Toon-deaf Europe is taking the wrong stand
Tim Blair has already extracted a bit from the above Mark Steyn column, but the concluding paragraphs are more important:
"The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these loony tune controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie fatwa, is the point at which a free society musters the will to stand up to thugs. British Muslims march through the streets waving placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM." If they mean that, bring it on. As my columnar confrere John O'Sullivan argued, we might as well fight in the first ditch as the last.
But then it's patiently explained to us for the umpteenth time that they're not representative, that there are many many "moderate Muslims.''
I believe that. I've met plenty of "moderate Muslims" in Jordan and Iraq and the Gulf states. But, as a reader wrote to me a year or two back, in Europe and North America they aren't so much "moderate Muslims" as quiescent Muslims. The few who do speak out wind up living in hiding or under 24-hour armed guard, like Dutch MP Ayaab Hirsi Ali.
So when the EU and the BBC and the New York Times say that we too need to be more "sensitive" to those fellows with "Behead the enemies of Islam" banners, they should look in the mirror: They're turning into "moderate Muslims," and likely to wind up as cowed and silenced and invisible."
Monday, February 13, 2006
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Just for a bit of colour
I saw someone demonstrating Corel Painter last week, and decided to play around with some much simpler software that came with a tablet I brought to play with last year. (Graphics tablets, even a little cheap one like mine, are a lot of fun.) The above picture is meant to be an "oil painting", but on here it sort of just looks like a grainy photo. (It should look a little better in a larger version if you click on it.) Corel Painter, though, really does a good job of letting you make an oil painting from a photo. (You have to do the paint strokes yourself, not just a "one click" choice.)
Update: I originally had different version of the picture here, but I have improved it and replaced with the one above.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
More on the Cartoon Wars
It really is impossible to not comment on this matter, especially as I saw further demonstrations on SBS news tonight (which apparently took place after Friday prayers around the globe.)
Especially if you have never seen the Arab world's history of appalling cartoons of Jews and Israel, I suggest you have a look at an excellent post at The Thin Man Returns. It deals with the issue purely pictorially, and they have done an excellent job.
Of course, Tim Blair has been keeping track of the commentary from the press, and I have not felt a need to repeat what he and others have covered. However, I don't think he has linked to Matt Price's piece in the Australian today, which was quite personal and therefore more interesting than some of the punditry.
Last Wednesday, Philip Adams on Radio National interviewed Robert Fisk about the issue. Unfortunately, there are no transcripts of that show available; you have to listen to a recording of it on the Web. In the following recollection of the show, I may not be perfectly precise with the words, but I am confident it is generally accurate.
As shown in some appearances last year on ABC's Lateline, Fisk has become terribly rambling in the way he answers interviewers questions. He was at his worst with Adams.
Adams read out to Fisk an email that he (Adams) had received from a listener which made the point that it appeared that Europeans should be concerned that Muslims want to undermine the separation of Church and State which Europeans had to fight hard to achieve, and only achieved relatively recently in historical terms.
Fisk's response was a long ramble about how in Lebanon (he lives in Beirut) he is able to get on quite well with all the Muslims he has to interact with (including his maid, who was cooking his pizza lunch) and people he works with and knows on the street. He really went on and on about this, as if politeness demonstrated to a white male in Lebanon really answered the issue.
Then, towards the end of the ramble, Fisk stated that Muslims and Christians in Lebanon cannot marry. They have to go to Cyprus to do that. And he mentioned that the Lebanon Christian minority (although at 30-something percent, a pretty big minority) are badly discriminated against. (I presume he meant in other ways, but he gave no detail).
I immediately thought - "doesn't this support the letter writer's point?". But of course, Adams is notoriously sympathetic to Fisk's view of the world, and made no challenge at all. In fact he ended with a comment along the lines "so it is not an appropriate time to be bringing up Huntington's garbage about clash of civilisations." To which Fisk replied "exactly Uncle Phil [he definitely used the term "Uncle Phil"]..and I am glad you said 'garbage'".
(For the US take on religious based discrimination in Lebanon, see this link. They obviously don't view it as all that dire [perhaps especially for a Middle East country], but it is clear that the political and judicial system, with its ties to religion, is still a million miles for the separation of church and State that was the point of the email read to Fisk.)
To be fair, I would not have called myself a fully paid up subscriber to the "clash of civilisations" idea either; but what is so fascinating about the cartoon controversy is that what should be such a trivial matter is pushing me (and I suspect most of the Western populace) towards that school of thought much more than, say, a moderate sized terrorist attack like that on the London Underground. The latter is easily put down to a handful of madmen, but the cartoon issue causes one to despair at how thousands or millions of Muslims appear so capable of manipulation by their religious and political leaders.
(Of course, Muslims are not uniquely capable of manipulation - the German populace paid the price for its decade of madness in the 1930's. But with Islam, it seems to have been stuck in a medieval mind frame for some long, there is no obvious way that a liberal enlightenment is going to take hold within a similar time frame that the mad German quasi-religious nationalism was dealt with.)
UPDATE: I have now found a Robert Fisk opinion piece in which he makes all the same points he made in the interview above (but without the ramble about how is treated politely in Lebanon.)
The similarity he draws to the controversy 20 or so years ago over "The Last Temptation of Christ" (or for that matter, "The Life of Brian") is vastly exaggerated. Those movies attracted media discussion, some angry letters to the editor, and (apparently) one death when one person (not a mob) set fire to a cinema. But thousands on the streets torching US or British embassies? Demands that the movie makers be killed? I didn't notice much of that myself.
(Incidentally, I thought "Life of Brian" was likely to have a worse effect on belief than "Last Temptation", but that is a discussion for another time.)
Both the reaction to, and the nature of, the insult perceived by the faithful was vastly different. I think most Westerners seeing the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in the turban would realise it just as likely can be taken as a dig against the militant side of Islam alone, rather than at Mohammed himself. Or indeed it may reflect a Western perception of Islam overall that moderate Muslims could have chosen to try to refute, instead of allowing their radical parts help confirm it by violent reaction, and entering into the freedom of speech argument in a way which indicated that they do have a problem with separation of Church and State.
I suppose the meaning or intent of the cartoon is ambiguous, but it is hardly as if the Muslim leaders who chose to use it to inflame anti western sentiment were going to go on a TV talk show with the cartoonists to discuss it.
Anyway, the other point is that Fisk really seems to be trying to have it both ways in his article. He denies that the cartoons have anything to do with a "clash of civilisations," while also pointing out that radical Islam (which he seems to agree is dangerous) is making inroads in government in the Middle East as a result of Western approved democracy. He indicates that many Muslims want more moderation in their religion (let's hope that is true), but does not the political ascendancy of the radical elements helps support the notion of a forthcoming "clash of civilisations"?
Update 2: Readers of Tim Blair would already have been directed to a very critical review of Fisk's recent book on the Middle East. I am somewhat surprised to find that the Saturday Sydney Morning Herald (in "Spectrum") has printed a shorter, but almost equally savage, review of the book (although this is actually a re-print from the Daily Telegraph). At the moment I can't find a link to it. But I have found one to the New Youk Times review. It is more sympathetic, but still finds many faults with Fisk's approach:
"Journalists are not automatons but sentient men and women, and the "extinction of self" that supposedly scientific German historians once preached is an illusion. And yet Fisk's brand of reporting-with-attitude has obvious dangers. His ungovernable anger may do his heart credit, but it does not make for satisfactory history. His book contains very many gruesome accounts of murder and mutilation, and page after page describing torture in almost salacious detail. This has an unintended effect. A reader who knew nothing about the subject - the proverbial man from Mars - might easily conclude from "The Great War for Civilisation" that the whole region is mad, bad and dangerous to know, which is presumably not what Fisk wants us to think. Nor does he much abet the argument by George W. Bush and Tony Blair that Islam is essentially a peaceful and gentle religion. Most of the Muslims met here seem cruel and crazy, exemplifying Shelley's line about "bloody faith, the foulest birth of time." "
Especially if you have never seen the Arab world's history of appalling cartoons of Jews and Israel, I suggest you have a look at an excellent post at The Thin Man Returns. It deals with the issue purely pictorially, and they have done an excellent job.
Of course, Tim Blair has been keeping track of the commentary from the press, and I have not felt a need to repeat what he and others have covered. However, I don't think he has linked to Matt Price's piece in the Australian today, which was quite personal and therefore more interesting than some of the punditry.
Last Wednesday, Philip Adams on Radio National interviewed Robert Fisk about the issue. Unfortunately, there are no transcripts of that show available; you have to listen to a recording of it on the Web. In the following recollection of the show, I may not be perfectly precise with the words, but I am confident it is generally accurate.
As shown in some appearances last year on ABC's Lateline, Fisk has become terribly rambling in the way he answers interviewers questions. He was at his worst with Adams.
Adams read out to Fisk an email that he (Adams) had received from a listener which made the point that it appeared that Europeans should be concerned that Muslims want to undermine the separation of Church and State which Europeans had to fight hard to achieve, and only achieved relatively recently in historical terms.
Fisk's response was a long ramble about how in Lebanon (he lives in Beirut) he is able to get on quite well with all the Muslims he has to interact with (including his maid, who was cooking his pizza lunch) and people he works with and knows on the street. He really went on and on about this, as if politeness demonstrated to a white male in Lebanon really answered the issue.
Then, towards the end of the ramble, Fisk stated that Muslims and Christians in Lebanon cannot marry. They have to go to Cyprus to do that. And he mentioned that the Lebanon Christian minority (although at 30-something percent, a pretty big minority) are badly discriminated against. (I presume he meant in other ways, but he gave no detail).
I immediately thought - "doesn't this support the letter writer's point?". But of course, Adams is notoriously sympathetic to Fisk's view of the world, and made no challenge at all. In fact he ended with a comment along the lines "so it is not an appropriate time to be bringing up Huntington's garbage about clash of civilisations." To which Fisk replied "exactly Uncle Phil [he definitely used the term "Uncle Phil"]..and I am glad you said 'garbage'".
(For the US take on religious based discrimination in Lebanon, see this link. They obviously don't view it as all that dire [perhaps especially for a Middle East country], but it is clear that the political and judicial system, with its ties to religion, is still a million miles for the separation of church and State that was the point of the email read to Fisk.)
To be fair, I would not have called myself a fully paid up subscriber to the "clash of civilisations" idea either; but what is so fascinating about the cartoon controversy is that what should be such a trivial matter is pushing me (and I suspect most of the Western populace) towards that school of thought much more than, say, a moderate sized terrorist attack like that on the London Underground. The latter is easily put down to a handful of madmen, but the cartoon issue causes one to despair at how thousands or millions of Muslims appear so capable of manipulation by their religious and political leaders.
(Of course, Muslims are not uniquely capable of manipulation - the German populace paid the price for its decade of madness in the 1930's. But with Islam, it seems to have been stuck in a medieval mind frame for some long, there is no obvious way that a liberal enlightenment is going to take hold within a similar time frame that the mad German quasi-religious nationalism was dealt with.)
UPDATE: I have now found a Robert Fisk opinion piece in which he makes all the same points he made in the interview above (but without the ramble about how is treated politely in Lebanon.)
The similarity he draws to the controversy 20 or so years ago over "The Last Temptation of Christ" (or for that matter, "The Life of Brian") is vastly exaggerated. Those movies attracted media discussion, some angry letters to the editor, and (apparently) one death when one person (not a mob) set fire to a cinema. But thousands on the streets torching US or British embassies? Demands that the movie makers be killed? I didn't notice much of that myself.
(Incidentally, I thought "Life of Brian" was likely to have a worse effect on belief than "Last Temptation", but that is a discussion for another time.)
Both the reaction to, and the nature of, the insult perceived by the faithful was vastly different. I think most Westerners seeing the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in the turban would realise it just as likely can be taken as a dig against the militant side of Islam alone, rather than at Mohammed himself. Or indeed it may reflect a Western perception of Islam overall that moderate Muslims could have chosen to try to refute, instead of allowing their radical parts help confirm it by violent reaction, and entering into the freedom of speech argument in a way which indicated that they do have a problem with separation of Church and State.
I suppose the meaning or intent of the cartoon is ambiguous, but it is hardly as if the Muslim leaders who chose to use it to inflame anti western sentiment were going to go on a TV talk show with the cartoonists to discuss it.
Anyway, the other point is that Fisk really seems to be trying to have it both ways in his article. He denies that the cartoons have anything to do with a "clash of civilisations," while also pointing out that radical Islam (which he seems to agree is dangerous) is making inroads in government in the Middle East as a result of Western approved democracy. He indicates that many Muslims want more moderation in their religion (let's hope that is true), but does not the political ascendancy of the radical elements helps support the notion of a forthcoming "clash of civilisations"?
Update 2: Readers of Tim Blair would already have been directed to a very critical review of Fisk's recent book on the Middle East. I am somewhat surprised to find that the Saturday Sydney Morning Herald (in "Spectrum") has printed a shorter, but almost equally savage, review of the book (although this is actually a re-print from the Daily Telegraph). At the moment I can't find a link to it. But I have found one to the New Youk Times review. It is more sympathetic, but still finds many faults with Fisk's approach:
"Journalists are not automatons but sentient men and women, and the "extinction of self" that supposedly scientific German historians once preached is an illusion. And yet Fisk's brand of reporting-with-attitude has obvious dangers. His ungovernable anger may do his heart credit, but it does not make for satisfactory history. His book contains very many gruesome accounts of murder and mutilation, and page after page describing torture in almost salacious detail. This has an unintended effect. A reader who knew nothing about the subject - the proverbial man from Mars - might easily conclude from "The Great War for Civilisation" that the whole region is mad, bad and dangerous to know, which is presumably not what Fisk wants us to think. Nor does he much abet the argument by George W. Bush and Tony Blair that Islam is essentially a peaceful and gentle religion. Most of the Muslims met here seem cruel and crazy, exemplifying Shelley's line about "bloody faith, the foulest birth of time." "
Friday, February 10, 2006
Why stop at 100?
Aljazeera.Net - Leaders call for calm in cartoon row
From the above report:
"As Muslim protests over the cartoons subsided on Thursday, a Taliban commander in Afghanistan warned that 100 fighters had enlisted as suicide bombers and Denmark said it feared for the safety of its troops in Iraq."
These guys seriously need to get a life. So to speak.
From the above report:
"As Muslim protests over the cartoons subsided on Thursday, a Taliban commander in Afghanistan warned that 100 fighters had enlisted as suicide bombers and Denmark said it feared for the safety of its troops in Iraq."
These guys seriously need to get a life. So to speak.
The kindest cut?
news @ nature.com-Cutting the risk of HIV-Male circumcision protects both women and men from infection.
The above story suggests that, especially in Africa, routine circumcision could make a big effect on the HIV rates.
This will send the anti-circumcision crowd into a frenzy of denial. The absolute fanaticism with which circumcision is criticised by some groups is really amazing. There is even a lot of stuff (about 138,000 Google hits) on the web about foreskin restoration (a lot of stretching involved.)
All seems to me to be ridiculously out of proportion, especially as there would seem to be kinder ways of performing a circumcision now than the old ways. But medicine is the subject of fads and disagreements just as much as other fields of human endeavour, and in Australia I believe it is quite difficult to find a doctor who will do one now unless it is clearly medically needed.
The above story suggests that, especially in Africa, routine circumcision could make a big effect on the HIV rates.
This will send the anti-circumcision crowd into a frenzy of denial. The absolute fanaticism with which circumcision is criticised by some groups is really amazing. There is even a lot of stuff (about 138,000 Google hits) on the web about foreskin restoration (a lot of stretching involved.)
All seems to me to be ridiculously out of proportion, especially as there would seem to be kinder ways of performing a circumcision now than the old ways. But medicine is the subject of fads and disagreements just as much as other fields of human endeavour, and in Australia I believe it is quite difficult to find a doctor who will do one now unless it is clearly medically needed.
Sounds like a trap for young players
Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Bhanged to rights
While stupid Australian youngsters can hardly fail to know that possessing drugs in Singapore or Indonesia is a quick ticket to jail or worse, it would seem that there may soon be plenty of room for confusion by those on the Contiki tour of Europe as they swing from Amsterdam to Italy.
A new anti drug zeal has gripped the Italian government, it seems:
"A vote in the Italian parliament yesterday means that a new, zero-tolerance policy on drugs is almost certain to become law within the next couple of months. With the aroma of defiantly smoked cannabis floating in the air outside, lawmakers approved a measure that abolishes the distinction between hard and soft drugs and makes possession, as well as dealing, a criminal offence...
Yesterday's bill re-establishes the concept, abolished in 1993, of a normal daily supply as a way of distinguishing between drug-users and drug-traffickers. The task of fixing precise quantities for each drug will be delegated to the health ministry.
Anyone caught with more than the permitted amount will be liable to between six and 20 years in jail. Those found with less also risk trial and conviction, but the penalties will be a lot less severe....
How the proposed new law will affect foreigners is still unclear, but the original draft proposals included a provision according to which tourists found with even a single ecstasy pill would have their passports impounded."
At least the food in Italian jails might be better than here.
While stupid Australian youngsters can hardly fail to know that possessing drugs in Singapore or Indonesia is a quick ticket to jail or worse, it would seem that there may soon be plenty of room for confusion by those on the Contiki tour of Europe as they swing from Amsterdam to Italy.
A new anti drug zeal has gripped the Italian government, it seems:
"A vote in the Italian parliament yesterday means that a new, zero-tolerance policy on drugs is almost certain to become law within the next couple of months. With the aroma of defiantly smoked cannabis floating in the air outside, lawmakers approved a measure that abolishes the distinction between hard and soft drugs and makes possession, as well as dealing, a criminal offence...
Yesterday's bill re-establishes the concept, abolished in 1993, of a normal daily supply as a way of distinguishing between drug-users and drug-traffickers. The task of fixing precise quantities for each drug will be delegated to the health ministry.
Anyone caught with more than the permitted amount will be liable to between six and 20 years in jail. Those found with less also risk trial and conviction, but the penalties will be a lot less severe....
How the proposed new law will affect foreigners is still unclear, but the original draft proposals included a provision according to which tourists found with even a single ecstasy pill would have their passports impounded."
At least the food in Italian jails might be better than here.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Around the blogs
* Andrew Norton over at Catallaxy does a sterling job looking at the David Throsby booklet "Does Australia Need a Cultural Policy?" launched last night by Cate Blanchett. Of course, if Cate was involved, you could always guess that the document was going to be an anti Howard diatribe. It is, and a boringly predictable one at that.
I really think that the public mood for substantial government funding of cultural matters has swung more or less permanently against it.
* Mark Bahnisch helps disprove his own argument that lefty's do a have a sense of humour - honest- by agreeing with wacky humourist Mark Latham's complaint that the ABC was not taking the last election seriously enough. (I am paraphrasing here: that complaint was directed againt Micheal Brissendon having too much fun in his commentary pieces).
* Tim Dunlop has a calmer moment reflecting that issues that involve a "conflict of goods" can make it particularly difficult for consensus views to be reached in liberal democracies. He even mentions that this is why the wiretapping issue in America is not biting politically as much as some think it should. Makes sense. But he has written a string of posts (go find them yourself, it's late) in which he has carried on as if the wiretapping issue is obviously a horrible travesty, legal opinion on this is all going one way, and has a go at a commenter by saying : "But I certainly accept your implicit point that you have nothing useful to contribute except bluster, lies and partisanship."
Where did the nice Tim Dunlop go?
I really think that the public mood for substantial government funding of cultural matters has swung more or less permanently against it.
* Mark Bahnisch helps disprove his own argument that lefty's do a have a sense of humour - honest- by agreeing with wacky humourist Mark Latham's complaint that the ABC was not taking the last election seriously enough. (I am paraphrasing here: that complaint was directed againt Micheal Brissendon having too much fun in his commentary pieces).
* Tim Dunlop has a calmer moment reflecting that issues that involve a "conflict of goods" can make it particularly difficult for consensus views to be reached in liberal democracies. He even mentions that this is why the wiretapping issue in America is not biting politically as much as some think it should. Makes sense. But he has written a string of posts (go find them yourself, it's late) in which he has carried on as if the wiretapping issue is obviously a horrible travesty, legal opinion on this is all going one way, and has a go at a commenter by saying : "But I certainly accept your implicit point that you have nothing useful to contribute except bluster, lies and partisanship."
Where did the nice Tim Dunlop go?
A story on Islam in Indonesia
The Jakarta Post - Padang mayor defends sharia as good for development
From the above story, (which is well worth reading in whole):
"Padang Mayor Fauzi Bahar dismisses concerns about his mayoralty's gradual enactment of sharia, arguing that Islamic law is beneficial to development because it makes people more devout....
"Does religion hinder the government's effort?...It even helps it, right? So if I do something related to religion...so people are more devout...it will surely help improve morality, thereby boosting regional development as security will be assured, adolescent delinquency can be curbed and crimes reduced." "
But what exactly does this region require?:
" The mayoralty issued a bylaw in 2003 obliging junior high school students to be proficient in reciting the Koran, and since then has given an instruction on female students and civil servants to wear the headscarf in public, recommended crash courses in Islamic teachings during the Ramadhan fasting month as well as study sessions every Sunday morning for students.
Last month, it asked all mayoralty employees to pay alms from their monthly salary. "
So, it helps development by making its local government employees poorer?
And education wise:
" Like Padang, most cities and regencies have bylaws requiring the wearing of the headscarf by students and civil servants, as well as the ability to recite the Koran, beginning when they are young. Elementary school students who cannot read the Koran cannot move on to junior high, and people must be able to recite Koranic verses to marry."
Oh yes, this sounds just so helpful to economic development.
But note that there are objections to these developments:
" Academics and politicians have expressed alarm at the central government's inaction amid a flood of religion-based regional regulations with, they say, the potential to upset relations between religious groups, especially in encroaching on freedoms of minorities...
For Sudarto, director of Pusaka, a non-governmental organization promoting pluralism, the wave of regulations shows religion being manipulated by those in power"
This is all a worry.
From the above story, (which is well worth reading in whole):
"Padang Mayor Fauzi Bahar dismisses concerns about his mayoralty's gradual enactment of sharia, arguing that Islamic law is beneficial to development because it makes people more devout....
"Does religion hinder the government's effort?...It even helps it, right? So if I do something related to religion...so people are more devout...it will surely help improve morality, thereby boosting regional development as security will be assured, adolescent delinquency can be curbed and crimes reduced." "
But what exactly does this region require?:
" The mayoralty issued a bylaw in 2003 obliging junior high school students to be proficient in reciting the Koran, and since then has given an instruction on female students and civil servants to wear the headscarf in public, recommended crash courses in Islamic teachings during the Ramadhan fasting month as well as study sessions every Sunday morning for students.
Last month, it asked all mayoralty employees to pay alms from their monthly salary. "
So, it helps development by making its local government employees poorer?
And education wise:
" Like Padang, most cities and regencies have bylaws requiring the wearing of the headscarf by students and civil servants, as well as the ability to recite the Koran, beginning when they are young. Elementary school students who cannot read the Koran cannot move on to junior high, and people must be able to recite Koranic verses to marry."
Oh yes, this sounds just so helpful to economic development.
But note that there are objections to these developments:
" Academics and politicians have expressed alarm at the central government's inaction amid a flood of religion-based regional regulations with, they say, the potential to upset relations between religious groups, especially in encroaching on freedoms of minorities...
For Sudarto, director of Pusaka, a non-governmental organization promoting pluralism, the wave of regulations shows religion being manipulated by those in power"
This is all a worry.
The Economist on Hamas in Palestine
Palestine | To whom will Hamas listen? | Economist.com
A good article about the Hamas election win in the Economist.
From the article:
"Its campaign focused on domestic problems: corruption, lawlessness, unemployment. Its leaders talked mainly in slogans. The questions everyone is now asking are ones they simply did not expect to face. How will you form a government with no experience? Will you recognise Israel? Will your militias be absorbed into the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces? Will you implement sharia law? What concessions will you make to continue getting foreign aid?
They also highlight Hamas's internal differences. It decides things by consensus, and keeps its true leaders' identities secret, for fear that Israel will target them."
Reminds me of the Labor Party and unions here. Boom boom.
A good article about the Hamas election win in the Economist.
From the article:
"Its campaign focused on domestic problems: corruption, lawlessness, unemployment. Its leaders talked mainly in slogans. The questions everyone is now asking are ones they simply did not expect to face. How will you form a government with no experience? Will you recognise Israel? Will your militias be absorbed into the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces? Will you implement sharia law? What concessions will you make to continue getting foreign aid?
They also highlight Hamas's internal differences. It decides things by consensus, and keeps its true leaders' identities secret, for fear that Israel will target them."
Reminds me of the Labor Party and unions here. Boom boom.
The King funeral
FrontPage magazine.com :: Cheapening Coretta Scott King's Legacy by Ben Johnson
I missed any TV news coverage of what happened at the memorial service of Coretta Scott King recently, but I noted that it had attracted a lot of comment from the Right over its "politicisation" by many of the speakers.
The above article gives a summary (from the Right's point of view) and it does indeed sound that it was taken as an opporunity to shaft Bush (who was in the audience) over every conceiveable current issue.
I like this bit of irony in particular:
"After the good reverend finished equating U.S. troops with terrorists – a section that drew a two-minute-long standing ovation at a funeral – Jimmy Carter tried his hand at it. Crying crocodile tears, Carter said everyday life became “difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps.” That, too, drew applause. (Later, the same crowd heartily cheered Ted Kennedy, whose brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, approved the secret government wiretapping that made the Kings’ lives so “difficult.”)"
Amazing.
I missed any TV news coverage of what happened at the memorial service of Coretta Scott King recently, but I noted that it had attracted a lot of comment from the Right over its "politicisation" by many of the speakers.
The above article gives a summary (from the Right's point of view) and it does indeed sound that it was taken as an opporunity to shaft Bush (who was in the audience) over every conceiveable current issue.
I like this bit of irony in particular:
"After the good reverend finished equating U.S. troops with terrorists – a section that drew a two-minute-long standing ovation at a funeral – Jimmy Carter tried his hand at it. Crying crocodile tears, Carter said everyday life became “difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps.” That, too, drew applause. (Later, the same crowd heartily cheered Ted Kennedy, whose brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, approved the secret government wiretapping that made the Kings’ lives so “difficult.”)"
Amazing.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Crustaceans to the rescue
ScienceDaily: Antarctic Krill Provide Carbon Sink In Southern Ocean
Today's second interesting story from Science Daily (above) is about how krill help reduce CO2 levels:
"Lead Author Dr Geraint Tarling from BAS says, "We've known for a long time that krill are the main food source for whales, penguins and seals, but we had no idea that their tactics to avoid being eaten could have such added benefits to the environment. By parachuting down they transport carbon which sinks ultimately to the ocean floor -- an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 35 million cars -- and this makes these tiny animals much more important than we thought....
Krill live in the open ocean, mainly in large swarms and reach particularly high numbers in Antarctica. The migrations that they perform (called Diel Vertical Migrations, DVM) are a way of transporting carbon to the ocean's interior because they eat phytoplankton at the surface and excrete their waste at depth. Antarctic krill can grow up to a length of 6cm and can live for 5-6 years. They are one of the largest protein resources on Earth and can be fished easily with large nets for human consumption.
There is enough Antarctic krill to fill the total volume of the new Wembley stadium 1500 times. Spread out on the floor, they would cover the entire area of Scotland. The total weight of Antarctic krill is calculated between 50-150 million tonnes. "
I hate to be the person to point this out, but I presume that if we had less whales eating the krill, it would help reduce global warming.
Don't tell the Japanese whaling commission about this!
Today's second interesting story from Science Daily (above) is about how krill help reduce CO2 levels:
"Lead Author Dr Geraint Tarling from BAS says, "We've known for a long time that krill are the main food source for whales, penguins and seals, but we had no idea that their tactics to avoid being eaten could have such added benefits to the environment. By parachuting down they transport carbon which sinks ultimately to the ocean floor -- an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 35 million cars -- and this makes these tiny animals much more important than we thought....
Krill live in the open ocean, mainly in large swarms and reach particularly high numbers in Antarctica. The migrations that they perform (called Diel Vertical Migrations, DVM) are a way of transporting carbon to the ocean's interior because they eat phytoplankton at the surface and excrete their waste at depth. Antarctic krill can grow up to a length of 6cm and can live for 5-6 years. They are one of the largest protein resources on Earth and can be fished easily with large nets for human consumption.
There is enough Antarctic krill to fill the total volume of the new Wembley stadium 1500 times. Spread out on the floor, they would cover the entire area of Scotland. The total weight of Antarctic krill is calculated between 50-150 million tonnes. "
I hate to be the person to point this out, but I presume that if we had less whales eating the krill, it would help reduce global warming.
Don't tell the Japanese whaling commission about this!
Mega engineering to keep climate warmer (you read that right)
ScienceDaily: Thousands Of Barges Could Save Europe From Deep Freeze
An interesting story above about how Europe could try to keep the Atlantic currents going which keep Europe warmer that it would otherwise be. (These are under threat from melting Greenland ice.)
8,000 barges pumping water at a cost of $50,000,000. Couldn't they just air condition the contintent for that price?
An interesting story above about how Europe could try to keep the Atlantic currents going which keep Europe warmer that it would otherwise be. (These are under threat from melting Greenland ice.)
8,000 barges pumping water at a cost of $50,000,000. Couldn't they just air condition the contintent for that price?
More on the cartoon affair
Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Drawn conclusions
The above commentary piece in the Guardian is pretty good.
Janet Albrechtsen on the same issue in the Australian today is strangely silent on the American response to the issue. She criticises European and Australian papers for not publishing the cartoons in a show of support for free speech, but I believe that the US media (except for the internet) has not gone out of it ways to publish them either.
(But then again, the US having a muted response is understandable in light of how publicity would likely lead to an increased risk to American defence force personnel already having a hard enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that this is clearly behind the government's very conciliatory statement that sounded too soft.)
Anyway, I guess there is not much more to be said on this issue, and I will try not to post about it for some time.
The above commentary piece in the Guardian is pretty good.
Janet Albrechtsen on the same issue in the Australian today is strangely silent on the American response to the issue. She criticises European and Australian papers for not publishing the cartoons in a show of support for free speech, but I believe that the US media (except for the internet) has not gone out of it ways to publish them either.
(But then again, the US having a muted response is understandable in light of how publicity would likely lead to an increased risk to American defence force personnel already having a hard enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that this is clearly behind the government's very conciliatory statement that sounded too soft.)
Anyway, I guess there is not much more to be said on this issue, and I will try not to post about it for some time.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Malaysia Star commentary on the cartoons affair
Press freedom mustnÂ’t be abused
From the article above:
" The action of the European newspapers has further worsened the perceived dichotomy between the West and Islam. They have not helped press freedom but have abused it. They are no different from some political newspapers, whether in Asia or West Asia, with their continuous anti-Semitic stance, negative remarks against Christianity or equating anything Jewish with Zionism."
This is completely overlooking the value of highlighting hypocrisy. And the cartoons are no where near as vicious and nasty as the anti-Semitic ones everyone has seen for years.
From the article above:
" The action of the European newspapers has further worsened the perceived dichotomy between the West and Islam. They have not helped press freedom but have abused it. They are no different from some political newspapers, whether in Asia or West Asia, with their continuous anti-Semitic stance, negative remarks against Christianity or equating anything Jewish with Zionism."
This is completely overlooking the value of highlighting hypocrisy. And the cartoons are no where near as vicious and nasty as the anti-Semitic ones everyone has seen for years.
Why Israel attacking Iranian uranium facilities is a long shot
The Officers' Club: Meanwhile Back in Iran
See the above post for some speculation as to how Israel might possibly stage an attack on Iran. Seems kind of improbable to me.
See the above post for some speculation as to how Israel might possibly stage an attack on Iran. Seems kind of improbable to me.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Some Muslims get it
IslamOnline - Views Section
In the interests of fairness, it should be noted that many Islamic commentators understand the harm that the violent demonstrations about cartoons are causing the reputation of their religion. See the link above for one.
Now that my previous post established that more cartoons might encourage democracy in the Arab world, I should point people towards the following "style guide" to drawing Mohammed:
"The hairstyle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is mentioned in a number of ahaadeeth, such as the following:
1 – His hair was neither curly nor straight....
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik said, describing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he was of average height, neither very tall nor very short. He had a ruddy complexion, neither very white nor very dark, and his hair was neither curly nor straight. The revelation came to him when he was forty years old.
2 – His hair came down to his earlobes...
3 – His hair sometimes came down to his shoulders ...
4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to dye his hair sometimes...
5 – He used to part his hair....
6 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did his Farewell Pilgrimage when his hair was stuck together.
(This means) making some parts of the hair stick to others using gum or something similar, so that the hair is held together and avoids getting dirty and does not need to be washed....
7 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes used to braid his hair, especially when travelling, to keep it from getting dusty. "
Actually, the web site I got that from is full of interesting facts about the Messenger (as he is called). For example, if you ever wondered what the name of his camel was, well, that's a bit controversial:
"Of camels he had al-Qaswaa’, and it was said that she was the camel on which he made his Hijrah; and al-‘Adbaa’ and al-Jad’aa’. Were al-‘Adbaa’ and al-Jad’aa’ one and the same, or two different camels? There is some difference of opinion concerning this."
And I am sure you are wondering, how did he ride his camel:
"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) rode horses, camels, mules and donkeys. He rode horses both saddled and bareback, and he used to make them gallop them on occasion. He used to ride alone, which was most of the time, but sometimes he would put someone behind him on the camel, or he would put one person behind him and one in front, so there would be three men on one camel. So he would sometimes let some men ride on his camel with him, and on some occasions he let his wives ride with him."
Surely you have to laugh at such a ridiculously detailed answer to a question that seems incredibly irrelevant to anything to do with religion.
Maybe someone is thinking I shouldn't poke fun at Islam this way; after all Christian monks used to argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. But the point is that Christians don't worry about that any more, and we can recognise that medieval Christianity had many obsessions we now consider quite bizarre and therefore wryly amusing (the trade in relics, for example.) Anyway, I would hope that some Muslims agree that this sort of interest in the tiniest detail of their Prophet's life is sort of funny, and rather beside the main point of their religion.
In the interests of fairness, it should be noted that many Islamic commentators understand the harm that the violent demonstrations about cartoons are causing the reputation of their religion. See the link above for one.
Now that my previous post established that more cartoons might encourage democracy in the Arab world, I should point people towards the following "style guide" to drawing Mohammed:
"The hairstyle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is mentioned in a number of ahaadeeth, such as the following:
1 – His hair was neither curly nor straight....
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik said, describing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he was of average height, neither very tall nor very short. He had a ruddy complexion, neither very white nor very dark, and his hair was neither curly nor straight. The revelation came to him when he was forty years old.
2 – His hair came down to his earlobes...
3 – His hair sometimes came down to his shoulders ...
4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to dye his hair sometimes...
5 – He used to part his hair....
6 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did his Farewell Pilgrimage when his hair was stuck together.
(This means) making some parts of the hair stick to others using gum or something similar, so that the hair is held together and avoids getting dirty and does not need to be washed....
7 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes used to braid his hair, especially when travelling, to keep it from getting dusty. "
Actually, the web site I got that from is full of interesting facts about the Messenger (as he is called). For example, if you ever wondered what the name of his camel was, well, that's a bit controversial:
"Of camels he had al-Qaswaa’, and it was said that she was the camel on which he made his Hijrah; and al-‘Adbaa’ and al-Jad’aa’. Were al-‘Adbaa’ and al-Jad’aa’ one and the same, or two different camels? There is some difference of opinion concerning this."
And I am sure you are wondering, how did he ride his camel:
"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) rode horses, camels, mules and donkeys. He rode horses both saddled and bareback, and he used to make them gallop them on occasion. He used to ride alone, which was most of the time, but sometimes he would put someone behind him on the camel, or he would put one person behind him and one in front, so there would be three men on one camel. So he would sometimes let some men ride on his camel with him, and on some occasions he let his wives ride with him."
Surely you have to laugh at such a ridiculously detailed answer to a question that seems incredibly irrelevant to anything to do with religion.
Maybe someone is thinking I shouldn't poke fun at Islam this way; after all Christian monks used to argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. But the point is that Christians don't worry about that any more, and we can recognise that medieval Christianity had many obsessions we now consider quite bizarre and therefore wryly amusing (the trade in relics, for example.) Anyway, I would hope that some Muslims agree that this sort of interest in the tiniest detail of their Prophet's life is sort of funny, and rather beside the main point of their religion.
Cartoon comments from Arab News
There Are 101 Ways to Skin a Cat
The link above suggests ways in which offended Muslim nations should retaliate against Europe:
"I recommend that we utilize a gradual and escalating approach to boycotting Western goods and services. Starting with luxury items and easily replaceable products as a first step that can be quickly and, relatively painlessly implemented.
We may then move on to more complicated items that require finding alternative sources and working with them to produce goods that match our specifications.
Finally we move on to products that we will need to build our own factories to produce.
This serves several purposes: One, it allows our businessmen to find alternatives to Western products in an organized way. Remember, it is not an easy task to rearrange trading patterns that have been in place for decades, if not centuries.
Second, it allows our economies to realign and adjust to the changed trading environment with a minimum of difficulty.
Third, it allows our non-Western trading partners to adjust their production to fulfill our needs."
Hmm. Sounds like the writer is encouraging the Arab countries to learn how to make stuff themselves instead of just buying it with oil money. Presumably, this will lead to a bigger middle class, which most people think is a preliminary step to having more liberal and democratic countries.
If that is the result - the West should publish more cartoons as soon as possible...
The link above suggests ways in which offended Muslim nations should retaliate against Europe:
"I recommend that we utilize a gradual and escalating approach to boycotting Western goods and services. Starting with luxury items and easily replaceable products as a first step that can be quickly and, relatively painlessly implemented.
We may then move on to more complicated items that require finding alternative sources and working with them to produce goods that match our specifications.
Finally we move on to products that we will need to build our own factories to produce.
This serves several purposes: One, it allows our businessmen to find alternatives to Western products in an organized way. Remember, it is not an easy task to rearrange trading patterns that have been in place for decades, if not centuries.
Second, it allows our economies to realign and adjust to the changed trading environment with a minimum of difficulty.
Third, it allows our non-Western trading partners to adjust their production to fulfill our needs."
Hmm. Sounds like the writer is encouraging the Arab countries to learn how to make stuff themselves instead of just buying it with oil money. Presumably, this will lead to a bigger middle class, which most people think is a preliminary step to having more liberal and democratic countries.
If that is the result - the West should publish more cartoons as soon as possible...
Tim Blair stands up
Tim Blair
It took a little time, but Tim has now posted the cartoons in question. Yay.
I am now waiting for some right wing death bloggers to come up with some more. (I wonder if Blogger is entirely happy with that prospect.) I don't want to see anything out and out nasty (not like you see in Arab papers against the Jews.) But it is kind of funny to think you could presumably draw a stick man, title it "Prophet Mohammed" and still be in trouble.
Update: Zoe Brain fires a broadside that is well worth looking at too.
Update 2: just to be clear about what I meant above: I think it would be interesting to have bloggers have a go at drawing original cartoons that depict Mohammed in a humourous context, but within the bounds of reasonable taste that those in the West or Far East would expect if the figure was, say, Jesus Christ, Bhudda or a Hindu god. I may have a go later tonight myself.
I don't think people should go out of their way to be offensive, but as several people have noted, the Danish cartoons were really very mild, even if the meaning of one or two was somewhat obscure. The one which seems to have caused most offence (the bomb in the turban) is correctly seen as an indictment of where certain strains of Islam are taking us; not an insult to Mohammed himself.
Incidentally, why didn't the makers of "South Park" get targetted when their "Super Best Friends" episode went to air in 2001? (I am not a fan of that show, but I did quite like that episode.) I believe that is Mohammed 3rd from the left in the screen shot here.
It took a little time, but Tim has now posted the cartoons in question. Yay.
I am now waiting for some right wing death bloggers to come up with some more. (I wonder if Blogger is entirely happy with that prospect.) I don't want to see anything out and out nasty (not like you see in Arab papers against the Jews.) But it is kind of funny to think you could presumably draw a stick man, title it "Prophet Mohammed" and still be in trouble.
Update: Zoe Brain fires a broadside that is well worth looking at too.
Update 2: just to be clear about what I meant above: I think it would be interesting to have bloggers have a go at drawing original cartoons that depict Mohammed in a humourous context, but within the bounds of reasonable taste that those in the West or Far East would expect if the figure was, say, Jesus Christ, Bhudda or a Hindu god. I may have a go later tonight myself.
I don't think people should go out of their way to be offensive, but as several people have noted, the Danish cartoons were really very mild, even if the meaning of one or two was somewhat obscure. The one which seems to have caused most offence (the bomb in the turban) is correctly seen as an indictment of where certain strains of Islam are taking us; not an insult to Mohammed himself.
Incidentally, why didn't the makers of "South Park" get targetted when their "Super Best Friends" episode went to air in 2001? (I am not a fan of that show, but I did quite like that episode.) I believe that is Mohammed 3rd from the left in the screen shot here.
Comedians are dumb
Practising the dangerous art of sedition - Opinion - theage.com.au
I note that a bunch of comics who either can't or don't bother reading had another go at complaining about the revised sedition laws.
The article about this in the Age (linked above) is again clearly misleading:
"This afternoon a group of artists will descend on the Arts Centre, in St Kilda Road, and try their hardest to get arrested. Comic Rod Quantock will collect money for an unnamed terrorist organisation, cabaret artist Eddie Perfect will sing his ditty John Howard's Bitches and satirist Max Gillies will assume a stiff marionette smirk and do his utmost to make Prime Minister John Howard look like a twat.
If this isn't urging disaffection with the Government, what is? Such antics are hardly intended to arouse warm, fuzzy feelings for our elected leaders. Under new sedition laws, seditious intent is defined as urging disaffection against the Constitution, the Government of the Commonwealth, or either house of Parliament. Yet, chances are, when Sedition!, the concert, is performed at the Arts Centre this afternoon, nothing will happen."
As I have pointed out several times before, this idea that a person doing something with "seditious intent" (as defined above) is an offence under the legislation is simply wrong.
But can comics read for themselves? Can journalists from The Age? Seems not.
I note that a bunch of comics who either can't or don't bother reading had another go at complaining about the revised sedition laws.
The article about this in the Age (linked above) is again clearly misleading:
"This afternoon a group of artists will descend on the Arts Centre, in St Kilda Road, and try their hardest to get arrested. Comic Rod Quantock will collect money for an unnamed terrorist organisation, cabaret artist Eddie Perfect will sing his ditty John Howard's Bitches and satirist Max Gillies will assume a stiff marionette smirk and do his utmost to make Prime Minister John Howard look like a twat.
If this isn't urging disaffection with the Government, what is? Such antics are hardly intended to arouse warm, fuzzy feelings for our elected leaders. Under new sedition laws, seditious intent is defined as urging disaffection against the Constitution, the Government of the Commonwealth, or either house of Parliament. Yet, chances are, when Sedition!, the concert, is performed at the Arts Centre this afternoon, nothing will happen."
As I have pointed out several times before, this idea that a person doing something with "seditious intent" (as defined above) is an offence under the legislation is simply wrong.
But can comics read for themselves? Can journalists from The Age? Seems not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)