps the enormously troubling American dilemma we face from this violent act is - how can we confront, both effectively and with fairness, an American community that does not deserve to be stereotyped, but which poses a threat we can't ignore?
November 7, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've postulated a dilemma - Muslims should not be stereotyped as jihadists killers or sympathizers, but enough of them harbor those views to require attention.
Please, be more specific. Exactly how much constitutes enough? And what type of "attention" do Muslims "require." What are you recommending? I actually have Muslim relatives who regularly have stones thrown at them. Is that sufficient attention for the likes of Fred, or would he rather see them detained. My nephew in fact was detained for hours because he had a beard and was wearing a Muslim cap. Maybe that's good? How does Fred propose to resolve his dilemma? Locking up Muslims like we did the Japanese? Submitting them to interrogation? Deporting them?
There's a basic American principle that people aren't judged based on the group they belong to, but based on their individual actions. Apparently Fred would like to change that when it comes to Muslims.
November 7, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too late for that. Take a look at Eboo Patel's article in the Washington Post and the responses to it.
November 7, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are lunatics in any given cadre of individuals, in every profession, of every religion and ethnicity.
This is true in the armed forces, exacerbated by the extraordinary stresses of the job and by the unconscionable erosion of the boundaries between church and state in the armed forces, and also by the erosion of morale inflicted by repeated tours.
Had more 'normal' wartime conditions prevailed, Hasan could have been weeded out, because it appears his behavior had been abnormal, and members of the armed forces are subject to remarkable scrutiny (itself a stressor, but with the positive effect of weeding people out). Due to political realities, this cannot happen, because neither Obama nor any Republican is going to propose a draft.
There was a shooting at Fort Hood a year ago that got no attention. It is known that white supremacy groups such as Aryan Nation have gotten a foothold in the services, which again would not happen if 'normal' (ie., draft) wartime conditions prevailed.
Because of Bush's political cowardice, and Obama's, a horrific situation will be perpetuated. How can we confront political leaders who refuse to face the political consequences of policy decisions?
November 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, but it's equally true that some groups may be disproportionately involved in ideologically-based homicidial violence against Americans simply because they are Americans. There is reason to believe Muslims harbor such a disproportion, even though they are only a small minority of Muslims. To pretend that all groups are equally likely to commit these acts is, I'm afraid, to hope to solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist. (Or by blaming it on President Obama.)
I mentioned some of the statistics above regarding the probability that a killing of this sort would be done by a Muslim if his religion was totally irrelevant - it turns out to be about 1 chance in 500.
November 6, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, and what were the probabilities that the anthrax attacks- which admittedly killed far fewer people, but which caused mass panic- were perpetrated by a white Christian male who, despite his explicit claims, had no connection to any terrorist group, much less a Muslim one? (Or, contra near-universal speculation, to the Iraqi state.) And yet those attacks- whose provenance were presumably based on probabilistic inferences- justified one of our concurrent wars.
And yes, i am blaming President Obama for his refusal to declare a draft.
November 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of bunk. Tim McVey was an Irish-American. So am I. I guess I should be watched less I blow up a government building.
For someone who prides himself on his intellect and his devotion to evidence, you sound like a common racist to me.
November 6, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tim McVeigh should have been watched, but not because he was Irish-American, but because he was part of the right-wing nutjobs who saw black helicopters and rallied around Waco and ran around plotting ways to "send a message" to the government with violence.
Fred's point, as I understand it, is that it is reasonable to ask whether the muslim community has the capacity or willingness to confront radicals in their ranks. Radicals who twist and pervert Islam while encouraging or tacitly approving violent acts. It isnt' about genealogy, but idealogy.
November 6, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell - There's a logical fallacy involved in comparing Nidal Hasan to Timothy McVeigh. It's a technical matter, but perhaps worth noting because of the danger that these types of analogies will be brandished inappropriately.
I suggested above that the probable relevance of Hasan's islamic beliefs to his actions was confirmed by the fact that only about 1 out of every 500 active duty military personnel is a Muslim. That is a correct inference, recognizing that "confirmation" is not synonymous with proof. The validity of the inference depends on the fact that it tested a belief (technically a "hypothesis") that predated the observed event - namely, that a threat exists from Muslim extremism. One can test the hypothesis by observing a subsequent event (e.g., Fort Hood) for evidence for or against it. If Islamic extremist belief is irrelevant to such an event, the random probability the massacre would have been perpetrated by a Muslim is 1 in 500 - i.e., very unlikely to occur by chance (but not impossible, which is why confirmation is not proof). The fact that it occurred supports the alternative explanation, that Hasan's belief system contributed in some way to his action. I won't futher add the so-called Bayesian element that would probably lend further support to the hypothesis.
In the McVeigh case, however, no prior hypothesis existed that his Irish-American background constituted a threat of anti-government violence. The belief that the perpetrator was Irish-American was "post hoc" - it arose only after the perpetrator had been identified. If you construct a hypothesis based on an observation (McVeigh's ethnicity), you can't legitimately then use the observation as a tess of the hypothesis.
I realize this is getting away from the more substantive topic regarding the meaning of Hasan's act, but it's important to realize that there is statistical evidence supporting the relevance of his belief system. Again, it's not proof, but it's not meaningless either.
November 6, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time I've seen Bayesianism enlisted in support of bigotry. It confirms my a priori hypothesis that a single Muslim mass murderer brings out more irrational thinking among Americans than a thousand commonplace homicidal maniacs.
November 6, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choice of appropriate Bayesian priors would be a judgment call. If one considered relevant priors to comprise the prior probability that (a) a random Muslim, and (b) a random non-Muslim would plan or attempt a large scale massacre of other Americans, these would be rational choices. The criteria for defining the massacre would be critical. If it included attempts aimed at personal revenge against persons known to the attacker, there might not be a Muslim disproportion. If it included only attempts aimed at individuals for the most part unknown to the assailant (in this case merely passing through Fort Hood on their way overseas), I suspect that disproportion would manifest itself, although note I was tentative enough to use the word "probably" in regard to the Bayesian part of my comment, which in any case was peripheral to my main point. The basic statistical reasoning outside of a Bayesian addition is secure.
November 6, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Fred, have you heard of Cheney's "1 Percent doctrine?"
November 7, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
People have used faux science before to justify selecting specific ethic groups as scapegoats.
November 7, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eugenics, for one. Taken very seriously at Harvard and Yale, a faux science given statistical bullshit to suck in the very educated.
November 7, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and comments, not much to add.
Q has an angle on this as does the doctor.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/steevo/2009/11/military-doctors.php?ref=reccafe
An interesting take from Steevo, modern day MASH.
November 6, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear, now a man with an Hispanic name has shot up Orlando. I guess we have to be afraid of all of them too.
November 6, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging Lou Dobbs. Paging Lou Dobbs...
November 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you know that VA Tech shooter was Korean so you just gotta watch these folks. And did you hear about that Hmong guy who shot up a whole bunch of all American regular guy Wisconsin hunters a couple of years back?
Paging Michele Bachman....
November 6, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Rush in all this? I'm waiting for his brilliant take on this mess; and Beck -- come on! Give us something to chew on.
OK, I'll guess:
Muslims and Hispanics are America's enemies.
Simple -- even the stupidest people can wrap their malleable, pointy heads around that sentiment.
November 6, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Minnesotan was one of those killed at Fort Hood yesterday. He was a 23 year old private who was born in a Thai refugee camp.
America grows more diverse and the more foreign wars we and others fight the more refugees there are to raise children torn between diverse cultures.
Not surprising that our mass murderers are not all Euro-American Christians anymore.
November 6, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what the NRA has to say about an entire waiting room of soldiers who didn't have guns handy. I guess their take on it would be that if every American had guns there wouldn't be any more situations like this.
The question is: How in the hell did this happen?
The answer is: MORE GUNS! MORE GUNS! MORE GUNS!
ps... at least all the soldiers had government-provided health care! ooooops! don't tell the nra!
November 6, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that some of the above comments represent the triumph of wishful thinking over a reality that if ignored, is likely to grow more dangerous over time. I used the word "dilemma" in my title to signify the complexity of the challenge - on one hand, an alarming accumulation of evidence derived from multiple reports from throughout the U.S., typically emanating from the FBI, documenting the existence of fanatical jihadism with lethal intentions on the part of a fraction of American Muslims, far out of proportion to similar malevolence in other segments of our society, and on the other hand, the equally compelling evidence that the jihadists constitute only a very tiny fraction of Muslim society, most of which rejects the views of its extremists.
How to address the dilemma is daunting indeed, but there appear to be a number of commenters who wish to solve it by denying its existence, and imputing my description of a specific threat from the Islamic extremism on U.S. soil to racism on my part.
I find this regrettable because the problem requires attention, and denying it will have two unfortunate consequences in my view. The first is that inadequate steps may be taken to protect us against future Fort Hoods. The second is that public proclamations that there are no special dangers from within the Muslim community are simply not going to believed by the vast majority of Americans, whose prevailing views are not always valid, but certainly correct in this case. What will happen, therefore, may be a loss of credibility on the part of those who deny the danger, accompanied by a magnification of the danger in the minds of ordinary Americans who come to believe public officials are feeding them obvious falsehoods. Muslims as a community would come to suffer as a result, extremism within the community would be reinfoced by the unfairness of anti-Muslim stereotyping, and the threat of even more explosive future violence would grow.
It's incumbent on all of us to face unpleasant realities, including the reality that not all groups within American society confront us with identical or equal threats. Even more important, as I suggested in the original post, it would be extraordinarily valuable if one or more Muslim leaders seized the opportunity to energize the Muslim community to activism to confront the dangerous forces within its ranks. It probably won't happen, if the history of other groups is a guide, which is why I remain somewhat pessimistic about containing the fallout from the Fort Hood killings in the near future. But at least I can wish.
Outside of the Muslim community, I see a particular danger for the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum, if it cedes well-grounded perceptions of a real danger to right-wing demagogues who will exploit it for their own political advantage, and to vilify Muslims as a group. I therefore believe it is important for liberals to acknowledge the reality of the dilemma, and then advocate a rational approach to it rather than one based on fomenting harmful divisions within our nation at a time when we can hardly afford more of them.
November 6, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is your mistaken idea that the biggest demagogues are those right wingers who froth at the mouth. The most important demagogues are those who manage to make the ideas of the nutcases sound respectable. This is, as George Orwell quipped, the job of political language, a reminder:
The way to defend ourselves from more "Fort Hood" is to abolish Fort Hood, and to shrink the US military to national defense, for which 10% of the US military budget would be overkill, and to end the endless wars that brutalize both their victims and their perpetrators and that inevitably have these kinds out actions as a (minor) collateral damage, minor compared to the death that is meted out regularly in those farway lands were most Muslims live.
And the way to defend the war machine, and help kill more people, is find scapegoats for all the bad things that war brings home. This is your job apparently. Well done!
November 6, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
an alarming accumulation of evidence derived from multiple reports from throughout the U.S., typically emanating from the FBI, documenting the existence of fanatical jihadism with lethal intentions on the part of a fraction of American Muslims, far out of proportion to similar malevolence in other segments of our society . . .
Can you present this "alarming" evidence? In particular, can you prove with quantitative data that Muslims demonstrate "lethal intentions" and "malevolence" at a far higher rate (or even just a statistically significant higher rate) than do other segments of society (say, for instance, anti-abortion activists)? You say there is evidence for your claim, but you don't really present any statistical evidence. Prove to us that you're not making this up.
I'll just point out that fanatics or psychopaths of any background often find some convenient ideology to "justify" their violence. In the sixties, socialism was often called upon to justify placing bombs in public places. In the 90s, Timothy McVeigh drew on the anti-government ideology promoted by President Reagan and other Republicans to justify blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City. Today, Islamism happens to be a convenient, ready-made ideology that any disaffected psychopath who happens to also be Muslim can embrace to justify his desire for violence. There are some 6 to 8 million Muslims in America and, as far as I can tell, there has been very little violence perpetrated by that community (if you think otherwise, please present statistical evidence). Violent pathology seems no more common to me among Muslims than among any other group (if you believe otherwise, again, please present real evidence). True, Islamism is an ideology easily available to any psychopath who happens to be Muslim and wants to justify his violent tendencies, but that says nothing about Muslims in general.
November 7, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The charges of racism do not come from your assertion that Islamic extremism exists in the U.S. but from insisting that such extremism has to be an issue that is addressed in the response to this mass killing.
Your suggestion that the Muslim community could help themselves out here by voicing strong condemnation of extremism at this moment may not be true. For those who view that community with a fundamental suspicion, the message will be: "We really have stopped beating our wives. Honest."
November 7, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you concede that you can't prove your prejudice, but you insist on the right not only to hold them, but to make them publicly is the knowledge that you will not be shunned and driven out of town because your prejudice are against Muslims, not against Jews or blacks or women, all of whom have a certain legitimate store of accumulated anger over past (and in many cases, present) treatment.
Instead of considering this horrible event in light of what war does to us. The fact that we are unfazed that for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, there are dozens of "Fort Hoods" every month and killing 12 innocent Afghans is barely newsworthy. The fact that war transforms and destroys the soldiers we send to fight it. That they come back damaged, and quite often violent and murderous. The fact that someone who spent years listening to these traumatized soldiers was very obviously affected, as are the wide circle of relatives and friends. The fact that violence is such a big and subsidized part of our culture. That the kind of "problem solving" that Hasan chose is subtly and bluntly lionized by our billion dollar film industry that is subsidized by the Pentagon. That of course violence will spill over in a a country that spends over half a trillion a year on killing people, more than the rest of the world combined.
All this doesn't matter to you. What matters is that he is Muslim.
Seventy years ago, you would have been one of those people explaining why Jews bear "some responsibility" for Krisalnacht, and how that poses a Dillema for you, "but of course Jews shouldn't be demonized, rather, they should find ways to restrain their own people better so we don't have to do it." Wouldn't you?
November 9 is two days ago. Two days to repent. Shame on you!
November 6, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kristallnacht. oops!
November 6, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today is November 6th. How is November 9th two days ago?
November 6, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a time machine.
November 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
kewl! Can we please go back to August of when Bush blew off the warning of September 11th? It would be amazing to save all those American and Iraqi lives --- oh, never mind ---Bush/cheney needed 911. They would have found some other reason to invade Iraq and no one would have the balls to vote against them because they would have......bzzzzz.....you name it.....
Now! Can you please go back and let Al Gore win, which he actually did? I love time machines! Let's have a view of Clarence Thomas when he was talking coca colas! Oh! And George Bush when he went awol from the National Guard!
November 6, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My time machine is an early prototype. It only does typos. Sorry pal!
November 6, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise is wrong, evildoer. The word "prejudice" means pre-judgment - drawing conclusions about an individual or a group in the absence of evidence about that individual or group. I conscientiously avoid doing that, and have not done so here.
What troubles me is "prejudice" of a different sort - judgments made without recourse to evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence because they conform to one's overarching philosophy. That type of wishful thinking ultimately collides with reality, and as I've suggested above, the consequences could be detrimental to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
There's another troubling aspect to your claim - the implication that I wish to think ill of American Muslims. I wish to think ill of no-one, and in particular, I harbor no negative stereotypes of American Muslims. Rather, I point to a danger arising from a tiny fraction within the Muslim community that threatens all of us if not acknowledged and addressed.
November 6, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I made zero claim about your wishing ill to Muslim. And racism does not require ill will. One can be paternalistic and well wishing and still speak and act on the basis of racism, as you clearly do.
Prejudice is not just pre-judgment, and racism is not just ill-will. Prejudice is focusing on those elements of reality that confirm your predisposition to see people of certain groups as problem and building phony but well sounding arguments on top of them.
You are the problem. Not Muslims. Muslims in the US have a problem. They are subject to discrimination and often violence because of you and your views. And you are their problem. It isn't the other way around. You are far less likely to be killed by an angry Muslim with radical views than a Muslim has a chance of being investigated, arrested, fired, not hired, jailed, and so forth, because of your views. And I'm talking about a Muslim in the US. If you add Muslims in the rest of the world than your views are part of the relatively high chance they have of being killed by a bullet funded with your taxes.
November 6, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buffy Sainte Marie: "If the Bad Guys don't get ya', the 'Good Guys' will."
November 7, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't presented any real evidence (statistically valid evidence) for your claims that Muslims are "disproportionately malevolent" when compared to other segments of society, Fred. You may think you're being "conscientious," but you're not. You need hard data to prove your point--not some vague reference to "FBI reports."
Say what you want, you sound like a bigot or, maybe more accurately, a fellow traveler with bigots.
November 7, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will try to defend Fred, for from his writings that I've seen over the months, I believe the charges of racism or prejudice are unfounded.
Being muslim isn't the issue; being a radical muslim who adopts an idealogy of hate and violence is. Just as being a christian isn't a problem, but when perverted (as in the days of the KKK) into a dangerous combination of religion and violence and moral absolutism, it IS a problem. Radical idealogy and their proponents need to be confronted...and it is most effective when done by "insiders" rather than "outsiders". We can expect the nuts (like Beck and Dobbs and their ilk) to portray this as another reason to fear those who are different. It would be nice if those who are closest to the radicals could take actionable steps to confront and ostracize the awful teachings. How to encourage those steops without being accused of racism is a dilemma, as Fred has shown.
November 6, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops...ideology, not idealogy.
November 6, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it isn't a dilemma at all. One easy thing would be not to defend prejudice and not to stand for it. you know nothing about the killer except that he killed and he is Muslim. Do you even know if he believes in God? Why have you decided that this Islamic radicalism is the most important question to discuss NOW, in connection to this event?
The killer is also a US citizen isn't he? And the US is the most violent country in the world isn't it? Sure it is. In sheer dollar terms it is. Why don't you connect these dots?
The charge of racism and prejudice is not just founded, it is self declared. In addition to the very fact that he chose that subject on this occasion...
Any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity. If any reader disagrees with my assessment, I will concede that I can't prove it...
So what? Any young man is more likely to be a threat to you than an average person. Why aren't you writing about how the murder raises a dilemma about how to deal with young men?
You with your deadly tax dollars and your carbon footprint are more of a danger to lives in most of the world, not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq than Somali pirates and Muslim terrorists. Why don't you warn other people of the threat YOU pose to others?
This is textbook racism, and the fact that it has social legitimacy in the liberal blogosphere says everything.
November 6, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't defend that particular statement, but Fred's last 2 paragraphs hit the mark, in my view. The McVeigh's of the world can best be confronted by white americans; perpetrators of black-on-black violence can best be changed by african americans; radical zionists who insist on more and more settlements can best be addressed by Jews; and people like this criminal who *allegedly* shouted allahu akbar while shooting dozens can best be confronted by muslim-americans. Nothing prejudiced about saying that.
November 6, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is true to a point. But you forget the context of him saying this. We have no evidence that the killer was a member of a radical organization. If he thought ill of US imperialism, as I do, that may be "radical" for Glenn Beck but that has really zero to do with the magnitude of what happened (unless you intend to report me to the FBI). This looks more Columbine than MacVeigh, and blaming radical Islam for it is like blaming Marylin Manson for Columbine. The Guy is Muslim. He holds unflattering views of the US shared by the majority of humanity. He went postal under some personal stress, in particular secondary trauma and fear of being deployed to Iraq. How is that an issue about who should do more or less to stem radical Islam? If one chooses to connect the dots in this way, i.e. radical Islam leads to radical views lead to violence, that is a prejudiced way of going about it.
Furthermore, it is not true that those with close identity have the greatest responsibility or even the best opportunity.
The people most able to stop the march of the fundamentalist and violent sections of Islam are White Americans, by taking control of their country from the Military Industrial Complex and ending the wars, wars that first, kill a lot of Muslims, and only on a much much reduced scale threaten the lives of white Americans as well.
Not saying that Muslims have no role to play, but placing the onus on them is denying the responsibility of those who are really responsible for creating the conditions that spill into such horror (that AGAIN, is almost insignificant compared to what people experience on the other side of the barrel).
November 6, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of what you say, I agree with; however, blaming "White Americans" for radical islam is silly. Not everything in the world is the USA's fault.
November 6, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not blame white Americans for radical Islam. I pointed out that white Americans pose a far greater danger to the safety of Muslims than the other way around and that this fact must be taken into consideration when figuring out who should do what to reduce the likelihood of violent episodes.
November 7, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be as accurate to say that psychopaths ought best be confronted (or at least recognized!)by fellow psychiatrists.
November 7, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . I would hope to see . . . a response by the current Muslim community that transcends the ritualistic responses of other groups faced in the past with similar disapproval from society. Fred Mooten
Hey; we don't do nuance, here!
N.B. "Cliched" might be better than "ritualistic" -- but it is the case that these groups do recognize that in conformance with the demands of the vulgar, they must say something (that is, perform the required ritual). The idea is that the response should sink out of consciousness as quickly as possible, and tired, conventional formulas have proved themselves to do the trick the best.
November 6, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is insane.
The guy is an "American in general," you idiot!
Only a bigot would separate him from the rest of society because of his religion. Exactly as you have done in the entire post.
November 6, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I addressed these criticisms earlier. Please see my comments to Bluebell regarding the significance of the 1/500 ratio describing the Muslim component of American active duty personnel as it pertains to a priori hypotheses. I believe it provides quantitative evidence for points I've been making.
November 6, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you failed utterly to address why you singled out someone because of his religion. You failed to say why you assumed he was a Muslim in the first place. Hasan is an American, Fred. An American. Exactly like you.
As a sometime government employee, you should know it's illegal to discriminate against someone because of his religion. The reason it's illegal is because it's a form of bigotry. Just because you are blind to your own bigotry in this matter does not mean you are not a bigot, at least toward Muslims.
So before you go any further, I really think you should do some research on the religious beliefs of the non-Muslim Ft. Hood gunmen from its troubled past, starting with George Hennard:
And you might as well look into these guys too:
Thanks, Fred.
November 7, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"My own sense, however, is that the most effective responses must of necessity come from within the Muslim community rather than be imposed on it from without."
I've thought this as well. It needs to come from them, or with them heavily involved and doing most of the pushing.
November 6, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Fred. Since there's a possibility that a handful of the five million or so Muslim-Americans have violent tendencies, they should all be monitored and, most likely, forcibly removed from our fair shores. And that other Virginia Tech guy, that killed the 32 kids, what was he, Korean? Hell, I can't tell any of those goo...er, Asians apart, so let's get rid of them too.
Mexicans and blacks seem pretty violent too. They's got to go. You never can tell when one might get hopped up on drugs or alcohol and start shooting the streets up with a stolen AK.
Then there's the weird, disaffected white guys. Er, sorry Fred, looks like it's your turn.
November 6, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've already discussed above the analogies between Fort Hood and acts committed by members of other groups. Please see my comments to bluebell, quinn, and others for the details.
November 7, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read that discussion. And your attempt to treat a spree killer whose Muslim differently from a spree killer who's a white supremacist doesn't make any sense. You believe that Muslims have a greater presdisposition to the sort of violence perpetrated at Fort Hood by virtue of their ideology. You haven't explained why heightened concern about Muslim soldiers is warranted in this case, yet concern about other ethnic, religious or ideological groups after an violent outburst is not. That seems to me the very definition of ethnic prejudice.
And your constant tactic of referring to something else you wrote, with insinuations that people are incapable of comprehending your lofty thoughts, is beyond annoying. If people continue to challenge your arguments, it doesn't mean they don't understand them. It means they think you're wrong or you've failed to make your case.
November 7, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please see my comment to bluebell, but also my longer set of comments to quinn, the last one written in the past couple of minutes, where I go into some detail as to why analogies with other potential perpetrators don't refute the evidence relating Hasan's belief system to his actions. I explained it as best I could there, and I'll have to leave it to individual readers to judge whether that's adequate.
I have no axe to grind here. I don't wish to believe anything in particular except what is true, recognizing that none of us is capable of a perfect understanding of the truth. I hope, though, that I and others are capable of accepting some truths that are unpalatable. I, for one, would prefer to live in a world in which any claim that one group warrants more scrutiny than another (because of rare fringe elements within it) can be dismissed as bigotry. Bigotry exists, but we have to examine claims on the basis of their merits, because not all differences exist only in the imagination of bigots.
November 7, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, would prefer to live in a world in which any claim that one group warrants more scrutiny than another (because of rare fringe elements within it) can be dismissed as bigotry.
That would be easy. We live in that world. It is easy to dismiss you as a bigot because you are. you see a difference between Muslims and non Muslims that makes Muslims a threat to your safety, for which difference you have no evidence, and that, even if it were true, which it isn't, would have no necessary social meaning but for its value as an contributor to racism (just like any other form of racial profiling). And you don't see the danger that you pose to Muslims, because their lives and safety is not as important as yours. Furthermore, you recommend dealing with the obvious surfeit of violence that plagues American society generally by further scapegoating and targeting vulnerable communities that are more often than not on the receiving end of racialized violence, instead of trying to address the conditions that lead to this surfeit of violence.
I have no axe to grind here.
Of course not, you are just telling the unvarnished truth, standing high against PC conformism, shy piety and political cowardice.
I heard it before. In fact, I cannot easily remember a racist demagogue in the twentieth century who did not claim that higher moral courage in the face of conformist sentimentality. It's a genre. You can reference anyone from Lou Dobbs to David Duke here, but the genre was probably defined by Heinrich Himmler in his famous Posen speech. Google it and read it. It may help you improve your style.
The only fly in the ointment is that it takes no courage to be racist. In fact, its a career driver, and anti-Muslim bigotry opens doors in US think tanks, the media and the rest of high powered Washington. Too bad you don't get lavishly paid for your cant, like, say, Daniel Pipes. I almost feel sorry for your wasted skills.
November 7, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have any EVIDENCE about his belief system. All you have is media speculation. There is nothing scientific about foaming at the mouth cable news reports.
November 7, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last big freak out military killing near there was by a white guy. People do freak out, whatever their race or religion. More often men go on murderous rampages than women, that's for sure.
November 7, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the meantime, I've got a real dilemma, and it scares me. Among the classes I teach is something called a "bridge course"--the first regular college course the international students take in English (until they're ready, they take math courses and intensive English courses).
This semester I have four Turks, a couple of Saudis, an Egyptian, and two Kuwaitis along. Eight of the seventeen in the class. These are the nicest kids one could ever imagine teaching, they work hard, ask probing questions, are eager and friendly. I'd like a couple dozen more. The course? An course on the history of Democratic Theory.
They're so young, so far from home, and I watch the media rants and raves and fear for them. I don't fear for their physical safety--Our campus is suburban and the kids are pretty tame. But their emotional security and isolation--I worry about that.
I worry about it especially when I see this kind of "conundrum" posed from my side of the political spectrum, I doubt any of them read TPM, so I don't have to explain TPM to them. But how much assurance do I can I give that no matter what the media says, no matter what snide, vulgar, or vicious comment they may hear on campus, that they are respected and indeed loved by many of us?
American xenophobia lurks right beneath the surface--and in one form or other it always has. We have some citizen-students on campus who also happen to be Muslims. I cannot begin to think how awful it must be to feel challenged on ones rights as a citizen on the basis of Religion--I thought the First Amendment took care of that.
The only parallel I can remember happened during graduate school when a white guy from Mobile had to defend himself from charges of racism in Cleveland. This was the sixties. The ironic thing is that he was dating a white grad student from Michigan.
So I'll wonder how my kids are doing over the weekend, and Monday I'll keep an eye out for them on campus, say howdy very publicly, and do my best to show I respect and trust them as much as any other student on campus.
November 7, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only parallel I can remember happened during graduate school when a white guy from Mobile had to defend himself from charges of racism in Cleveland.
White or black, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or atheist, the essence of bigotry is negative stereotyping - attributing the unfavorable characteristics of a few to an entire group. I believe we are already beginning to see that wound reopened by the Fort Hood incident, and I believe we all have a compelling obligation to remind ourselves and others of the need to judge each individual on the basis of his or her own attributes rather than on the basis of a group attribute, real or imagined.
November 7, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
the essence of bigotry is negative stereotyping--attributing the unfavorable characteristics of a few to an entire group
Isn't that exactly what you did when you said: "any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity"?
November 7, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, amike. Almost brought tears.
November 7, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have my eye on things - in case I need to drive over to the local mosque and demonstrate my verbal support.
After 9/11, I was ready, if need be - to don a head-covering should that become necessary.
It's wonderful that you love these kids, amike! They're lucky to have you.
November 7, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I wrote my post yesterday, I expected some strong negative responses to my description of what I perceive to be an inconvenient truth (to borrow from Al Gore) - the existence of a relationship between Islamic beliefs and violence in a small, radical, fringe within American Muslim society. That response is evident above, including claims that I'm a bigot, racist, insane, or an idiot, among other unflattering characterizations. Not being one of those individuals who enjoys Internet combat, I don't welcome these denunciations, but they are probably necessary in order for me to present a point of view that requires attention.
What I found striking was that the attacks were aimed primarily at me, with less attention to my arguments, and no valid refutation of them. The attempted refutations fell into two categories, with separate flaws.
The first is that Muslims are not the only group that might contain some dangerous fringe elements. The statement is true; the FBI keeps watch on a variety of groups including white supremacists, abortion opponents, and the like, all of which pose above-normal threats. For an FBI statement regarding Islamic extremists and evidence related to their activities, see
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/mueller011107.htm
The problem with this argument is that it is a non-sequitur - other groups may pose special threats and therefore extremism within the Muslim community does not. It would be imprudent for the FBI, in fact, to dismiss threats from any sector on the ground that threats also come from somewhere else.
The second fallacious argument entails misconceptions about statistical inference. For example, according to this argument, Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre was a Muslim, while the shooter at Virginia Tech was Korean - why not claim that Koreans harbor a subset of dangerous extremists?
As far as I know, the Korean community is not under intense FBI scrutiny, although I might be wrong. What is wrong with the argument, however, is that it confuses two types of inference, one valid and the other invalid. Based on existing evidence (see my link to the FBI above), a hypothesis existed even before Fort Hood that Islamic beliefs might be related to homicidal anti-American intentions on the part of a small number of American Muslims, and that the number, while small, sufficed to warrant attention to the Muslim community as a source of above-average danger. Fort Hood provided a test of that hypothesis, providing confirmatory evidence (see my replies to Quinn and to Bluebell above for details). In contrast, the Korean identity of the killer at Virginia Tech came to light only after the killings, and so those killings were not a test of a pre-existing hypothesis. One ccannot construct a hypothesis from an observation (the killer was Korean) and then use the observation as a test of the hypothesis. In the Virginia Tech case, one could, in theory, hypothesize that Koreans pose an above-normal danger, and then look at future mass killings for support or refutation. I expect the evidence does not support that hypothesis.
I'm concerned about what sometimes seems to be a reflexive tendency within the liberal community to insist that what they would wish the truth to be is what it actually is. In this case the wish, born out of an inherent sense of fairness, is to believe that all major groups within American society are essentially the same in terms of challenges they present to America as a whole. Tnat is almost certainly not the case in general, nor true about American Muslims. Two dangers arise from claiming otherwise.
The first is that liberals will forfeit credibility to right-wingers, who understand the American public is under no illusion that all groups are equally innocuous.
The second is that the right-wingers will exploit the lack of liberal credibility to perpetrate another fraud on the public - negative stereotyping of Muslims, the essence of true bigotry. Unless those of us who despise that type of bigotry demonstrate that we can address complex issues with relentless honesty, the bigotry will prevail by default. It would be our job, I suggest, to acknowledge the existence of dangerous elements within the American Muslim community as a step toward emphasizing how tiny a fraction of that community they represent. Most people with an instinct for fairness will respond to that argument, whereas they won't respond to a claim that no dangers exist.
November 7, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
liberals will forfeit credibility to right-wingers, who understand the American public is under no illusion that all groups are equally innocuous
Hey let's protect our credibility with the Rush Limbaugh crowd by becoming racists too!
And is this statement of Fred's truly "relentless honesty"?
Any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity.
Really?
November 7, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
the right-wingers will exploit the lack of liberal credibility to perpetrate another fraud on the public - negative stereotyping of Muslims, the essence of true bigotry
So Fred decided to beat the right wingers to the punch by telling us that Muslims were more likely to be dangerous than other ethnic groups.
November 7, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Purple State, for reasons and evidence described in my comments and link above. However, it's important to understand that the "average American", "average man", "average woman", "average Muslim", "average Christian" are theoretical constructs rather than real people - derived by extracting a mathematical quantity from within groups characterized by great internal diversity. It is true that because of a small group of extremists, the Muslim community represents a slightly above-average threat (see my FBI link), but it's equally true that the vast majority within that community represent no threat at all. The distinction needs to be emphasized repeatedly to avoid stereotyping.
November 7, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Blacks Fred? How does their danger quotient compare with the Muslim danger quotient? Should I be more afraid of ragheads or niggers? Please help me Fred!
November 7, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The African American leadership has spoken out on some of these issues, and you should consult their comments for their perspective.
As I suggested in my post, the Muslim community is better positioned than most non-Muslims to counteract anti-Muslim sentiment by engaging in a candid dialog with other Americans about the realities of extreme elements within that community, and the rejection of their views by the vast majority of Muslims.
November 7, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you have a heck of a time with broad generalizations. Dangerous elements exist within the American Muslim community? Is there ANY large community that doesn't contain dangerous elements? I doubt there is any large ethnic community in this country that doesn't have some subset of "dangerous elements" under some suspicion by the FBI. Well, maybe not Norwegians. Swedes, perhaps, but not Norwegians.
November 7, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my comments above, bluebell, for a discussion of the fallacy of concluding that a particular group can't pose above-average threats if it's not the only group to do so.
The FBI prioritizes threats, and as you suggest, Norwegians are probably not high on the list. Of course, those Vikings were a rough bunch, so maybe we're overlooking something.
November 7, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the FBI, now I feel safer. I mean they were on to Martin Luther King didn't they? Proves they can identify threats to our safety in real time.
You are right, the FBI does persecute American Muslims. I'm glad to see they have your support. Because if the FBI does it, it can't be racist, can it?
November 7, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FBI prioritizes threats? Really? After 9/11 they had time to be harassing a Catholic peace group in Des Moines. Nothing more threatening than Germanic Iowans.
November 7, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I found striking was that the attacks were aimed primarily at me, with less attention to my arguments, and no valid refutation of them.
Nobody paid attention to your arguments? Really?
Poor you!!!
Please tell us that you feel persecuted. It is the next defense of racism today.
November 7, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Spare us your stigmata.
You never addressed my point that this incident says more about the militart than Islam... And that any ritual prostrations and ablutions should be performed by the Army, not American muslims.
You want the muslims to come out and take responsibility for their violent minority. As if that would be transformative. In my opinion, you are slapping muslims with their hand and telling themselves "to stop the violence."
I can not put into words how arrogant and foolish your opinion is in this post. And how full of yourself and the value of your truths in spite of reasoned counter arguments you ignore in order to focus on the insults.
You are not Saint Fred of Perpetual Truth. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise; it is too narrow and as such fails inductive plausibility.
November 7, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the posters on this thread are outraged that anyone would suggest that Muslims or blacks or Hispanics might harbor anti-American feelings out of proportion to their numbers...but argue on many other threads that Jews manipulate American foreign policy to the benefit of their co-religionists in Israel, in the process killing many American soldiers and innocent civilians all over the Muslim world.
Given that, I find it impossible to take any of your seemingly well-reasoned arguments seriously.
November 7, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
yet another vapid generalization.
November 7, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That many of the posters to this thread also argue that Jews manipulate foreign policy? That "any" of your seemingly well-reasoned arguments are rationalizations? What are you talking about?
November 7, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are conflating Jews with the government of Israel and the AIPAC lobby. And what you are writing has nothing to do with anything.
And the discussion isn't about minorities and their sentiment. It is about forcing the muslim community to admit guilt for the behavior of its fanatic element. This was an approach taken by the government against MLK. He was associated with the views of Malcolm X and Stoakely Carmichael and told that he needed to condemn them in order to be taken seriously. It was the government's way of driving a wedge in tue negotiations over the course of civil rights in order to destabilize it.
Fred is asking the muslims to take one for the team. The team in this game of atrocity baseball is the US military. He narrows the focus to ideology and therefore conveniently ignores the very obvious ARMY involvement over all aspects of the crime.
So forgive me if I call your little rant a non sequitor.
November 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper,
Off-topic alert but this question has come to me many times.
Do you worry that some of your statements about the military culture might come back to haunt you within your career? Do you get any feed-back from higher-ups, positive or negative, about what you express? Do you feel that others in the military hold back from open, honest commentary because they fear reprisal if only in the form of bad performance evaluations?
I post anonymously for a number of reasons but I will give two quick anecdotes.
During the run-up to Bushes second election I posted a couple of letters highly critical of Shrub to the editor of my local paper. My son was in a fairly low end management position, but moving up fast, working in a company almost a hundred mile away. He got a call from an upper management guy who asked him what my F* When I finished AIT at Ft. Lewis in 1967 I was sent to FT. Hood which was close to my home. I was able to take my car to the base but I knew to remove the peace sticker from the bumper because having one on a POV would result in an Article Fifteen for the owner. We were reminded often that the Army was not a democracy. I did not even consider bucking the system dominated by that mind-set. Has that changed so completely?
I agree with most of your positions when I think I understand them, and admire your speaking out. I will draw no conclusion if you choose to ignore my question.
I recommended this blog by Moolten because of the many intelligent comments and to keep it alive for a little longer.
November 7, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AIPAC lobby is a minority of American Jews. A large and influential minority. Jewish neocons are a much smaller, but much more influential subgroup. Both have been accused, repeatedly, of manipulating American foreign policy in ways which - in terms of results - are far more deadly to Americans than what Hasan did. Your opinion is that this is not relevant. My opinion is that it is and reduces reveals many, although not all, posters to this thread to be hypocrites and rationalizers.
The discussion IS about minorities and their sentiments AND about how minority communities should handle extremists within their groups. As Fred and I both pointed out, American Muslim groups have already begun condemning extremism and the general public is refusing to believe in their sincerity. This is how things always play out in situations like this. I don't believe that Fred's suggestion would improve things. I do believe that Fred is right about extremism in the Muslim community and that it something that community has to deal with...but that its better done in private.
I don't find the army to be OBVIOUSLY guilty of anything. They are charged with certain tasks which are near impossible to perform with the resources they have. That's the responsibility of Congress and the President. Obviously, there should be a draft and, just as obviously, there won't be one.
November 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider; You brought absolutely no evidence forward to support your claim that "many others" here argue elsewhere that Jews manipulate American foreign policy. It's just a slur.
Retract your comment.
It was a genuinely gutless and shitty thing to say, you have no evidence for it, and I - for one - don't want to be painted by your bullshit.
After that, you should probably STFU for a while.
November 7, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know wind. I know I-P threads. You want evidence? Just pick any I-P thread, find the arguments I've referred to, and see who's making them. If my criticism doesn't refer to you then just ignore it. It sure as hell fits a lot of the posters to this thread. I recognize the names and they know who they are.
After that, you should probably STFU for a while.
I thought you were a smart guy but it turns out you are a real dick, just as I said you were (but in a polite way).
By the way, I've written to Dr. Goodstein about your claim that midwestern winds can very significantly reduce our fossil fuel dependence. If he responds I'll pass it on to you. I really would like to know if he's wrong and that's the best and quickest way I know to find out.
November 7, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider. When you're arguing about "killing many American soldiers and innocent civilians" and people who are being hypocritical about that, it's best not to casually throw out terms like "many" and just leave it to the general reader to guess who. As you may or may not have noticed, life in the Readers' section has a different flavour, and a quite different make-up of commenters, than the I-P debate. So I'd prefer it - if you're going to continue attacks from the I-P threads - that you confine them to those you're fighting with. I don't think that's at all unreasonable. The deal isn't that you get to make broadbrush smears and then get to argue - "if it doesn't apply to you, ignore it." Name names or leave it out.
As for wind and Goodstein, that's great - I hope you get a response. I would note that the wind resource is richest in the US down through the Central states, with areas of the NW, around the Great Lakes, enormous resources offshore New England, etc. The South (east of Texas), however, seems to have a weaker wind resource, and perhaps will need other means. See this month's cover story in SciAm for some interesting info. A neat Flyp presentation on it here.
The lead author, Jacobsen of Stanford, has some top-notch new academic articles up, on how to meet California, US and Global energy needs with the new renewables, looking at resource availability, cost, land take, distance, water use, etc. - and the implications for climate change and energy security, including appendices with all the figures you could ever want. Check out his Stanford site for all the links. There's a basic PDF here.
November 7, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
When someone tells me to STFU I know all I need to know about their "flavor" and I don't give a shit what they prefer.
November 7, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're just Mr Manners, you are. When we first met, you were busily doing psychological projections onto people as outcasts, calling them dumb, ugly and weak, and bellowing about the brainpower of the Wall Street elite. Next you were blowing hot air about electric vehicles and insulting absent posters, and now you're smearing people about killing American soldiers, and showing you don't even have the class to do a simple retraction.
So yeah, based on the 3 blogs where I've seen you, you really should STFU for a while and maybe try treating people with a little bit of respect.
You might even get some back.
November 7, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my e-mail and Goodstein's answer, as I promised
At 09:26 AM 11/7/2009, you wrote:
>Dr. Goodstein,
>
>I read "Out of Gas" and I thought I knew what was happening. But I
>recently came across this thread
>
>http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/04/connected_cars_the_killer_app_for_the_smart_grid--/#comments
>
>in which "spider" references your book while "quinn" argues that you
>don't know what you're talking about, that wind blowing across the
>midwestern plains is a huge, untapped, readily accessible source of
>energy which will go a long way toward relieving our dependence on
>fossil fuels.
>
>Who is right? Unfortunately, I don't have the technical expertise
>to decide on my own.
So shit-for-brains, I suggest you take your own advice and STFU for awhile, at least until you either get Goodstein to admit he was wrong - which will go a long way towards relieving this country of fear of the future - or understand why he was right and you're a fucking ignorant asshole.
November 7, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're pretty funny.
You're outgunned, and you're flailing. Goodstein may be a great physicist, and a fine old gentleman, and have the end of oil thesis absolutely right. As I've said before, I'm not arguing the oil thesis, I'm agreeing with it - savvy?
But he is abysmally wrong about the new energy sources. I've gone to his site and wiki'ed him and hunted other places to find his more detailed views on wind, but what I keep finding are people complaining about his too-general statements on these technologies. I already went into some detail on this, in relation to wind, which he does not understand.
And look... he offers up a slide at the end of his "Out of Gas" roadshow which reads - "Prediction: Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century, when the energy runs out." Meanwhile, while he's producing such gems as this, Jacobson and hundreds of others are offering up thousands and thousands of pieces of data and large-scale calculations. I'd suggest you check them out. Or do you have some big emotional reason to cling to doom and despair?
As for getting an e-mail from Goodstein that says "I think I'm still right" - that's supposed to be persuasive????? Are you kidding? I work on this stuff Spider, and like I said, I got a great education and am privileged enough to speak to top minds at the leading edge of the field. I'll be sure to tell them all that Goodstein thinks he's still right. That outta convince them. Boy, that's just scientific as hell, that is.
And as for you, you should probably go shopping. Get some new knickers. Your old ones seem to be in a knot. You've been shown to know nothing on the topic, to be happy to smear innocent people, and now... you're popping your cork.
New knickers. Think about it.
November 7, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you writing this stuff to me? You've already told me I'm technically ignorant...and that's just how I described myself to Goodstein. So how do you expect him to respond?
If you think he's wrong, write him and cite all the shit you're telling me to read. See how he responds. Then get back to me.
November 7, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe you should STFU . . .
I enjoy the backasswards dialog of poor put upon individuals such as you simply for the free entertainment value.
Keep it up . . .
~OGD~
November 8, 2009 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post is about to leave the sidebar. Thanks for all the comments. I couldn't respond to each one individually, but I tried to respond to all the arguments that were being made.
November 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am constantly bemused by the tendency for our society to attribute the motives and characteristics of acts by crazy or criminal persons to the group to which those persons belong, when that group is not white.
November 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink