Sylvia Poggioli has been running a six-part series on Muslim women in Europe, focusing specifically on women in France, Germany, and Britain. The second segment aired this morning, focusing on a woman named Syran Ates, who is as terrific an example of courage, moral and otherwise, as I've encountered lately.

Of particular interest, at least to me, was Ates' assertion that "excessive tolerance" is responsible for the rise of "political Islam." It put into words something that I've been struggling to articulate for myself, and something which came up several weeks back in the discussion surrounding this whole thing. I think I found it all the more resonant because yesterday afternoon I did a very short interview for a Vegas paper promoting the Las Vegas Comic Fest, wherein the reporter asked me if I considered myself a neocon in light of Q&C and some of the more recent issues of Checkmate, something I most assuredly do not. The question was asked, I think, more so I could refute it than so I could confirm it.

In fact, if there's anything that terrifies me in this world, it's zealotry. And while I believe there are absolutes in the world, that there are issues of Right and Wrong, and of Good and Evil, and that writers, in particular, are obligated to work with these ideas in some way, shape, or form, no matter how lightly, I am, for the most part, very, very nervous of those people who have discovered The Way, and feel that, for whatever reason, they must foist this upon others.

Saying that, I also have to recognize zealotry in myself, those things that I brook no argument on, and ask no quarter regarding. Tolerance is a wonderful thing. I'm all for tolerance. To a point. I lose tolerance the moment it's not reciprocated, especially when that lack of reciprocation comes in the form of, say, blowing people up.

This is not confined to the Middle East or the Third World, obviously. We're as guilty of it in this country as anywhere else, though we're less prone to kill each other over our intolerances. But one look at the political state of the nation should tell you everything you need to know. Politics used to be the "art of compromise" (and please note the date of the article, and the subject matter) -- of crafting a deal where nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they can live with. Now? Now, it seems like it's all or nothing, where the loser will cheerfully salt and scorch the earth in defeat, and the victor punishes the loser for "making it so hard."

Nothing I'm saying here is new, I recognize that. Rather, the ramblings of a barely-caffeinated mind.

Also, I can't find a highlighter anywhere in my damn house. I think my kids have stolen them all.