SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Nidal Hasan Lecture That Tells You Just About Everything...

THE SPINE NOVEMBER 15, 2009

The Nidal Hasan Lecture That Tells You Just About Everything You Need To Know about Nidal Hasan

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Well, yes, of course, you've read about the lecture Major Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D., delivered at Walter Reed Hospital in 2007. Hasan's ostensible topic was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It might as well have been titled, as the scholar Barry Rubin suggested, "Why I Intend to Murder 13 American Soldiers at Foot Hood." But, since nobody in the higher-up military actually noticed that a very shaky psychiatrist, indeed, gave an official medical rounds talk--maybe even grand rounds--on Islam, Hasan did, in fact, go on to kill 13 men and women and wound another 28. Had two police not brought him down he would have gone on to shoot (how?) many others.

I assumed, presumably like you, that the text of the now notorious lecture had been deep sixed by the authorities after the event. Not at all. So who unearthed it? The Washington Post, on whose web-site it has been (virtually unnoticed) for a few days. Dana Priest, a Post correspondent covering the case, has written about Hasan's power point presentation and even did a question-and-answer colloquy on the site.   

The lecture is hard evidence on what everybody has been pondering about, pondering sympathetically like poor Joe Klein who, I am afraid, has lost his bearings. 

Yesterday, I also happened to listen to "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook on NPR. David Gergen held up the sensible side. But, well, you can imagine the mental pyrotechnics Jack Beatty and Ellen Goodman put themselves through to lift the pall that has now fallen over militant Islam. Apologists always sound pathetic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 77 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

77 comments

So do bloviating bigots.

- WandreyCer

November 15, 2009 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But, well, you can imagine the mental pyrotechnics Jack Beatty and Ellen Goodman put themselves through to lift the pall that has now fallen over militant Islam. Apologists always sound pathetic." Jack Beatty isn't just pathetic, he is utterly predictable. I stopped listening to On Point on Friday's since he is always on then.

- jacksondyer

November 15, 2009 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a more reasonable discussion about the Fort Hood massacre: http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/11/fort-hood

- jacksondyer

November 15, 2009 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I looked at Hasan's lecture. I honestly would have fallen asleep after the first twenty slides--it does not suggest vengeance until like slide 38. What I can't believe after seeing this, though, is why no one complained about the extremely religious content of this presentation. This is pure proselytization. Separation of church and state means the Army too, right?

- dylanposer

November 15, 2009 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know. I think it is a plea for help, an alerting of sorts. The very last slide says: "Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as "conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." The lecture is divided into two main parts : In the first part he details events in which soldiers converted and/or were involved in some "adverse event". The second part is an expose of Islamic faith, which develops from a mere recitation of the tenets of the faith to a more in-depth exploration of verses in the Koran which are engaged in persuasion for undertaking jihad. Then, all of a sudden, a non sequitur in the directly formulated final slide with the recommendation I quoted above. It may not be "Why I Intend to Murder 13 American Soldiers at Foot Hood." But it might be interpreted as: I am trying to tell you something here, I'm trying to say that I may be susceptible to this persuasion I have just described to you, which is why I submit this recommendation. Stop me before another "adverse event" takes place.. I am beginning to think that some persons on that base have not been doing their job.

- noga1

November 15, 2009 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dylanposer "I looked at Hasan's lecture. I honestly would have fallen asleep after the first twenty slides..." It's a good thing, then, that you weren't part of the audience, isn't it?

- jacksondyer

November 15, 2009 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where was "Separation of church and state"?, asked dylanposer. There is no such thing in the traditional Islamic world-view because Islam was an early geo-political success. The state must be Islamic or it won't be legitimate. Christianity, by contrast, was a persecuted sect during its earliest centuries and hence developed parallel non-state institutions, cultivated an other-worldly perspective, and advised its followers to pragmatically render separately onto God and Ceasar. Major Dr. Hasan, as a traditionalist Muslim, was in a quandary. He derived substantial economic benefits from his service in the infidel's army and was now being forced to repay the infidels in their battle against Islamic revivalism. The US military must not only interdict human time-bombs like Hasan. If it is to continue to recruit Muslim troops, it must decide whether some Muslims represent too high a risk and it must come up with a much more sophisticated ideological rationale to integrate others successfully into the military.

- amidut

November 15, 2009 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hasan's lecture is an exemplary lesson in how Powerpoint undermines logic and ruins thought. It's like a morbid version of Peter Norvig's witty "Gettysburg Adress" critique of this model of imparting information and enabling discussion, popular a few years ago: http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ At best, it seems as if Hasan is battling conflicting voices and dramatizes this struggle in his presentation. I think Noga's comment about a sort of (anguished?) warning being transmitted is very interesting, especially as the sudden shift to the "punishment" slides is noticeable as the lecture takes a theological turn that suddenly shifts the context from an Army problem to a Muslim theological problem (Hasan's problem?). Also, recent reports (e.g in the Sunday NYT) suggest something about Hasan's long-standing anomie and inability to connect with people despite a surface friendliness. This is merely to say that he might have been particularly susceptible to an offered "meaning" that had more emotional resonance than the loyalty to the U.S. That is, very many Muslim soldiers may not be susceptible in the same way as they do not suffer Hasan's personality issues.

- ironyroad

November 16, 2009 at 2:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Was there anything in Hasan's lecture that was factually incorrect on the topic of "The Koranic View As It Relates to Muslims in the US Military"? If so, what it? If not, then isn't the 800 pound gorilla in the thread that we don't seem to want to confront the point noted in amidut's last paragraph?

- malahat

November 16, 2009 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Also, recent reports (e.g in the Sunday NYT) suggest something about Hasan's long-standing anomie and inability to connect with people despite a surface friendliness." Why give anomie a bad name? Many people suffer from alienation without resorting to murder at random and en mass. "This is merely to say that he might have been particularly susceptible to an offered "meaning" that had more emotional resonance than the loyalty to the U.S." But why so, if he was suffering from "anomie," why would he (how could he) choose to connect to one set of meanings over another? "That is, very many Muslim soldiers may not be susceptible in the same way as they do not suffer Hasan's personality issues." I assume that anomie isn't restricted to one soldier in the military. Would you use this same explanatory model to account for soldiers who snap and decide to retaliate against innocent Muslims soldiers?

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Also, recent reports (e.g in the Sunday NYT) suggest something about Hasan's long-standing anomie and inability to connect with people despite a surface friendliness." Why give anomie a bad name? Many people suffer from alienation without resorting to murder at random and en mass. "This is merely to say that he might have been particularly susceptible to an offered "meaning" that had more emotional resonance than the loyalty to the U.S." But why so, if he was suffering from "anomie," why would he (how could he) choose to connect to one set of meanings over another? "That is, very many Muslim soldiers may not be susceptible in the same way as they do not suffer Hasan's personality issues." I assume that anomie isn't restricted to one soldier in the military. Would you use this same explanatory model to account for soldiers who snap and decide to retaliate against innocent Muslims soldiers?

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, fwiw, I think your thoughts are worthy of serioius consideration. It has become clear now that Hasan was driven by jihadist influences. But that does not mean that his psychological issues should now be dismissed or ignored. b -- I do not know the answer to your question, but don't you suspect that the Koran, like the Bible, is susceptible to varying interpretations, depending upon the intepreter's predisposition or agenda?

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, Isn't the issue what interpretation of the Koran is considered authoritative, and whether Hasan's presentation is consistent with that interpretation?

- malahat

November 16, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with the references I make, JD, or what I infer from them. Obviously alienation and anomie can affect perhaps large numbers of people without that leading to mass murder. I mean, why would anyone claim otherwise? What I was hinting at -- partly because I'm not sure and I was struck by Noga's comment -- is that there may be a convergence of developments here, that may in most cases never have led to the massacre. I'm not sure of your last question -- certainly on the face of it, soldiers could be driven by a number of things, and not just naked prejudice, to persecute or attack fellow servicemen who are Muslim. My question for you: Do you think that any attempt to get to the bottom of this event is excusing Hasan in some way? If that's the case, then why would we investigate any murder at all, by anyone, anywhere? Just string 'em up and be done with it! But isn't it possible there might be useful things to learn here?

- ironyroad

November 16, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, "...I'm not sure of your last question -- certainly on the face of it, soldiers could be driven by a number of things, and not just naked prejudice, to persecute or attack fellow servicemen who are Muslim. My question for you: Do you think that any attempt to get to the bottom of this event is excusing Hasan in some way? If that's the case, then why would we investigate any murder at all, by anyone, anywhere? Just string 'em up and be done with it! But isn't it possible there might be useful things to learn here?" Per my comment above, isn't one of the useful things to learn here whether Hasan was driven by orthodox Muslim theology?

- malahat

November 16, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is instructive and fascinating to explore the emotional, religious and intellectual path to Major Dr. Hasan's crime, but so far, from what is known, it's hard to believe that he ever crossed the line to legal insanity. Unfortunately, his is not the only such occurrence of a Muslim soldier firing on his erstwhile military comrades in the US Army. We are fighting radical Muslim opponents in Muslim lands. So we must consider the religious dimension, while recognizing that most Muslims in the US Army are probably not obsessively concerned with Islamic correctness and we should not accentuate their distinctiveness lest that provoke more distinctiveness. I can only generalize from my cursory experience with American Muslims including a non-Arab Muslim supervisor (positive) at work. By analogy, if I were a young Jewish American soldier in the US Army today, I would want to be respected but not singled out. dhurtado asked, "don't you suspect that the Koran, like the Bible, is susceptible to varying interpretations, depending upon the intepreter's predisposition or agenda." None of us in this group appears to know enough about Islam and interpretation of the Koran to authoritatively answer that question. We're handicapped by our lack of expertise. I can only comment that, although Islam is a highly authoritarian religion, religious authority is diffuse and tied to state sponsorship. There can be multiple interpretations, but some commentators are clearly more authoritative. Theology professors at Al-Azhar (Sunni) and Qom (Shi'a), for example, but they are obviously not concerned about internal discipline in the US Army. Although they have probably instructed Muslims on citizenship in non-Muslim countries. Also, the different (all orthodox) schools of Islamic thought agree much more than they disagree. Although I have not read "For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia" by Robert Crew, I understand that it describes how the imperial Russian government, as a necessary price of its conquests, become heavily involved in the internal affairs of its Islamic communities, appointing approved clergy and creating its own Islamic institutions to mediate between traditional Islamic authority and the Russian state. In that context, they were generally successful. If not entirely applicable, this experience may still hold a few lessons for us. It may also be useful to look at the Israeli experience with its Beduin and Druze troops. In those cases, the Israelis had the permission of traditional leaders to induct their young men. While this situation is quite nuanced and requires a balanced policy response to the Muslim presence, the military's primary concern must be internal discipline and cohesion. Major Dr. Hasan will have to face justice for his pre-meditated crime.

- amidut

November 16, 2009 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bl462 "Isn't the issue what interpretation of the Koran is considered authoritative, and whether Hasan's presentation is consistent with that interpretation?" bl, I suspect that the problem isn't the Koran nor any single interpretation of it even the most radical. The problem is that of a culture which considers only a small number of interpretations as legitimate while dismissing all others as heretical; moreover the fact that those who man the gates of Koranic interpretation are ready to turn to violence to enforce their monopoly of the Koranic truth only exacerbates the problem. Even the interpretations of the Wahhabis or of a Bin Laden need not be a problem if contrary interpretations were also allowed. But his is not the case and anyone who questions their view of the Koran becomes an enemy of the faith. Hence the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or the suicide bombers who have been told by authorized interpreters that they will go to heaven as martyrs. I suspect that Nidal too was looking for confirmation of his views of the Koran from some approved interpreter. The way to fight this kind of culture is to insist on open interpretations including historical ones which question the very existence of Muhammad. We need to make it clear that we are not fighting against Islam but for an opening up of interpretations of Islam. All interpreations and readings of the Koran should be allowed and we need to protect those people who are brave enough to challenge the monopoly on interpretations currently held by differenct sects. This is what allowed mainstream Christianity and Judaism to open up to criticism of their religion.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, of course looking for immediate causes is important. But I sense that too many people are afraid of the consequences of stating that the cause is an orthodox interpretation of Islam. Whether Nidal was a neurotic and suffered from anomie is irrelevant since some people with similar personality traits don’t go on to kill and some even end up doing good work. Many painters and poets were alienated neurotics. Even among religious people neurosis and alienation can lead to a Paul, or a Kierkegaard or to an abortion clinic bomber, or a Nidal Hasan.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD and b: Yes, looking at the implications of the theology (do we know it's "orthodox," btw?) is not only important but also perfectly legitimate. However, as we can assume that there are a couple of million Muslims in the U.S., probably many of them believers in "orthodox" theology, and a few thousand in the armed services, and they don't run amok killing unarmed comrades on a base, isn't it sensible to also look at the peculiarities of Hasan himself, who did? If something is at least prima facie a radical exception, why try to create a generality from it?

- ironyroad

November 16, 2009 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Total digression: I am waiting with breath that is bated ("Bated here is a contraction of abated through loss of the unstressed first vowel (a process called aphesis; it means “reduced, lessened, lowered in force”. So bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing as a result of some strong emotion, such as terror or awe. Shakespeare is the first writer known to use it, in The Merchant of Venice, in which Shylock says to Antonio: “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key, / With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness, / Say this ...”. Nearly three centuries later, Mark Twain employed it in Tom Sawyer: “Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale”.) for the explosion of debate on trying some of the bad guys in NYC. This is sure to be le sujet of the next or next after Spine post, Hasan getting to be so 5 minutes ago. For myself, and I predict for P. too, it's indefensible. We'll see!

- basman

November 16, 2009 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think religion drives people to kill, if they are not predisposed; and if they are predisposed, if it is not religion, it would be something else that triggers rampage. These days, militant Islam happens to provide the flavour of the month/year/era for deeply disturbed individuals looking for confirmation/affirmation/glory/virgins; in the 60s-70s it was Communism; in the 30s-40s, it was Fascism/Nazism; earlier, the Belgians attracted genocidal maniacs to their Congo efforts and the British to the Indian exploitations. This does not mean that one excuses the extreme elements of Islam - or any religion, or ideology, for that matter - from their part in the carnage. Religious imagery can be extremely powerful, even when badly delivered. The Powerpoint - God, people actually sat through the stuff? - reminded me of Grade 11 religion class in Tehran, where our teacher blathered on endlessly about the glories of martyrdom (this was during the Iran-Iraq war) and how, if only each of us 16-yos could walk on a minefield or throw ourselves under a tank (with grenades strapped to our bellies), we would spend eternity in the arms of 72 virgins. (The guy had a truly vivid way of portraying heaven - which only reminded me that I had to get back to the States and move to Lake Tahoe, as the closest appromixation of Islamic heaven - minus the virgins, I guess.) The thing is, I remember sitting there, thinking, First, why the hell would I want to sleep with virgins in heaven - I mean, wouldn't I want really experienced courtesans to give me pleasure? Second, still undecided on the subject, I wondered what if I were not in the vagina business; would heaven be accommodating? And third, what about that age-old adage, a bird in hand is better than two in the bush - no pun intended? To make a long story less mind-numbing, I settled for the bird in hand, so to speak, not being entirely sure that the illiterate oaf talking about heaven really knew what he was talking about. BUT, my buddy - grown up in the US, spoke Persian with an accent, used to swap Mad Magazines with one another - he took to the fatigue and by November (six weeks into the academic year) was in the front. Now, it is entirely possible that he is fucking 72 virgins a day while I have not had a date in months; it is also possible that he is not. The thing is, we got the same propaganda; for some reason, it worked on him, while turning me into a heretic/infidel/secular nonbeliever. I suppose this is just a really really long way of saying I agree with Irony.

- icarusr

November 16, 2009 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Gathering what we can from the works of such thinkers as Sayyid Qutb, Abul Ala Mawdudi, and Abu Bakr Naji (the author of The Management of Savagery), and from various pronouncements, fatwas, ultimatums, death threats, and suicide notes, we may compare radical Islam with the thanatoid political movements we know most about, namely Bolshevism and Nazism (to each of which Islamism is indebted). Of the many affinities that emerge, we may list, to begin with, some secondary characteristics. The exaltation of a godlike leader; the demand, not just for submission to the cause, but for utter transformation in its name; a selfpitying romanticism; a hatred of liberal society, individualism, and affluent inertia (or Komfortismus); anobsession with sacrifice and martyrdom; a morbid adolescent rebelliousness combined with a childish love of destruction; “agonism”, or the acceptance of permanent and unappeasable contention; the use and invocation of the very new and the very old; a mania for purification; and a ferocious antiSemitism. But these are incidentals. Thanatism derives its real energy, its fever and its magic, from something far more radical. And here we approach a pathology that may in the end be unassimilable to the nonbelieving mind. I mean the rejection of reason – the rejection of the sequitur, of cause and effect, of two plus two. Strikingly, in their written works and their table talk, Hitler and Stalin (and Lenin) seldom let the abstract noun reason go by without assigning a scornful adjective to it: worthless reason, craven reason, cowardly reason. When those sanguinary yokels, the Taleban, chant their slogan, “Throw reason to the dogs”, they are making the same kind of Faustian gamble: crush reason, kill reason, and anything and everything seems possible – the restored Caliphate, for instance, presiding over a planetary empire cleansed of all infidels. To transcend reason is of course to transcend the confines of moral law; it is to enter the illimitable world of insanity and death. This dual negation is for a while intensely propulsive. It gives the death cult its needed momentum – its Printer Friendly Page 3 of 5 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2424020.ece?print=yes&randnum=... 9/29/2007 escape velocity. On the other hand, for our part, the high value we assign to human life is not a matter of illusion or sentimentality or “hypocrisy”; it is not the “PapistQuaker babble” derided by Trotsky. Reason, moreover, is one of our synonyms for realism, and indeed for reality; without it, as Islamism will soon find, the ground turns to mire beneath your feet. Death cults are in the end obedient to their own illogic: what they do is die." http://www.martinamisweb.com/commentary_files/911_cultofdeath.pdf

- noga1

November 16, 2009 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Having read the Dana Priest piece referenced by Peretz, I couldn't care less whether Hasan was speaking about the Koran, the Talmud or the Gospels. Clearly, his audience of physicians thought his choice of subject matter was entirely inappropriate to the occasion, a presentation at Grand Rounds. So what did anyone do about it? Nothing! Did Hasan's superior officers think their presenter was fit to provide psychiatric services to ailing American service personal --of any creed--at Walter Reed, Fort Hood, or wherever? Where is the outrage?

- lsernoff

November 16, 2009 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “I don't think religion drives people to kill, if they are not predisposed; and if they are predisposed, if it is not religion, it would be something else that triggers rampage.” This is a very comfortable tautology. There are killers everywhere, some ideologies and regimes make them possible for them to justify their “innate lust to kill.” (I am using icarus notion of some people being programmed to kill.) Now, let’s play what if….. I would guess that if Hasan hadn’t been justified by a certain Muslim theology he would have been an interminably unhappy dude who like so many others would have had to live out his life in despair. On the other hand, had he not been a Muslims he would have been thrown out of the Army medical unit long ago.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"However, as we can assume that there are a couple of million Muslims in the U.S., probably many of them believers in "orthodox" theology, and a few thousand in the armed services, and they don't run amok killing unarmed comrades on a base, isn't it sensible to also look at the peculiarities of Hasan himself, who did?" OK, Irony, a few month back we discussed American Muslims and you said then that they were different from European ones, and that they wouldn't become radicalized. You now say well maybe a couple here and there but almost all are not radicalized. My question, then, is how radical Muslims should be tolerated in the Armed Forces? A thousand? A couple of Hundreds, a Hundred, or may be fifty? How about a dozen? A dozen Hasans can still cause a lot of damage, don't you think?

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b1462 asks: "Isn't the issue what interpretation of the Koran is considered authoritative, and whether Hasan's presentation is consistent with that interpretation?" I suppose so b, but perhaps you can educate me. Is there in fact an interpretation of the Koran with regard to violent jihad that is considered authoritavie, and, if so, what is it? I am highly sceptical that it justifies terrorism. If it does, then why to 99+% of Muslims not follow it?

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD: "My question, then, is how radical Muslims should be tolerated in the Armed Forces? A thousand? A couple of Hundreds, a Hundred, or may be fifty? How about a dozen? A dozen Hasans can still cause a lot of damage, don't you think?" Ideally, none. And yes, they can. I'm not exactly sure -- in fact, I don't know -- how one completely resolves that question in the real world, however. Watching every muslim member of the armed forces in order to spot the moment of radicalization when it happens isn't an option.

- ironyroad

November 16, 2009 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" Is there in fact an interpretation of the Koran with regard to violent jihad that is considered authoritavie, and, if so, what is it? I am highly sceptical that it justifies terrorism. If it does, then why to 99+% of Muslims not follow it?" 1 percent of a billion people is still a lot of people. And how does one know the exact number of Muslims people who follow the teachings of Jihad? There may be many what used to be called fellow travelers giving help but taking no part in direct violence themselves.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm not exactly sure -- in fact, I don't know -- how one completely resolves that question in the real world, however. Watching every muslim member of the armed forces in order to spot the moment of radicalization when it happens isn't an option." Why isn't it an option? We may not want to do it right now, but a couple of more such attacks and you can bet your bottom nickel that it will happen.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"1 percent of a billion people is still a lot of people." Sure it is. But it does not justify extrapolating to the other 99+%. "And how does one know the exact number of Muslims people who follow the teachings of Jihad?" One doesn't. That's precisely why it is prejudicial to assume that most of them do.

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b1462 asks: "isn't one of the useful things to learn here whether Hasan was driven by orthodox Muslim theology?" Perhaps, but let's be careful here. It might be that he was driven by a peculiar interpretation of orthodox Muslim theology.

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, I too am waiting for a discussion of trying KSM et al. in NYC. I am surprised it has not yet emerged, although I am not sure the Spine is where it will do so.

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

""1 percent of a billion people is still a lot of people." Sure it is. But it does not justify extrapolating to the other 99+%." It's imperative to take precautions. ""And how does one know the exact number of Muslims people who follow the teachings of Jihad?" One doesn't. That's precisely why it is prejudicial to assume that most of them do." This is precisely why we need more and more accurate information because there could lots' more of them.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll repeat what I said above: There may be many fellow travelers giving help to Jihadists but who take no part in direct violence themselves. Hence the number of Jihadist in the Muslim world could be much higher than the fanciful figure of one percent.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why isn't it an option?" JD, it isn't an option because 1. It would involve a level of individual intelligence surveillance that would be difficult to mount even in a dictatorship let alone a democracy (if regular surveillance reveals something about a particular individual, that's another matter). 2. It would seek to quantify something that is essentially a qualifiable event (a change in belief with a danger of violent expression of such change), which leads to dumbing down and oversimplification. 3. It would be difficult to keep secret, and once public would be tantamount to Uncle Sam saying Oh, if you're Muslim, don't even bother joining up.

- ironyroad

November 16, 2009 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

See http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/12/muslim-soldiers-in-the-west-criticized-by#latest, updated for Nidal Hasan. It cites Army statistics that show few self-identified Muslims in the US military, 1563 active-duty soldiers out of 553,000 as of April 2008, "despite assiduous efforts to attract more Muslims". It contains a link to a NYTimes article about his family.

- amidut

November 16, 2009 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson: could be . . . could be. Therfore, let's discriminate against Muslims based purely on their religious affiliation, and let's condemn Islam. Right?

- dhurtado

November 16, 2009 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado "Jackson: could be . . . could be. Therfore, let's discriminate against Muslims based purely on their religious affiliation, and let's condemn Islam. Right?" Bull, hurtado, if this the best argument CAIR can ut forward then they are worse than pathetic.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "JD, it isn't an option because 1. It would involve a level of individual intelligence surveillance that would be difficult to mount even in a dictatorship let alone a democracy (if regular surveillance reveals something about a particular individual, that's another matter)." This is wild exaggeration, but if the threat is real this what we might get. (If there are many more such shootings or worse) "2. It would seek to quantify something that is essentially a qualifiable event (a change in belief with a danger of violent expression of such change), which leads to dumbing down and oversimplification." Nice Hegelian move, (switch from quality to quantity) but not convincing. Also the dumbing down is being done by those who minimize the threat. "3. It would be difficult to keep secret, and once public would be tantamount to Uncle Sam saying Oh, if you're Muslim, don't even bother joining up." Not really, if the Israeli Army can have Muslims (even as officers) in its ranks there is no reason we can't also. Where you ever in the military? Pretending that there is no Islamic problem is the worse thing we can do to Muslim soldiers.

- jacksondyer

November 16, 2009 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bull, hurtado, if this the best argument CAIR can ut forward then they are worse than pathetic." I am afraid there is no content to your argument Jackson. First, what do I have to do with CAIR? Second, the issue on the table is whether violent jihad is representative of Islam. There is no question that violent jihad exists and that it is dangerous and needs to be addressed. But is it representative of Islam? You have argued strenuously in these threads that it is. But to the proposition that jihadists represent only a miniscule minority of Muslims you respond by speculating that there may be more of them then we think. Well, what is the import of that speculation? That we should assume that Muslims are Jihadists? That we should condemn Islam? That we should be at war with Islam? Is that your argument or not?

- dhurtado

November 17, 2009 at 12:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

re 1 -- I don't understand why you say it's an exaggeration when you proposed it yourself as a reasonable option (I was just providing some detail -- how do you imagine this checking or monitoring would happen?). re 2 -- Hegelian? I do that before breakfast, but apart from the referential riposte, in what way is it not convincing? You just say it isn't but don't elaborate. And even if it is an Hegelian move, why is that wrong? re 3 -- I wasn't in the military myself but I worked for several years as a civilian with the army (JAG). That said, I agree that the Israeli military offers some very interesting lessons -- but what are they? Noga or ginzy may know.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a link to a scholarly discussion about Islam: The McAlvany Weekly Commentary http://www.mcalvany.com/podcast/?p=104

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "re 1 -- I don't understand why you say it's an exaggeration when you proposed it yourself as a reasonable option (I was just providing some detail -- how do you imagine this checking or monitoring would happen?)." There are ways of keeping track without needing to resort individual surveillance. Hasan should have been spotted long before he acted. The fact that he wasn’t means that the army didn’t want to deal with him. “re 2 -- Hegelian? I do that before breakfast, but apart from the referential riposte, in what way is it not convincing? You just say it isn't but don't elaborate. And even if it is an Hegelian move, why is that wrong?” Well, it’s not a question of turning of quantifying an issue of quality. The problem even by your own estimate is one of the number of Muslims that we would have to keep track. “re 3 -- I wasn't in the military myself but I worked for several years as a civilian with the army (JAG). That said,…” I was and there is no way that people acting weirdly could escape notice. When you are in the military you are constantly under surveillance. Soldiers are always being looked at, tested, and evaluated. It is the original panopticon. You don’t need to institute any special surveillance program to keep track of a group of soldiers. “I agree that the Israeli military offers some very interesting lessons -- but what are they? Noga or ginzy may know.” Ok let’s ask them. Finally, are you saying that because this is such a difficult problem we shouldn't do anything about it, Irony?

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD, re 1 -- I think the problem is that he WAS spotted (the email exchanges with the imam in Yemen were picked up), but it was determined it wasn't worth following up. I already said earlier that regular surveillance that points to an individual (as opposed to individually targeted surveillance) is perfectly legitimate data. re 2 -- I'm just saying that finding the moment of radicalization can lead to all sorts of things being identified as that due to oversimplified criteria. After all, in this case, more witness are saying "Hasan was a kind of weird loner" than are saying "Hasan was a radical Muslim." Btw, it now turns out that over most of the last two years Hasan wasn't even counselling soldiers coming back from the war but was on a graduate psychiatric education program. So much for one theory -- I'd say others are going to bite the dust also in time. re 3 -- I defer to your experience in the services. However, your comment, while I take your point, seems to fall down somewhat when it comes to a medic and and an officer like Hasan, who had been looked at, tested, and evaluated -- but not in a real sense grasped. Finally -- no I'm not saying that (could anyone read my posts and ask that question seriously? Come on!). I'm saying exactly the opposite, that we need to investigate this BUT without too many preconceptions of what we're going to find. Preconceptions are not helpful.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is how you make your case without being a bigot - Hitchens always underscores the limits of Marty. http://www.slate.com/id/2235760/

- WandreyCer

November 17, 2009 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandreycer1 excellent piece by Hitchins and thanks for the link. Of course, though, to note that Hitchins always underscores the limits of Peretz is like saying Anne Carson always underscores the limits of Dorothy Livesay, whose own poetry is estimable but has its limits or is like saying the blues of Robert Johnson always underscores the limits of the good Johnny Shines (who actually ran for a while with the great man) and so on.

- basman

November 17, 2009 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. And to make that sort of obvious point is to pay Peretz a general compliment.

- basman

November 17, 2009 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're right of course Basman!

- WandreyCer

November 17, 2009 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hitchens says: "I wrote some years ago that the three most salient characteristics of the Muslim death-squad type were self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred." Hitchens is re-formulating more directly and lucidly what Martin Amis loquaciously and novelistically said in the excerpt I quoted earlier from his article, and what Marty has been saying here. It is well advised to recall that Islamophobia is rooted not in any recordable history of fear inspiring activities and preachings associated with a certain ideology, but in imagined anxiety which has no basis whatsoever in reality. It is interesting that there is no such thing as Naziphobia, in spite of the fact that there is quite a commonality between certain sentiments and practices in Islamic teachings and Nazi ideology, at least as far as Jews are concerned. Perhaps Marty, being Jewish, is more attuned to these loud voices in Islam and expresses them in an anxious way which immediately exposes him to the charge of bigotry. Hitchens does not suffer from any such strain of Jewish anxiety which is why he is congratulated by WandreyCer.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About Muslims in the IDF, I wondered about it myself as I do not have any recollection of any similar incident taking place in the history of the IDF. Googling brought up this entry, which provides a few useful links. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090401093751AAzfeLW And there is this case: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3198013,00.html I wonder what people here think about it. Should the young hopeful be allowed to join the ranks of the IAF as a fighter pilot? My own instinct says that if he has gone to such public effort to recommend himself, he should be be trusted. Or at least offered an equally challenging alternative, suitable to his exceptional talents. To be a paratrooper when you are clearly qualified to be a pilot can be quite a let down.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony says: "I'm saying exactly the opposite, that we need to investigate this BUT without too many preconceptions of what we're going to find. Preconceptions are not helpful." Fwiw, I agree and that is pretty much what I have been trying to say on these threads. On a facutal point, my understanding is that the FBI knew about the emails with the Imam, but not the Army. So one of the problems is the continuing failure of government agencies to share information. Beyond that, it does seem inexplicable that Hasan's superiors missed or ignored the warning signs. (Of course, we ALWAYS agonize after these mass shootings regarding why no one saw the warning signs, don't we?) I think it is highly worthwhile to look into it. If the warning signs were ignored because of solicitude to Muslims or because of a fear of being perceived as bias, then that would have been completely wrongheaded. But I just don't perceive of the military as being that much of a "PC" institution. But, again, let's not prejudge. Let's investigate.

- dhurtado

November 17, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another thought: Nidal Hasan is 38 years old, a bit old for undertaking Jihadism. I seem to have an idea that most of the people who committed, or were apprehended for, planned terrorist attacks were at least a decade younger and always worked in teams. I think Hasan is a category unto himself. He has more in common with the Seattle shooter, Naveed Afzal Haq, who was 32 years old, and suffering from deep depression. A lone gunman, a borderline personality suffering from a sense of great alienation, seeking some spiritual moorings in the wrong places. Perhaps the only place where he encountered any sense of camaraderie was with that radical cleric from Yemen. I read somewhere that he could not find a wife and that he was a regular patron of a strip club. These are all symptoms of unimaginable alienation. I keep thinking about that character in the movie "Monster's Ball", the son of the prison guard, himself a prison guard working on Death Row, who pays a prostitute to service him but cannot get her to see him as a human being or a companion. She shudders when he asks her to have coffee with him. He ends up shooting himself.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I am trying to unpack yours of 10:42. Firstly, I like Hitchens, who claims Jewish matrilineal descent, and others least when they reduce human complexity to triadic (or other reductive numeric configurations) formulae-- "self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred"—that sound authoritative and essential but prove rather essentialist. Secondly, I don’t get the connection implicit in your second paragraph between that reductive account, or let’s even stipulate that it’s an apt account, and Islamophobia. I say implicit connection because you follow in your second paragraph your comments on what Hitchens and Amis said with the words “It is well advised to recall…” Thirdly, a quibble perhaps: a phobia is by definition “an intense, unrealistic fear”. On that basis any phobia is an imagined anxiety which has “no basis…in reality”—I left out your “whatsoever”. More concretely, I have trouble understanding your thinking that there is no historical analogue-- "Islamophobia is rooted not in any recordable history of fear inspiring activities and preachings associated with a certain ideology"—when it is commonplace to note as does Hitchens himself for example that while not “.. all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim.” So if I am afraid of new born babies throttling me that’s one thing; if I have an inordinate fear of being mugged that’s something else. Finally, paranoia need not dispel suspicion. Conversely, reasonably grounded anxiety need not arouse, and does not excuse, bigotry.

- basman

November 17, 2009 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, thank you so very much for linking to the TimesOnline reference, and Amis' essay. As I read the passage you quoted my eyes filled with tears of respect and admiration and gratitude for his wisdom, discernment (imo) and moral commitment. What an Elder he is, though I knew that already from my own readings of his books and essays, etc. On but a few rare occasions do I have and encounter with an elder figure who "speaks my mind" far better than I ever could know or do. I am touched to the depth and breadth of my person, and I feel as if I have been granted grace to raise myself, as best I am able, to a higher level of conscience and discernment. Most appreciated! Tom

- Tgossard

November 17, 2009 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer "Here is how you make your case without being a bigot - Hitchens always underscores the limits of Marty." Oh please, Hitchens too has been called an anti-Muslim bigot on many websites. His point about who represents real Islam is a good one, but I would have said that there is no real Islam any more than there is a real Christianity or even a real America. All those who practice Islam from the violent Jihadist to the their supporters to those who oppose them are part of "the real Islam." What we need to think about is how best to defend ourselves against the violent Jihadists and their fellow travelers.

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I keep thinking about that character in the movie "Monster's Ball", the son of the prison guard, himself a prison guard working on Death Row, who pays a prostitute to service him but cannot get her to see him as a human being or a companion. She shudders when he asks her to have coffee with him. He ends up shooting himself." Noga, your range of references about these terrorists is amusing. Did you ever read Joseph Conrad's "Under Western Eyes," or 'The Secret Agent," or even Dostoyevsky's "The Devils?" There are many descriptions of nihilistic terrorists there that seem to me throw some light on the mindset of a Nidal Hasan.

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga -- I wonder if a somewhat tougher question than just admitting this one guy into the air force is waiting outside the door: whether Israel will make military service mandatory for all citizens at some point? I found it interesting that he (the young pilot) says openly "I know that Israel is still at war with some Arab countries but etc etc." He didn't say anything about Islam or "the Palestinian people," just nations at war with Israel. He seems very balanced and without an axe to grind. And I agree about Hasan's age, and I return to the fact I discovered yesterday that he hasn't in fact being seeing returning soldiers for the last two years. I wonder if this story from Israel is a lesson for us, as in not kicking the "Muslim" issue under the carpet. Maybe it would be better to ask American Muslims directly when they sign up for the armed services, "Do you have a problem with deployment to a country where the enemy is also muslim?" If they say no but mean yes, that's a potential danger of course, but it might get this whole thing about patriotic loyalty vs religious belief out on the table where it can be dealt with more honestly.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: a lot of people are addressing you. So much cyber space, so little time!

- basman

November 17, 2009 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I wonder if this story from Israel is a lesson for us, as in not kicking the "Muslim" issue under the carpet." Ironyroad, you may recall a poster on the CR boards, "Clockwork O" whose favourite maxim was: sunlight is the best disinfectant... Israeli society does not do political correctness too well. Its most manifest trait is what they call "doogri", meaning: plain-speaking. What's the point of pretending that something is not there? How else can we find out how bad a thing is, unless we admit that there is a thing in there at all?

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, your range of references about these terrorists is amusing. Did you ever read Joseph Conrad's "Under Western Eyes," or 'The Secret Agent," or even Dostoyevsky's "The Devils?" JD: I have tried to figure out what you mean in this comment. Surely you did not intend to belittle my "range of reference"? Conrad and Dostoyevsky? Thanks, but no, thanks. I prefer Jane Austen. There was a reason why there were no monsters to be found in her novels.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Hitchens gets it just right. I'm not sure Marty gets it less right, but Hitchens's piece is a tighter, more persuasive bit of writing than Marty's running musings on the topic. Hitchens nicely dispenses with the "religion doesn't kill people; people kill people" line of argument by acknowledging that, yes, not many Muslims are terrorists but an alarming number of terrorists are Muslim.

- jhildner1

November 17, 2009 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, I see that Hasan, in addition to everything else, was waging jihad against correct use of apostrphes, as it apparently offends "Gods law" and various "fatwa's."

- jhildner1

November 17, 2009 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironyroad “I wonder if a somewhat tougher question than just admitting this one guy into the air force is waiting outside the door: whether Israel will make military service mandatory for all citizens at some point?” One of the main reasons Arab Israelis were excused from service in the IDF was that they didn’t want to force Arabs to fight other Arabs. “Maybe it would be better to ask American Muslims directly when they sign up for the armed services, "Do you have a problem with deployment to a country where the enemy is also muslim?" If they say no but mean yes, that's a potential danger of course, but it might get this whole thing about patriotic loyalty vs religious belief out on the table where it can be dealt with more honestly.” Now, you are talking. This makes perfect sense.

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “Conrad and Dostoyevsky? Thanks, but no, thanks. I prefer Jane Austen. There was a reason why there were no monsters to be found in her novels.” Yes, she does deal with only a narrow slice of human experience. In any case, Conrad (and Dostoyevsky) will enlighten you about nihilism and terrorism more than will a Hollywood monster film.

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"whether Israel will make military service mandatory for all citizens at some point?" It just occurred to me that such a law would be somewhat tantamount to Avigdor Lieberman's proposal, that every citizen in the state of Israel be required to swear a loyalty oath to the state :)

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tgossard: I share your admiration for Martin Amis. I know he gets on some people's nerves because he tends to use words that you need to look up in the dictionary. But this is part of what I like about him. He understands that an author has to try to get as closely as possible to that which he wants to describe and he uses words as accurately as he can find. Isn't he lucky to have such a talent for finding the right words, no matter how rare or little known they are? He and Hitchens are close friends and are not shy to speak of their love openly. After one public kerfuffle between them, Amis was asked about the condition of their friendship, to which he replied: “My friendship with the Hitch has always been perfectly cloudless. It is a love whose month is ever May.”

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, one wonders whether part of the problem with catching Hasan before he turned murderous was the chilling effect of political correctness. All I'm saying is, "one wonders"; I don't know the answer. (Another plausible candidate is incompetence.) You could imagine some outrage if the military focused on the issue, just as there was outrage when Homeland Security or whoever it was warned about far-right-wing activity among disaffected veterans. My own humble view is that the FBI and whatever internal security apparatus we have -- and I'm not sure that that apparatus is adequate to the task -- should be all over those who espouse or subscribe to violent, radical, treasonous ideologies of any flavor. And, when I say "all over," I mean in a professional way that respects freedom of speech and privacy rights, and is not characterized by hysterical paranoia.

- jhildner1

November 17, 2009 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: You are right. I should have been clearer. Here is a re-write: Hitchens says: "I wrote some years ago that the three most salient characteristics of the Muslim death-squad type were self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred." Hitchens is re-formulating more directly and lucidly what Martin Amis loquaciously and novelistically said in the excerpt I quoted earlier from his article, and what Marty has been saying here. As for his reference to Islamophobia (“A U.S. soldier who wonders about the reliability of his, let alone her, Muslim colleague is not being "Islamophobic." (A phobia is an irrational or uncontrollable fear.”) it is well advised to recall that Islamophobia is rooted not in any recordable history of fear inspiring activities and preachings associated with a certain ideology, but in imagined anxiety which has no basis whatsoever in reality. ____________ I meant to say that I agree with the distinction he makes. That’s all. Is this better? (she asked, anxiously)

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" . . . there were no monsters to be found in her novels.” Although Mr Woodhouse, Emma's hypochondriac father, has something rather ominous about him. Just sayin'.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very easily manageable passive-aggressive father. Compare him to Princess Marya Bolkonskya's father, to gain some perspective.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or the monstrous parents in Fanny Fern's 1853 novel Ruth Hall. Just adding a reference to something that I'm fairly sure JD hasn't read. I mean, almost nobody has.

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A very easily manageable passive-aggressive father. Compare him to Princess Marya Bolkonskya's father, to gain some perspective." Tolstoy’s character is far from being a "monster." He is a typical Russian pater familias of the early 19c. There are monsters in Austen but they are educable as Emma herself shows. The monsters in Dostoyevsky and Conrad are scarier because they are more familiar in all senses of that word.

- jacksondyer

November 17, 2009 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Or the monstrous parents in Fanny Fern's 1853 novel Ruth Hall." Or the monster parents in V. C. Andrews' "Flowers in the attic", a novel I got to know only because I translated one of its sequels.

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of books no one ever read, Ironyroad, have you read Thelma, by Marie Correlli? Have you read Villette, by Charlotte Bronte?

- noga1

November 17, 2009 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No. I feel a bit guilty about Villette, though. Have you read The Coquette by Hannah W. Foster or Like Unto Like by Sherwood Bonner?

- ironyroad

November 17, 2009 at 10:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, I don't feel any guilt about it. Have you read "A View of the Harbour" by Elizabeth Taylor? Anything at all from Ivy Compton-Burnett? "Jane and Prudence" by Barbara Pym? Tell me honestly now, Ironyroad, do you have a preference to man writers?

- noga1

November 18, 2009 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, two of my favorite writers are Joan Didion and Mary McCarthy.

- ironyroad

November 18, 2009 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close