In Life At the Bottom, Theodore Dalrymple provides several anecdotes about Muslim marriage in Great Britain, including the following:
A sixteen-year-old Muslim girl was referred to me because she had started to wet the bed at night. She was accompanied by her father, an unskilled factory worker of Pakistani origin, and was beautifully dressed in satins and chiffon, her ankles and wrists covered with gold bangles and bracelets. Her father was reluctant to let me speak to her on her own but at my insistence eventually permitted me to do so.
I realized at once that she was both highly intelligent and deeply unhappy. Because of my experience in such cases, it took little time to discover the source of her unhappiness.
Her father had decided that she was to marry in a couple of months' time a man-a cousin-of whom she knew nothing.
She, on the other hand, wished to continue her education, to study English literature at university and eventually to become a journalist. Although she controlled herself well-in the circumstances, heroically-there was absolutely no mistaking the passionate intensity of her wishes or of her despair. Her father, though, knew nothing of them: she had never dared tell him, because he was likely then to lock her in the house and forbid her ever to leave, except under close escort. As far as he was concerned, education, career, or choice of husbands was not for girls.
The chance of this changing in a West with-out backbone is zero. Dalrymple notes the acquiescence of his country.
In my quarter of the city there are private-detective agencies that specialize in locating immigrant girls who have run away from their husbands or parents. Once they are found, they are likely to be kidnapped by relatives or vigilantes-an experience which several of my patients have lived through. It is surprising how little reaction bundling someone off the street and driving away with him or her in a car causes nowadays-people do not wish to involve themselves in problems not their own. And the police are generally less than vigorous in their investigation of such cases, for fear of being criticized as racist.
Theodore Dalrymple, Life At The Bottom
Monday, February 19, 2007
Marriage in the Islamic World
Over at NRO, Kurtz has an important series on marriage in the Islamic world and the role of marriage in prevent cultural and religious changes. Kurtz’s first article is a fairly technical background examining endogamy, exogamy and cousin marriage. In the second article, Kurtz argues that patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage (the tradition of men marrying their father’s brother daughter) dominates Islamic marriage. The marriage reinforces Islamic culture and prevents assimilation into the West. Kurtz states that cousin marriage is supported by “full-body veiling, the seclusion of women, forced marriage, honor killing.” ‘The loyalties of women who marry within their own family lines remain undivided.”
Cousin marriage isn’t mandatory or prescribed by the Koran. However, cousin marriage is a long and powerful tradition possibly extending even before the caliphate. Kurtz suggest that because of the patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage, Islamic culture has a self sealing character that won’t be change by the usual bromides of economics, politics or exposure to the West. He concludes:
If we want to change any of this, it will be impossible to restrict ourselves to the study of religious Islam. The “self-sealing” character of Islam is part and parcel of a broader and more deeply rooted social pattern. And parallel-cousin marriage is more than just an interesting but minor illustration of that broader theme. If there’s a “self-sealing” tendency in Muslim social life, cousin marriage is the velcro. In contemporary Europe, perhaps even more than in the Middle East, cousin marriage is at the core of a complex of factors blocking assimilation and driving the war on terror.
Cousin marriage isn’t mandatory or prescribed by the Koran. However, cousin marriage is a long and powerful tradition possibly extending even before the caliphate. Kurtz suggest that because of the patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage, Islamic culture has a self sealing character that won’t be change by the usual bromides of economics, politics or exposure to the West. He concludes:
If we want to change any of this, it will be impossible to restrict ourselves to the study of religious Islam. The “self-sealing” character of Islam is part and parcel of a broader and more deeply rooted social pattern. And parallel-cousin marriage is more than just an interesting but minor illustration of that broader theme. If there’s a “self-sealing” tendency in Muslim social life, cousin marriage is the velcro. In contemporary Europe, perhaps even more than in the Middle East, cousin marriage is at the core of a complex of factors blocking assimilation and driving the war on terror.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Reductio Ad Hitlerum
People are pretty quick to call others Nazi’s or invoke the specter of slavery. Usually, the invocations are simply a modern form of name calling.
Protester: Bush is Hitler.
Why?
Protester: He got us into a war.
So is Lincoln Hitler? Roosevelt?
On the other hand, the Nazi’s were real people. Germany was the most advanced scientific society of it’s time. The German’s arguments for eugenics and racial hygiene were well accepted in the world community. Therefore, German experience has lessons for us. Unfortunately, attempts to inappropriately smear people with the Nazi label shuts down dialogue; and, when the Nazi reference is appropriate, people only see it as a smear.
I was in a dialogue with someone promoting eugenics. I had pointed out the past experience in the world with eugenics which included Nazi Germany. However, I also mentioned the American experience (unknown by most) as well as Germany. True to his progressive nature, a man beyond history, he poo pooed any reference to the past. After all he was too good and modern to make those mistakes even if he didn’t know what those mistakes were or realize that he was voicing the same old ideas which he now deemed cutting edge.
Over at Second Hand Smoke, Smith posts some thoughts about Nazi comparisons and includes some comments from a 1949 article in the New England Journal of medicine, by Dr. Alexander who served with the U.S. Office of Chief Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg. Alexander’s comments from the NEJM are well worth reading.
Protester: Bush is Hitler.
Why?
Protester: He got us into a war.
So is Lincoln Hitler? Roosevelt?
On the other hand, the Nazi’s were real people. Germany was the most advanced scientific society of it’s time. The German’s arguments for eugenics and racial hygiene were well accepted in the world community. Therefore, German experience has lessons for us. Unfortunately, attempts to inappropriately smear people with the Nazi label shuts down dialogue; and, when the Nazi reference is appropriate, people only see it as a smear.
I was in a dialogue with someone promoting eugenics. I had pointed out the past experience in the world with eugenics which included Nazi Germany. However, I also mentioned the American experience (unknown by most) as well as Germany. True to his progressive nature, a man beyond history, he poo pooed any reference to the past. After all he was too good and modern to make those mistakes even if he didn’t know what those mistakes were or realize that he was voicing the same old ideas which he now deemed cutting edge.
Over at Second Hand Smoke, Smith posts some thoughts about Nazi comparisons and includes some comments from a 1949 article in the New England Journal of medicine, by Dr. Alexander who served with the U.S. Office of Chief Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg. Alexander’s comments from the NEJM are well worth reading.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Giving Til It Kills
The risks of egg "donation" are not insignificant.
From the Telegraph HT; Wesley Smith
Women who donate their eggs for research are at risk from life-threatening side effects, scientists warn in a new study.
They say that the powerful drugs given to the volunteers to help increase the number of eggs they produce can cause paralysis, limb amputation and even death.
Among all women undergoing infertility treatment, one in 10 will suffer milder forms of the adverse reaction called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) while 1 per cent are at risk of life-threatening blood disorders, the scientists found.
Gita Nargund, the head of reproductive medicine at St George's Hospital, London, has campaigned for the use of alternative treatments to the strong hormones used to stimulate women's ovaries to produce more than the one egg normally released in each monthly cycle.
She said that, in addition to those reported in the Italian study, there have been two deaths from OHSS in the UK, and a further death of a woman during an egg collection procedure in Leicester last year.
"The risks of this procedure must be taken into account," she said. "It is not like blood donation and we have to ask ourselves if it's really necessary. If we are recruiting donors for anything, it is important that what we are doing is as safe as possible."
From the Telegraph HT; Wesley Smith
Women who donate their eggs for research are at risk from life-threatening side effects, scientists warn in a new study.
They say that the powerful drugs given to the volunteers to help increase the number of eggs they produce can cause paralysis, limb amputation and even death.
Among all women undergoing infertility treatment, one in 10 will suffer milder forms of the adverse reaction called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) while 1 per cent are at risk of life-threatening blood disorders, the scientists found.
Gita Nargund, the head of reproductive medicine at St George's Hospital, London, has campaigned for the use of alternative treatments to the strong hormones used to stimulate women's ovaries to produce more than the one egg normally released in each monthly cycle.
She said that, in addition to those reported in the Italian study, there have been two deaths from OHSS in the UK, and a further death of a woman during an egg collection procedure in Leicester last year.
"The risks of this procedure must be taken into account," she said. "It is not like blood donation and we have to ask ourselves if it's really necessary. If we are recruiting donors for anything, it is important that what we are doing is as safe as possible."
Turning Women into Hens
The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government regulator of this highly sensitive area, is expected to approve the policy when it meets on Wednesday. At present, clinics are not allowed to accept eggs donated for scientific research unless they are a byproduct of either IVF treatment or sterilisation. Campaigners for change say that this has led to a chronic shortage of eggs for scientific use.
'The sum of £250 would still be enough of an inducement for women from eastern Europe, for example, to come to Britain to sell their eggs. That's clearly turning eggs into an object of trade and that's disturbing. Once the principle of egg donation for research is established, it will become harder to prohibit paid egg donation.'
How’s this for bureaucratic thinking. We’ll make it low enough so people would not want to sell their eggs but the purpose of the policy is to get eggs. Why allow any reimbursement at all other than travel expenses[GG].
At present, a woman can donate her eggs, either to help another woman while both of them are undergoing IVF treatment in return for a discount on the cost of her own fertility programme, or as an altruistic gesture to a close relative or friend. Any discount could be worth several thousand pounds.
So, the government is opening up the egg market to a cheap Eastern European supply.
Thanks to Wesley Smith
'The sum of £250 would still be enough of an inducement for women from eastern Europe, for example, to come to Britain to sell their eggs. That's clearly turning eggs into an object of trade and that's disturbing. Once the principle of egg donation for research is established, it will become harder to prohibit paid egg donation.'
How’s this for bureaucratic thinking. We’ll make it low enough so people would not want to sell their eggs but the purpose of the policy is to get eggs. Why allow any reimbursement at all other than travel expenses[GG].
At present, a woman can donate her eggs, either to help another woman while both of them are undergoing IVF treatment in return for a discount on the cost of her own fertility programme, or as an altruistic gesture to a close relative or friend. Any discount could be worth several thousand pounds.
So, the government is opening up the egg market to a cheap Eastern European supply.
Thanks to Wesley Smith
Drug Idolatry
The Cult of Pharmacology
This is a new book recently reviewed in JAMA.
'//-->
Among the countless forces that shape attitudes toward drugs, science is arguably the least influential. Although irrationality pervades people's use of all substances, from herbal preparations to antibiotics, a singular foolishness imbues the views of mind-altering ones.
The most troublesome upshot of society's unreasonable approach to drugs is the war on drugs. As Richard DeGrandpre points out in The Cult of Pharmacology, the war on drugs is fueled by misconceptions about the nature of addiction, the danger of prohibited drugs, and the best ways to limit the damage that these drugs do inflict. Most worrisome of all, this war has already been lost several times.
The book's basic message is that certain drugs are demonized and others embraced not on the basis of a drug's pharmacological actions or what it actually does mentally or physically but because of the meanings attached to it. What the author calls "angel drugs"—those, like antidepressants, that are considered legitimate and beneficial—are a lot worse than people think, and demon drugs, like cocaine and heroin, he contends, are not actually so bad.
The book's other major point—and the one giving rise to its title—is that the "cult of pharmacology" or "pharmacologicalism" is at the root of misconceptions about drugs and society's wrongheaded drug policies. DeGrandpre never clearly defines these terms, but they seem to refer to the beliefs that drugs are uniquely powerful and that their effects come from their pharmacological activity alone. The Cult of Pharmacology states again and again that insufficient attention is paid to context, expectation, and meaning. For example, he asserts that nicotine is not the culprit behind addiction to cigarettes, but rather other attributes of smoking are—the anticipation, the smoking context, and what smokers expect to happen when they quit. As "evidence," the author points to the fact that not everyone on nicotine replacement stops smoking.
Science may not be influential but scientist are influential and often push the foolishness. This isn’t particularly original but such books usually don’t get a lot of press. Despite the media’s love of controversy, the press avoids certain subjects. Surprisingly, last month, the book was also reviewed by the Prozac Man, Dr. Peter Kramer in the Washington Post
Why isn't Nicorette gum a street drug? The Food and Drug Administration considers nicotine highly addictive. Tobacco companies seem to share this view when they manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes. But the gum, which packs a goodly dose of nicotine, appeals to almost no one. While we're at it, if nicotine dependence is what stands in the way of quitting, why do patched smokers -- their brains well-supplied with the substance -- still crave the next drag?
The anti-tobacco folks have reduced all the pleasures of tobacco to nicotine. However, tase has always been an important factor in smoking as well as the sensual experience of smoking. I’ve ordered nicotine gum for many folks. Either they quit or don’t quit smoking. They never switch to just taking the gum even though they may get the gum for free[GG].
If these questions have an answer, it is that addiction is not a simple matter of chemical and receptor. Habit, ritual, social context and the means of delivery all affect how the brain processes a drug and how we experience it. As a result, drug research is replete with paradox.
Of course, the addiction folks constantly preach this. It’s not so much that drug research is replete with paradox. The research seems paradoxical only if you approach drug abuse with a strictly materialist perspective.
Kramer who is a cheer leader for pharmacology is critical of the author’s arguments[GG]:
We need to develop a humane approach to street-drug use. We need more independent testing of prescription drugs. But to hold these views does not require the belief that America has been hijacked by a cabal of doctors, politicians and entrepreneurs. DeGrandpre's attack comes from a libertarian posture, anti-business but even more anti-government. There's an element of the personal hobby-horse here as well: Pharmacologicalism conveys state power more effectively than communism or national socialism? Isn't it likelier that -- the undeniable flaws of capitalism and democracy notwithstanding -- we're muddling along, trying to make what sense we can of medications, licit and banned, that are ever better attuned to the workings of those admittedly complex organs, our brains? ·
This is a new book recently reviewed in JAMA.
'//-->
Among the countless forces that shape attitudes toward drugs, science is arguably the least influential. Although irrationality pervades people's use of all substances, from herbal preparations to antibiotics, a singular foolishness imbues the views of mind-altering ones.
The most troublesome upshot of society's unreasonable approach to drugs is the war on drugs. As Richard DeGrandpre points out in The Cult of Pharmacology, the war on drugs is fueled by misconceptions about the nature of addiction, the danger of prohibited drugs, and the best ways to limit the damage that these drugs do inflict. Most worrisome of all, this war has already been lost several times.
The book's basic message is that certain drugs are demonized and others embraced not on the basis of a drug's pharmacological actions or what it actually does mentally or physically but because of the meanings attached to it. What the author calls "angel drugs"—those, like antidepressants, that are considered legitimate and beneficial—are a lot worse than people think, and demon drugs, like cocaine and heroin, he contends, are not actually so bad.
The book's other major point—and the one giving rise to its title—is that the "cult of pharmacology" or "pharmacologicalism" is at the root of misconceptions about drugs and society's wrongheaded drug policies. DeGrandpre never clearly defines these terms, but they seem to refer to the beliefs that drugs are uniquely powerful and that their effects come from their pharmacological activity alone. The Cult of Pharmacology states again and again that insufficient attention is paid to context, expectation, and meaning. For example, he asserts that nicotine is not the culprit behind addiction to cigarettes, but rather other attributes of smoking are—the anticipation, the smoking context, and what smokers expect to happen when they quit. As "evidence," the author points to the fact that not everyone on nicotine replacement stops smoking.
Science may not be influential but scientist are influential and often push the foolishness. This isn’t particularly original but such books usually don’t get a lot of press. Despite the media’s love of controversy, the press avoids certain subjects. Surprisingly, last month, the book was also reviewed by the Prozac Man, Dr. Peter Kramer in the Washington Post
Why isn't Nicorette gum a street drug? The Food and Drug Administration considers nicotine highly addictive. Tobacco companies seem to share this view when they manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes. But the gum, which packs a goodly dose of nicotine, appeals to almost no one. While we're at it, if nicotine dependence is what stands in the way of quitting, why do patched smokers -- their brains well-supplied with the substance -- still crave the next drag?
The anti-tobacco folks have reduced all the pleasures of tobacco to nicotine. However, tase has always been an important factor in smoking as well as the sensual experience of smoking. I’ve ordered nicotine gum for many folks. Either they quit or don’t quit smoking. They never switch to just taking the gum even though they may get the gum for free[GG].
If these questions have an answer, it is that addiction is not a simple matter of chemical and receptor. Habit, ritual, social context and the means of delivery all affect how the brain processes a drug and how we experience it. As a result, drug research is replete with paradox.
Of course, the addiction folks constantly preach this. It’s not so much that drug research is replete with paradox. The research seems paradoxical only if you approach drug abuse with a strictly materialist perspective.
Kramer who is a cheer leader for pharmacology is critical of the author’s arguments[GG]:
We need to develop a humane approach to street-drug use. We need more independent testing of prescription drugs. But to hold these views does not require the belief that America has been hijacked by a cabal of doctors, politicians and entrepreneurs. DeGrandpre's attack comes from a libertarian posture, anti-business but even more anti-government. There's an element of the personal hobby-horse here as well: Pharmacologicalism conveys state power more effectively than communism or national socialism? Isn't it likelier that -- the undeniable flaws of capitalism and democracy notwithstanding -- we're muddling along, trying to make what sense we can of medications, licit and banned, that are ever better attuned to the workings of those admittedly complex organs, our brains? ·
Monday, February 12, 2007
What Progressives Want
A friend of mine has adopted progressive politics as his new religion and posted these tenets of faith :
Republicans are able to distill their ideas down into a couple of key words or phrases. Democrats seem to get tongue-tied in a cacophony of noises that seems to resemble an epileptic seizure when we are asked the same thing. Here is a list of five basic principles which I think cover most of the Democratic, liberal, progressive thinking Americans believe in. I hope this catches on.
Stronger America
Prosperity for All
Better Future
Effective Government
Mutual Responsibility
Aren’t these somewhat clichéd. Are there any serious political movements at least openly pushing for a weaker America or worse future or ineffective government? I don’t see where these statements provide a clear policy, compared to the Republican position of low taxes.
Stronger America: Increase military spending
Prosperity for All: More Free Trade
Better Future: We would be lucky to make it to the level of the past in some areas (for eg education)
Effective Government: Fascism also promised an effective government. Didn’t Mussolini make the trains run on time.
Mutual Responsibility: If everyone is responsible then no one is responsible
Compare this to Russell Kirk’s conservative principles:
Ten Conservative Principles (1993)
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The full essay can be found here.
Republicans are able to distill their ideas down into a couple of key words or phrases. Democrats seem to get tongue-tied in a cacophony of noises that seems to resemble an epileptic seizure when we are asked the same thing. Here is a list of five basic principles which I think cover most of the Democratic, liberal, progressive thinking Americans believe in. I hope this catches on.
Stronger America
Prosperity for All
Better Future
Effective Government
Mutual Responsibility
Aren’t these somewhat clichéd. Are there any serious political movements at least openly pushing for a weaker America or worse future or ineffective government? I don’t see where these statements provide a clear policy, compared to the Republican position of low taxes.
Stronger America: Increase military spending
Prosperity for All: More Free Trade
Better Future: We would be lucky to make it to the level of the past in some areas (for eg education)
Effective Government: Fascism also promised an effective government. Didn’t Mussolini make the trains run on time.
Mutual Responsibility: If everyone is responsible then no one is responsible
Compare this to Russell Kirk’s conservative principles:
Ten Conservative Principles (1993)
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The full essay can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)