If your kids are at an age where they’re doubting the existence of the Easter Bunny, you can always show them this picture.
And before anyone else says it:
No, it is I who will eat you!
Now. Will someone please tell me where that tagline originated?
Feel free to caption the photo.
For a while I’ve wondered what supergenius Thomas Sowell would say about a particular argument that some might make regarding immigration.
It could be argued, and some have argued, that an open borders or open borders-like policy could be justified on the same grounds as a free trade agreement.
Free trade agreements between nations remove protectionist barriers between them so that their economies can work more efficiently and grow, to the mutual enrichment (literal enrichment) of the populations in both nations. The more efficient the market is allowed to be, the more it can generate value for those who participate in the market.
For example: Suppose that the nation of Freedonia is really good at making computers but really bad at making DVD players. It can make high quality computers really cheap, allowing purchasers to get a good product at a low price. But it’s home-grown DVD players are shoddy and expensive.
Now suppose that the nation of Sylvania is the reverse: It has lots of high-quality, inexpensive DVD players but makes shoddy, expensive computers.
The market-efficient solution is to allow Sylvania’s DVD players to get sold in Freedonia and to allow Freedonia’s computers to get sold in Sylvania. That way both populations get high-quality products at low prices, and they can either spend the rest of their money on something else (growing their economies further) or take extra time off from work to spend with their family since they don’t need to make as much money to purchase the things they want to buy.
(NOTE: If computers and DVD players are too frivolous for you, replace them with carrots and potatoes or other commodities that you find meaningful.)
(NOTE 2: If Freedonia and Sylvania are too frivolous for you, replace them with Tomania and Osterlich or other countries that you find meaningful.)
A market that allows commodities to freely flow from where they are abundant to where they are not thus improves the lives of people in both places.
Until original sin gets involved.
Original sin makes us want to do things like protect our interests at the expense of others.
For example: Suppose that you’re a maker of DVD players in Freedonia. You make substandard, expensive DVD players, so it’s not in your interest to have to compete with the DVD player makers in Sylvania, who crank out better, cheaper DVD players than you do.
So you start lobbying your legislators to pass protectionist measures like tariffs and import caps to keep you from having to compete with the DVD players makers in Sylvania. You don’t want there to be many Sylvanian DVD players on the market, and you want them to be as expensive as possible for the consumer so that customers will buy yours instead.
After all, you don’t want to have to retool your manufacturing process so that your players are as good and as inexpensive as those from the other country, and you certainly don’t want to have to get out of the DVD player making business and learn how to make something else useful. You want to maintain the nice, comfortable status quo that existed before Sylvanians were able to compete with you.
The fact that protecting your interests by limiting the supply and jacking up the price of Sylvanian DVD players hurts both the people in Sylvania and your fellow Freedonian citizens/customers is beside the point. You just want to make sure that your interests are protected, even at the expense (literal expense) of others.
And that’s normal for humans in a fallen condition.
It’s a real act of maturity to be able to say, "Y’know, those folks are just better at this than I am. I should either improve myself or find something else productive I can do. That way everyone’ll benefit."
But if this free-trade principle benefits people in both countries by allowing commodities to move to where they’re most needed, what about applying it to labor markets?
Should we have an open borders policy, too, so that workers can move with as little impediment as possible from where the jobs ain’t to where the jobs are?
Even if that meant some displacements of natives from positions in some jobs, so that they’d need to get retrained for other fields, wouldn’t a long-term, mature view of the situation mean that the people of both countries would ultimately benefit in the end?
There’s certainly a measure of truth in that, but how much truth is there? On balance, would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
What would Thomas Sowell say about this?
Interestingly, what he says is the same thing that many who favor closed markets say. Have you ever heard opponents of free trade insisting on how evil it is to treat people like commodities?
Sowell’s answer to the open borders question is the same: People are not commodities.
A reader writes:
Hey Jimmy, I consider you an "in the know" type, so I thought I would pass this along. (:
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/04/universal-indult-rumor-part-ii.html
Have you heard about this? Or are we just getting our hopes up over a cruel-but-clever joke?
The story that the reader links is one in which Gerald at The Cafeteria Is Closed links an article in an Italian website devoted to liturgy that reports that B16 has already signed an indult allowing greater celebration of the Tridentine Rite of Mass.
Since the existence of such an indult hasn’t been publicly announced by the Holy See, it’s tempting to simply say that this is one of rumors that constantly circulates about all things Vatican, but other sources are picking up on the same thing.
According to Catholic News Service, the indult exists and has been signed by B16, it will allow universal celebration of the Tridentine Rite, and it may get publicly announced as soon as tomorrow.
We know that this is something that has been under discussion for some time in the current pontificate, and just last week B16 held a second closed-door meeting with members of the Roman curia, following which the Vatican released no information about the topic that was discussed (contrary to what they did after the previous curia meeting in February, where it was announced that the reconciliation of the SSPX was under discussion).
This closed-mouth handling of the recent curia meeting suggests that something significant was under discussion, and speculation is that it involved the reportedly-signed indult.
I don’t know if the pope has signed an indult, but I suspect that if he hasn’t yet, he will. I predicted that as soon as he was elected, based on comment he made when he was still Pre-16.
I also don’t know if he’ll make the announcement in Holy Week, but I wouldn’t put it past him.
I support universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass, but I’d note that the existence of such a permission would not necessarily change a lot, particular at first, because there are two significant obstacles to a wide celebration of this rite:
1) Few priests have the interest or ability to say the former rite at this point, and it would take time for them to get prepped and trained to say it.
2) Many bishops would not look favorably on their priests exercising this liturgical option. As a result, many priests would refrain from doing so lest they incur their bishop’s displeasure and wind up with punitive actions or career-limiting moves being taken against them.
Over time there would be a gravitation of priests who want to celebrate this rite to those dioceses where the bishop looks favorably on it, resulting in traditional dioceses becoming slightly more traditional and progressivist dioceses becoming slightly more progressivist–at least in relative terms.
In absolute terms, some priests even in progressivist dioceses would start exercising the option (particularly
over time) and so there would be a wider availability of Masses
celebrated according to this rite even where it ain’t welcome, resulting in a net plus to the Church.
A reader writes:
Jimmy, Just writing to say I was a little perturbed by the attached photo I saw on the Catholic Answers website. Has everything been okay around the studio?
American Papist has an interesting piece up about the upcoming A&E reality show "God or the Girl?", which focuses on young Catholic men discerning possible vocations to the priesthood.
Will this be a good, serious look at the question or will it be evil, Hollywood anti-Catholicism?
I was thinking about how the different meat industries have their own slogans, like:
BEEF! It’s What’s For Dinner!
Or
PORK! The Other White Meat!
Or
CHICKEN! . . . (Actually, I don’t know if there’s a chicken slogan.)
But maybe the meat industry as a whole needs to have a slogan to put up a united front against the ravening hordes of vegetarianism.
Homer Simpson’s shrewd observation could be a good one:
If God didn’t want us to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat.
But then it’s good advertising practice to advertise new and improved features of your product (even if they aren’t new and improved), so maybe something like:
ANIMALS! Now With A Yummy, Meat-Filled Center!
Just a thought.
What would your meat industry slogan be?
A reader (who extended permission up front to blog this) writes:
I have been struggling lately with several serious
problems doing with mental health. You see, I was
headed for a Religious community and the seminary
until recently, when I was hospitalized again due to being
suicidally depressed.Earlier, I just thought that my mental illness was
major depressive disorder, with no psychotic features,
and something I very possibly could recover completely
from (I have completely recovered from this before).
Although I had attempted suicide in the past, the
community I was looking at was going to attempt to get
me a waiver on the canonical impediment to Orders.All of this has changed, because I recently was given a diagnosis that caused me to realize that
my depression was not just going to lift, and that I
will probably struggle with severe depression for the
rest of my life, and it is very posssible in a fit of
depression that I either attempt suicide again or
succeed in committing it. So I decideded that there
was no possible way that I had a vocation…
First of all, I want to say that I understand what a painful time this is for you. I know what it’s like to have to give up on a career that you wanted very much to pursue. To have reached that conclusion under your circumstances is even more painful, and I want to encourage my readers (who number in the thousands) to pray for you.
I also want to give you two compliments right up front:
First, you had the courage and presence of mind to ask for help and to write a very thoughtful series of questions, which I will address below. You should feel good about yourself for that.
Second, you volunteered to allow me to blog on this very sensitive matter. That means that the answers I give you will be out there in cyberspace where they can help other people as well. This was a very courageous and generous thing, given the sensitivity of the matter, and you should feel especially good about yourself for having made the offer.
Remember those points.
Also remember that you are a child of God and that he loves you enough to die for you on a Cross. Remember that especially. He died, so you don’t need to.
And he will eventually bring something wonderful out of your suffering, because that’s what he does: He turns suffering into redemption and glory. Your cross in this life may be heavier than many, but that means that your crown in the next life will be all the more glorious.
You can already see God redeeming your suffering right now, by the fact that you volunteered to let me blog this, so your suffering is leading to help for others who are similarly suffering, so they can be comforted as well as you.
Not many people would volunteer in that way.
You are a very special person.
To what degree am I morally responsible for my actions
and my illness?
To the extent that your condition impedes your ability to function normally, it diminishes your responsibility for your actions. If it is not significantly impeding you at the moment then you are more responsible. If it is significantly impeding you then you are less responsible. If it is totally impeding you then you are totally not responsible.
Since you mention (below) that you are the child of two schizophrenic parents, I would assume that your condition is genetic, which means that you are not responsible for your condition AT ALL. Don’t worry about that. Don’t take that burden on yourself, because it is not your burden.
What you are responsible for is how you manage your condition. This means taking your medications and seeking appropriate psychological help, up to and including checking yourself into a hospital when needed.
It also means doing your best to turn away from the dark thoughts when they come to you, to set them aside and think about something else. When you sense them starting to come, do your best to think about something else–something happy. Try to remember what I’ve said in this post pointing out how special you are and how much God loves you.
Also, cultivate habits that will help you keep a good mood. Let me make several specific recommendations:
1) This may sound strange but . . . try a low-carb diet. You are likely to find that your energy level and mood are better if you aren’t having to deal with the insulin spikes and blood sugar lows caused by eating the large amounts of carbohydrates that most Americans consume.
2) Get exercise. Find something you like and throw yourself into it.
3) As a form of enjoyable exercise, I especially recommend dancing, especially highly energetic and chaste dancing that puts you in a large group of people so you have social contact with others. Energetic dancing is a form of exercise that you won’t even perceive as exercise.
I know that I’m a square dancing enthusiast, but I would especially recommend square dancing, because it meets those three qualities in spades: It’s highly energetic (making it a better workout and causing your brain to release endorphins that will make you feel better), it’s chaste, and it is a highly social form of dancing that will let you meet a whole group of people rather than a single partner. Also, handshakes and hugs are part of the politeness rituals associated with square dancing, and having that kind of friendly, positive contact with others will also help improve your mood.
4) Use positive language to describe your condition. Using positive language will help you think positive and thus feel positive. For example, you may want to express what you are doing in terms of "managing a condition" rather than "suffering from an illness." Both of these modes of language point to the same underlying reality, but they put different spins on it. If you focus on suffering and illness then you are likely to feel worse, like a victim who has little control. But if you think of yourself as managing a condition, you are no longer focusing on suffering an illness. Instead of being a victim, you’re a manager–someone who has power over the thing you’re managing, someone who can make a difference in what happens to him, who doesn’t just have to sit back and take it. That’s the reality of what you are, so reflect that reality in the language you use to yourself and others, and you’ll find that you have more power over your situation than you thought.
I am also involved in Church ministry,
and should I leave? (More than one priest who are
generally orthodox in their opinions think that as
long as at the time of ministry, I am ok, that it’s
all right.) I have my doubts, and my self-esteem and
trust of myself is at an all time low.
I don’t know what ministry you are involved in at present, so I can’t give an opinion on whether it is the right one for you at the moment, but I think I can be of help.
The main piece of advice I would have is this: Don’t think in terms of leaving ministry. Think in terms of finding the best ministry for you to pursue.
We are all called to minister to the corporal and spiritual needs of others. We are all reciprocally called to have our corporal and spiritual needs ministered to by others. It’s part of the design for how Christ set up his mystical Body.
The question, therefore, is not whether we should be doing or receiving ministry. The question is finding the particular ways in which we can best minister to others and finding the ministries of others that will best help our corporal and spiritual needs.
Even people who are full-time patients in psychiatric institutions are called to do what they can to minister to the patients and doctors and staff members around them, just as the others in that environment are called to minister to their needs.
It is the same in the outside world. No matter where we are, what our life situation is, we are called both to minister and to be ministered to (the latter also includes letting others know of your needs so they can help).
So your call is not to stay in or leave ministry. It’s to find the best ministry for you to pursue.
What that is depends on your inclinations, aptitudes, and circumstances.
I’d therefore ask myself what you like doing (your inclinations) and what you’re good at (your aptitudes) and use that as a pointer toward what you should explore.
Once you have that in mind, consider your circumstances. There are two things to consider here: The needs of others around you and your limitations.
The needs of others (which is what ministering is all about) are an important factor here. Suppose, for example, that you enjoy being an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion a lot and you also enjoy singing in the choir. But suppose that your parish already has tons of extraordinary ministers (more than it needs). That would be a signal–based on your present circumstances–to spend time in the choir rather than as an extraordinary minister. You might enjoy being an extraordinary minister more, but that’s not what the people around you need the most right now, and what their needs are is what ministry is about. You can put your talents to better use in the choir for the moment.
Notice that I said "for the moment," because circumstances change, and what ministry is the best for you right now will change over time.
This comes in particularly in view of your condition, since it changes over time. Everyone in ministry has to know his limits–otherwise he will exhaust himself and minister poorly to others. Your condition sounds like it changes significantly with time. When you’re in a long-term, stable period there would be more forms of ministry that would be appropriate to you than if you’re having a significant episode of depression.
I would say that, if you feel a significant episode coming on you should consider whether you need to step back from some of the forms of ministry you may be undertaking, and if you feel that you have entered a stable period then it makes sense to step forward and explore new forms.
Because of the changeability of your condition, I would also look for forms of ministry that don’t require permanent or long-term commitments. You need to be doing things that you can step back from if a significant episode arrives.
I also wouldn’t think of ministry exclusively in terms of a parish setting. Lots of ministry happens outside of Mass. Sometimes people who have a great desire to minister narrow their options by thinking exclusively in terms of parish-centered ministry. If you consider a broader palette of options then you’re more likely to find the right colors you can paint with.
In this regard, let me make a suggestion: You’re obviously a very bright guy (something else you should feel good about), and I know from things I edited in your e-mail to conceal your identity that you have an intellectual bent, so may I suggest . . . blogging?
Blogging would allow you to help others using your intellectual talents, but it would also allow you the kind of flexibility that you need to accomodate potential changes in your condition. For considerations of your privacy, I would blog under a pen name, and I would be open with your readers about your condition so that if you need to take time away from blogging they will know why and will be able to pray for you.
If you choose to go this route, you’ll need to be patient while you build a readership. It will take time, and in the early days you won’t have a big readership. But if you apply yourself then, like any other blogger, you can cultivate a readership. Also if you go this route, send me another e-mail and let me know, and I’ll try to recommend your site to my readers.
This is
doubly painful, because I am the child of 2
schizophrenic parents who have had significant accomplishments.
I undertand your pain, and I’m going to turn this one around on you to show you what is possible: The fact that your parents have had significant accomplishments (which I’ve edited out for reasons of your privacy) shows you that a person with your condition can achieve things! Your own parents did, so you can too! Feel good about that!
Also, more than one friend have attributed this
illness to the work of Satan, which I reject because
it has a biological basis and the Catechism explicitly
teaches that psychological illness should never be
used as a basis for an exorcism. To what degree could
the devil be involved in this?
One can’t eliminate the possibility of some involvement from the opposition, but you’re taking the right attitude, and the attitude which the Church would have you take (as illustrated by its exorcism policy). Your condition has a known physiological basis, and that is what you should look to in explaining it to yourself. You will serve yourself better if you don’t go looking for supernatural explanations and simply trust Jesus and Mary to protect you from supernatural interference.
Also, can I receive the
anointing of the sick when I am doing very badly, as
it is a form of illness that is seriously life
threatening? (I think Psychiatric illness that causes
serious suicidal thoughts and can lead quickly to
actions is life threatening, would you?)
This matter has not been authoritatively settled, but sound pastoral practice would indicate that you should be able to receive the anointing of the sick if you at the onset of a significant episode (or if a significant episode gets worse).
The Church’s documents speak of people who begin to be in danger of death due to sickness and do not further specify the nature of the sickness. If the danger is caused by a condition of the heart or the brain, it should not make any difference. Mental illnesses are real illnesses, and they should count under this provision just as much as illnesses that affect other organs and bodily systems. The fact that it is processes in the brain rather than elsewhere in the body that causes the danger should not matter.
I’d also note that the English-language text of the ritual for anointing of the sick (which Rome approved) has a pastoral note stating that those with serious mental illnesses may be anointed, and the Code of Canon Law contains a canon (c. 1005) that encourages the reception of this sacrament when there is a case of doubt about whether the conditions for it are fulfilled. This, at the very least, signals that the Church wants a generous application of the sacrament so that people can get the help they need from the sacrament.
I hope this helps, thank you again for writing and for allowing me to help others by blogging this. You will be in my prayers and, I’m sure, the prayers of numerous readers. So be encouraged, and feel good about yourself!
People can rationally come to different conclusions on what should be done about the presence of millions of illegal aliens in the United States, but as that matter is debated, we should at least try to avoid some of the most obviously absurd arguments.
I therefore propose that we, as a nation, retire the "Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do/don’t want" argument.
This is patent nonsense.
Anybody using this argument either has no grasp of economics or is being disingenuous due to the presence of an ulterior motive. (Them’s yer two choices, so take yer pick, Mr. Bush.)
To see the absurdity of this argument, let’s cast it in its starkest form: Food.
Before we do that, though, let me issue
THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: The following treatment has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with economics. In what follows I will talk about two groups of people–illegal aliens (whatever their ethnicity) and Americans (whatever their ethnicity). The fact that most (but by no means all) of the illegal aliens in this country are Latino in origin is irrelevant to the economic principles involved, as is the fact that many Americans are also of Latino origin. If you need to, swap the terms "America" and "Americans" for those of a random country somewhere else on the planet. The economic principles apply no matter where you are.
Now . . .
It is often noted that illegal aliens play a large role in the construction, landscaping, and domestic service industries, but nice buildings, nice landscapes, and nice domestic services are luxuries. Our most pressing survival-related need is for food, and so the "Jobs Americans won’t do" argument can be cast most starkly if we look at the role of illegal aliens in the agricultural industry.
Suppose that all of the illegal aliens working in the agricultural industry decided to quit their jobs. What would happen to the U.S.?
Will we be seeing headlines in the New York Times like this one? . . .
Food Rots In Fields As The Nation Starves!!!
Of course not.
Americans are not going to starve themselves to death because they "won’t do" the job of harvesting the food.
Americans have been harvesting food ever since there have been Americans (otherwise they would have all starved long ago), so they are certainly capable of it.
Why, then, are so many illegal aliens taking the place of Americans in the agricultural industry?
Because they come from a different economic background and are willing to do the jobs for less.
The effect of illegal aliens in the agricultural industry is not that they do work that otherwise wouldn’t get done. It’s that they depress the wages in the agricultural industry to the point that such jobs are unattractive to Americans.
It’s that whole supply-and-demand thing.
When you’ve got a greater supply of something than you have demand for it, the price will go down. If manufacturers make loads of DVD players and start to outstrip the demand for DVD players then the price of DVD players will go down as part of competition for customers.
Same thing happens in labor markets.
If the supply of agricultural workers outstrips the demand for agricultural workers then the wages attached to such jobs will go down as part of competition for employment. When the wages are depressed past a certain point, some of the workers will say, "Y’know, I could do better in a different industry" and they decide at that point that they "won’t do" the agricultural jobs at the depressed wages being offered for those jobs.
But what happens if the labor pool shrinks? What happens if all the illegal aliens decide to quit?
When the supply of agricultural workers shrinks so that it no longer outstrips the demand for agricultural workers and employers start raising wages in order to attract the workers they need, and the work gets done.
Trust me, Americans are not going to starve themselves to death if they have no illegal aliens to harvest food.
What will happen instead is that the wages offered for such jobs will rise, Americans will start valuing such jobs more as a result (instead of looking down on them), and they will start doing them. The food will get harvested, and when it is sold to the public the added labor costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of a modest increase in food prices.
But there will be no massive wave of starvation in the U.S.
Something similar applies to the jobs in other industries that currently have high levels of involvement by illegal aliens. If the supply-and-demand situations of those industries were readjusted then Americans would be attracted to jobs in them as well, and the work would still get done. People might economize in some areas (e.g., taking care of the kids yourself instead of hiring an illegal alien to serve as a nanny), but we won’t see headlines like:
American Buildings Rot Due To Lack Of Construction Workers!!!
Landscaping Crisis Dwarfs Hurricane Katrina!!!
Absence Of Domestic Services Causes American Family To Fall Apart!!!
People who want to maintain the status quo on illegal immigration–or who want to legalize the status quo via amnesties and guest worker programs–may still argue for these on other grounds (e.g., that there is an overall positive economic impact from having millions of low-paid foreign workers in the U.S. or that it’s a practical impossibility to remove them all), but whatever you want to see done about illegal immigration, you’ll need to argue it on grounds other than the "Jobs Americans won’t do" notion.
That one’s a non-starter, Mr. President.
P.S. BTW, Mr. President, do you realize how arrogant and insulting you are being when you use the "Jobs Americans won’t do" argument?
This argument can be parsed one of two ways: (1) "Such jobs are beneath us as Americans, so we need to import foreigners to do these lowly tasks for us" or (2) "I preside over a nation of such hopelessly spoiled brats that we need to just cave in to their juvenile refusal to do such jobs."
The first is arrogant and insulting to people from other countries. The second is arrogant and insulting to Americans.
Since it can be parsed both ways, the argument is arrogant and insulting no matter what your nationality.
Tim J here.
I like to tune in to MTV occasionally, just to keep an eye on what’s current, you know… ordinarily, its pretty desolate. Not much in the way of creativity or beauty or even talent.
– Begin Aside… I don’t see how viewers are supposed to tell one Hip-Hop video/song from another. They all have the same theme; I am better than you because I drink "X", I drive a "Y" and I have a bigger ammo clip to go in my "Z". I also have more bling, more (ahem) etc. than you.
They all have the same fly girls. The posse straight out of central casting.
Okay, does this remind anyone of Disco? Wasn’t there a big disco backlash because (almost) everyone got tired of the shallowness, the gold chains, the slimy sexuality? Granted, what we got in its place was Hair Metal, but at least there was a healthy disillusionment with the overblown worldliness of the whole disco scene. Remember "Disco Sucks" shirts? Anyone remember the Insane Coho Lips? I think another backlash is overdue. Hip Hop sucks. – Aside Over.
Once in a while, though, I run across something of interest. I saw a video the other day by Pink that actually gave me some genuine belly laughs. It’s called "Stupid Girl" and is a send-up of the ditzy, over-sexualized, pampered, shallow, anorexic female stereotypes that so pervasively confront our kids in the media. I generally like well-done parodies, and I really enjoyed this one.
But, Pink is only half right. It appears she has bought in to the brand of radical feminism that says the best way to find your true womanhood is to think, talk and act like a man. So, rather than presenting a sane alternative to the Bratz doll image of femininity, Pink seems to think that girls should… play more football? Wear Vans? What if you’re not into that, either? What if you just want to be a normal girl?
As much as Hair Metal and Punk were a reaction against Disco, the Thong Generation is a reaction against Radical Feminism. Gender will out, no matter what Patricia Ireland says. All the tiny tees, clingy skirts, frilly undies and makeup are a misguided but natural response to the attempted forcible negation of true womanhood in the culture. I would wager that most girls really don’t mind being girls.
For decades, girls have been taught how stupid (if not evil) men are, and then they are taught that if they want to really be a success in life, they should act more like men.
Pink is no role model for young Catholic girls, either (she has her own issues), but her parody of Paris Hilton femininity is spot on. Too bad she can’t see the forest for the trees right now, but she may be on the right track.
VISIT PINK’S SITE & PLAY THE VIDEO. (Warning: Pink is not a nice Catholic girl, or a role model for same. The video conatins language and images that may offend some viewers).
Military historian Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting analysis of the coming with with Iran and the reasons behind it.
Interestingly, he ends the piece with a direct appeal to Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who may well be one of the hostage-takers from the 1970s Iran Hostage Crisis) to change his course before war becomes inevitable. He writes:
Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.
So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer.
So, please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, cool the rhetoric fast — before you needlessly push once reasonable people against the wall, and thus talk your way into a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.
That’s just the conclusion, though.