Islamic dog terrorism

So, it seems that in Jordan, a cleric's comments were taken as a fatwa to go out and kill dogs, which led to lots of people getting out to shoot up (or poison) stray dogs.   It was all started by a girl dying of rabies after being bitten by a stray.

Not that big a story, perhaps, except that the article in The Atlantic is interesting because of its discussion of the odd status of fatwas per se in Islam:

But the peculiar thing about Jordan’s “holy war on dogs” is that it doesn’t exist, according to Jordan’s Dar al-Iftaa, the institution that issues religious rulings. The mufti’s words were never intended as a command to kill, said Ahmad al-Hasanat, secretary general of Dar al-Iftaa. “It is forbidden to kill dogs like this,” said al-Hasanat. Contrary to portrayals of the fatwa as a brutal imperative to kill, the original fatwa only allowed killing of a dog that is threatening one’s life, al-Hasanat said. “If there are dogs living on the streets, no one is saying to kill them.”

The potential issue with fatwas is not that they are strict religious commands, but the opposite: They are non-binding religious opinions, only sometimes put in writing, that are left open to the individual’s interpretation and choice of whom he wants to obey. Typically given as answers to individuals’ specific questions, fatwas are based on deliberation and analysis by qualified religious scholars called muftis. The difference between fatwas and court rulings is that no one is obligated to follow a fatwa; it’s not a law, and ignoring it incurs no penalty.

“Religious authority is not forced,” al-Hasanat said. “We only give advice. If someone takes it, great. If not, what can we do? I give him a fatwa, and he decides.”

As for the status of dogs in Islam, it seems all kind of confusing:

Dogs have long been considered unclean in most schools of Islamic law, said Berglund, who published a paper on the status of dogs in Islam. But there is no basis in the Koran or hadith for mass killings of dogs—nor is there an imperative to do so in the fatwa. The driving force behind Jordan’s dog shootings is not Islamic government, it seems, but Jordanian people’s preexisting irritation with an uncontrolled stray dog problem. In 2014, for example, local media reported that residents were asking the municipality of Zarqa to get rid of strays after dogs attacked an elderly woman and several children, but that the officials refused, saying that killing dogs was forbidden and against Islamic law.

“Probably a lot of people in Jordan are just fed up with stray dogs. It’s a very human thing. You pick up this fatwa to get rid of the dogs harassing your family and stealing food,” Berglund said. “If this mufti had said it’s permissible to kill horses or donkeys, people wouldn’t have started to kill horses or donkeys. There are plenty of fatwas on helping the poor, too, but look how many people do nothing for the poor.”

In this case, religion may be serving people’s social aims, not the other way around. Whereas foreigners assumed the “war on dogs” was coming from the demands of strict religious authority, it may actually be the opposite: Jordan’s religious flexibility has allowed space for dog-haters to use a fatwa as an excuse to kill them.

Update:   I'm going to be very even handed here, and raise the question of Jewish attitudes to dogs.  If they aren't so keen on them either, it is just a Near East cultural thing that has spread further afield with both Islam and Judaism? 

Interestingly, there are lots of articles on the 'net asking whether Jews generally like dogs, or not.   The best article I've quickly read, so far, is perhaps this one in The Tablet, which notes that the evidence is strong for at least an ambivalent attitude towards both dogs and cats.  (I didn't realise before - while dogs get a mention here and there in the Bible, cats never do.)   Here are some interesting paragraphs:

For the most part, and in spite of some recent scholarly attempts at rehabilitation, dogs were held in contempt in Israelite society due to their penchant for dining on blood and carcasses (I Kings 14:11; 16:4, 21:19, 24, and 22:38). They were regarded as urban predators roaming about at night, barking and howling, in search for food (Psalms 59:7, 15), and such dogs could easily attack anybody who got too close (Psalms 22:17, 21) or bite those who foolishly tried to show them affection (Proverbs 26:17). Outside of the city there were wild dogs, busy devouring carrion and licking blood (II Kings 9:35-36; Exodus 22:30). Very few people would have wanted anything to do with them. The only hint of any positive role for the biblical dog is found in Job 30:1, which makes reference to “dogs of my flock,” perhaps indicating that in biblical times there were dogs who served as sheep dogs or herders.

The basically negative and at best ambivalent attitude of biblical Israelites was not that different from prevalent attitudes in general in the ancient Near East, which often stressed the impurity of the dog and its contemptible status. True, there were exceptions to the rule; some dogs did occasionally enjoy somewhat of a higher status, some Canaanite cults may have sanctified canines, the Hittites liked to use them in purification and healing rites, and the odd dog may actually have been kept as a pet—and if it lived in Phoenician Ashkelon might have been buried in the dog cemetery. However, these were exceptions to the generally negative stereotypes that existed in both ancient Israel and in neighboring lands.

 Dogs fared a lot better in some other ancient cultures:

 Greeks, Romans, and Persians loved dogs. Dogs were functional: They served as hunting dogs, sheep dogs, and guard dogs. Dogs could pull carts, and there were even performing dogs. Some dogs were said to be able to heal with a lick of their tongues. They were popular pets and companions for men and women of all ages: A “boy and his dog” and even a “girl and her dog” were quite common, and many women had a small lap dog as a pet. In Persia, dogs did all of the above-mentioned tasks and were popular, but they were also revered, taking on the status given to cats in Egypt—in part because the Persians mistakenly identified the spiny hedgehog as a dog, and this animal was instrumental in ridding houses of poisonous snakes.

 Cats, not so much:

Cats were a lot less popular, although as mousers and enemies of vermin they fulfilled an important function. Yet keeping them as pets indoors or even in the barnyard could be problematic since, in addition to mice, they had a tendency to attack or eat other pets in the home or chickens or fowl in the barnyard. Not only were they not “guard” animals like dogs, but it was often necessary to guard against their feral nature, even when supposedly domesticated: They were necessary but not loved. In Persia, though, they were khrafstra, noxious creatures, the same as the mice and the rats that they ate.

 Interesting, I'm sure you'll agree.

Not taking it well

The conservative cohort of Catallaxy (that's about 95% of them) are not taking the same sex marriage survey result at all well:

That's possibly the most ludicrous attempt at a put down of a politician I have ever read...  

Butter history

NPR links to a February post  reviewing a book about the history of butter.   Don't think I've heard of this before:

Even the first-ever documented student protest in American history is linked with butter. Harvard University's Great Butter Rebellion of 1766 began after a meal containing particularly rancid butter was served to students, who (not unlike modern college-goers) were frustrated over the state of food in the dining hall. As reported in The Harvard Crimson, Asa Dunbar (who would later become the grandfather of Henry David Thoreau), incited the student body into action by hopping onto his chair, shouting, "Behold our butter stinketh! Give us therefore butter that stinketh not!"

The Don

I'm sure there was some lengthy profile done in Fairfax, probably, while Don Burke was still on TV about how many people had left his show saying that he was a complete jerk to work with.   The details coming to light now show how much he was an intensely sexist, offensive jerk who, like Weinstein, sounds lucky to have avoided sexual assault charges.

But I have to say, guiltily, that some of the stories are so crude and so "real life Sir Les Patterson"  that I keep thinking how some of them done in a movie satirising such a character could play as shockingly funny.   Not funny to be a real women trying to fend him off;  it's more some of the ridiculously crude things he thought he could say to women and not have them take offence.

Marvel explained

Even though I'm not the world's biggest Marvel movie fan, it's hard not to be impressed with the "Marvel Universe" as an essentially good natured commercial success. It is therefore interesting to read in Vanity Fair how much of that is down to one young-ish guy - Kevin Feige - who I have never heard of, and whose photo doesn't even appear in this lengthy feature.

I suspect Jason is over there reading it now...

Amusing sarcasm

And Then There's Physic's twitter feed has a sarcastic go at the Matt Ridley's Global Warming Policy Foundation:

More random stuff

*   Had an anxiety dream last night in which I was in a university lecture theatre, where I had agreed to give a lecture (just introductory, I think) on black holes, but completely forgotten to prepare for it.  Some famous physicist was supposed to be coming to watch it as well.   My big concern was whether I knew enough to "wing it" with the lecture, which was due to start any minute.  Fortunately, the dream did not extend to the start of the lecture....

*  Have I mentioned before, but Japan, which is very big on cloth and fabrics, is the best country from which to buy nice but reasonably priced men's handkerchiefs.  I still do not understand how the modern youngster gets buy without one.

*  I like Uniqlo shirts, and shorts, too.

* The Washington Post has a story about a rare form of cancer which often gets initially mistaken for persistent jock itch (!):

For more than two years, Schroeder had been coping with an extremely rare, invasive cancer called extramammary Paget’s disease (EMPD), which had invaded his scrotum, requiring multiple surgeries. Women account for roughly half of EMPD cases; the cancer, often misdiagnosed as eczema or contact dermatitis, attacks the sweat-producing apocrine glands, including those in the genital and anal areas.

The slow-growing cancer, which in men is frequently misdiagnosed as “jock itch” — slang for a fungal infection — can be fatal. And while treatment is often grueling, for Schroeder the worst part was his sense of isolation: He had never spoken to anyone who shared his diagnosis.

 *  Man, there was a serious outbreak of nuttiness at Catallaxy on the weekend, with Steve Kates spending an entire post deriding a commenter there who is actually one of the more-or-less sane sounding ones.  Not to mention another commenter who spent ages going on about claiming he wasn't able to sleep because there was an evil presence in the master bedroom - for no clear reason at all.  (It was all a bit of "hamming it up" he says this morning.   The point?)

I'm sure that the site is a great example of the psychological phenomena that repeatedly saying things aloud convinces the speaker of the truth of the matter, even if was something was originally held in the mind with weak to moderate conviction.   Thus, for example, the repeated quip that "leftism is a mental illness" moves from what they may have originally sensed as a partisan witticism with some element of truth (I'm not saying I agree with that) to something that many on the site have come to genuinely believe as a an absolute truism, and with no humour in the observation at all.    This is why it such a harmful place - with no calls for moderation in comments from other commenters, or (rarely) from Davidson, it has become descending whirlpool for encouraging righteous certainty of wrong, obnoxious and uncharitable views. 

Now, must go prepare my lecture notes...

Queensland election

Well, provided Labor gets back with a seat or two to spare, that wasn't too bad an outcome for the Queensland election.

The best thing, of course, was One Nation only gaining a seat (maybe two?) and the evidence that even the people of Ipswich see Malcolm Roberts as a nutty loser.

My favourite tweet about him (amongst many which ran with "he's an alien" line):

Oh, it won't up load.  Back later.

Here it is:

To Coco or not to Coco (and a bonus list at the end)

For some years now, I haven't cared for Pixar films, and even puzzled over the critical high praise that the occasional one still achieves.   (See Inside Out - which is on my mental list of the most undeservedly  over-praised movies of all time*.)

But it has one out now on a Mexican theme, and I've been feeling increasingly interested in all things about that nation and culture for years, so I think I should probably see it.   Christopher Orr in The Atlantic thinks so, but then again, while he also has noted the decline of Pixar, he thinks it's not as good as Inside Out.  (?)   What's a reader of movie reviews supposed to do?

*  OK, lets get some of those title down on the record:

Forest Gump:   don't exactly hate it, but found it basically glum and depressing and just couldn't see the point.   Sometimes eccentric movies are worth it just for the eccentricity - not this time.

The Godfather:   noted here before that I only finally saw recently on streaming TV, and found abundant flaws in the story and acting that left me very surprised at how it maintains its status.   Again, not terrible terrible, just puzzlingly over praised. 

Unforgiven:    hated it.  Only viewed it once, when released at the cinema; immediately puzzled about what critics saw in it from a directorial or story point of view.   I don't think I had even evolved my full blown dismissal of Clint Eastwood as bringing anything of value to cinema at that time - this movie was probably the start of it.

Inside Out:  not emotionally resonate or funny at all;   other audience members seemed to me pretty bored too, yet it was seriously praised by the great majority of American critics in particular.  Don't get it.

Chariots of Fire:   a simple, simple story: so simple what was the freaking point of telling it?  High praise evidence only of the disproportionate effect a memorable theme can have on a movie's reception.  Otherwise, it really was an incredibly slight film.

The Truman Show:  contains no redeeming value at all.   Look, I consider reality TV to be pretty awful and don't watch it; but making a whole movie (as opposed to, say, a 30 minute Twilight Zone exercise) about how cruel and awful it could become and how our hero will endeavour to escape it has to contain some plausibility and not just be a fantasy exercise for it to work.   This movie doesn't.   I found it such an awful waste of my time that (I'm embarrassed to say), I actually expressed my disagreement to a stranger I was walking past on the way out of the cinema who was praising it to his girlfriend.   They slipped away quietly, not willing to engage in critical debate.  Sorry about that...

The Piano:   come on, surely you have to have two X chromosomes to think this is the most brilliant movie?   I've no problem with stories from a female perspective, but there was just something so overwhelmingly, blatantly "I'm a woman director putting a strong, resilient woman's story on screen"  about this whole exercise it felt like the male audience was being punished, or frozen out, or something.  (To be honest, I remember little about the story - am more remembering some of my reaction and discussion with female friend I saw it with at the time.)  Oddly, my mother didn't mind it - but of course, she has the chromosomes for it.

Ghostbusters (the original):  well, I only add this because of the nutty enthusiasm for it of alt.righters into attacking last year's OK-ish female version.   From memory, the original wasn't that big a hit with critics, and I would certainly agree that it wasn't really all that funny, although basically harmless.   Fast forward to 2016 and it seems that a certain group of males (admittedly, nutty obnoxious ones with no sense of proportion) seem to think it was comedy gold that was the most meaningful experience of their childhood.   Weird. 

Update:

Silence of the Lambs:   not offensively bad, just that I found it not particularly scary, tense or engaging.  I couldn't see was particularly well directed, either.   Teaches you that a movie can be remembered for just once sequence - her first visit to Hannibal.   The rest of it - couldn't see the reason for any praise, and have never watched it a second time.





That's it for now  - must come back to expand this list as I recall more.

All about crossing the road

Sounds like a bland post, but it's surprisingly interesting.  I didn't know anything about the recent move in the UK to deliberately build "shared spaces" at intersections, and how well they work for most people:



(On a minor point - I'm pretty sure this American narrator actually pronounces analysis as "anal - ysis", with "anal" as in the body part.  How many Americans do that?)

Things have improved

First:  Hey, Jason, it is not a case of a "few drunken rants" by Gibson.   According to Joe Eszterhas,  Mel's views in private were (are?) just shockingly nuts and he was (is?) a completely gullible antisemite.  Read this article, if you never have.   I don't know how he has kept any other than the most superficial of friends.  Update:  this article asks a good question - How on earth did Mel Gibson get forgiven by Hollywood.?

Back to the point of the post:   I suspect it was my relatively late use of sunglasses as an adult that might have doomed me to this (I used to read books sitting in the sun in the Botanic Gardens without sunglasses all through university) but my increasingly smeary vision in my right eye means I'll be having a cataract operation in January.

Which has led me to wonder about the history of cataract surgery.  It's more lurid than I knew:

Cataract surgery is one of the oldest surgical procedures known, first documented in the fifth century BC.^[12] In ancient times, cataracts were treated with a technique called couching, which could only be performed when the lens had become completely opaque, rigid, and heavy to the point that the supporting zonules had become fragile. The eye would then be struck with a blunt object with sufficient force to cause the zonules to break so that the lens would dislocate into the vitreous cavity, restoring limited but completely unfocused vision. Centuries later, the technique was modified so that a sharp fine instrument was inserted into the eye to break the zonules to cause the dislocation.

Fast forward 2,000 years or so, and things improved, a little:

The first reported surgical removal of a cataract from the eye occurred in Paris in 1748.^[13] The advent of topical anesthesia made this procedure more practical. The early techniques involved removing the entire opaque lens in one piece using an incision that went halfway around the circumference of the cornea. It was critical that the lens remained intact as it was being removed, so surgery was restricted to so-called ripe lenses: cataracts so hardened that they would not break into pieces as they were being removed. This limited the surgery to only the most advanced cataracts. Since fine sutures did not exist at that time, patients were kept immobilized with sandbags around their head while the wound healed. Consequently, the early literature reporting cataract surgery routinely documented the mortality rate (secondary to pulmonary emboli).

Fortunately, now they need the tiniest of holes:

The evolution of smaller surgical incisions was matched by the development of new lens implants created out of different materials (such as acrylic and silicone) that could be folded to allow the lens to be inserted through a tiny wound. At the present time, commercially available lenses can be inserted through wounds a little over 2 mm.

 This is a pretty good period of history to be living in...

Right wing pays out

The Guardian notes that the Australian Spectator, edited by the clown haired (and brained) Rowan Dean, has had a big loss in a defamation case:

Spectator Australia, the conservative magazine already struggling to survive with paid sales of about 8,000 copies, will be deeply wounded by a $572,674 payment to a Toowoomba family who say they were defamed by the publication. Editor Rowan Dean, who was Mark Latham’s co-host on the doomed Sky News show Outsiders, has maintained his silence about the eye-watering sum and how it will affect the Australian arm of the UK magazine.

Denis Wagner, one of four brothers to take legal action, told Weekly Beast the family just wanted justice after the magazine published an article, “Dam Busters! How Cater and Jones burst Grantham’s wall of lies”, which implied they were to blame for the Grantham flood. “We are pleased with the successful resolution of the claim, which vindicates the stance we have taken in this matter,” Wagner said. “We are now focusing on vindicating our reputations in our cases against Alan Jones and Channel Nine.”

The large out-of-court settlement was made ahead of a defamation trial that had been set down to start in Queensland this month. The Wagners took action against conservative commentator Nick Cater, as well as broadcaster Alan Jones, radio stations 2GB and 4BC and Channel Nine for a 60 Minutes story involving Cater. A commission of inquiry in 2015 cleared the Wagners of any responsibility and inquiry head Walter ­Sofronoff QC concluded the flood was “a natural disaster and that no human agency caused it or could ever have prevented it”.

At a $100 a year to get the magazine, the payout is the same value as 5,000 odd subscriptions.    Ouch.

Presumably, flood conspiracists Alan Jones and Nick Cater are going to be coughing up dollars too.

By the way, whatever happened to the class action against the Queensland government that started in a fanfare of Hedley Thomas articles, but seems to have petered out?    Would like for it to die, too, given that it was mainly promoted by climate change denialists.

Globally ill

I often can't find much to post about on a Friday, especially if it's a busy day ahead.  Of course, I could go over to Catallaxy and watch the further self debasement of Steve Kates going so far beyond mere "brown nosing" of Donald Trump that only his feet are still visible, but even that gets boring after a time.

Anyway, here's one article from Discover that looks interesting - the matter of the global reach of mental illness, and how one researcher is trying to get treatment available in all countries, not just the rich ones.

The silly Senator

Where's Jason lately?   Because I'd like to know his reaction to this:

Senator Leyonhjelm to bring Milo Yiannopoulos to Parliament House

I've always said Leyonhjelm had no good judgement.  This is just further evidence.

A good spice

If you go this page, you'll see an article about cinnamon possibly being useful in burning up fat.  But look to the left - there's a bunch of other articles of hopeful cinnamon health effects, too: from Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, and liver health too!

And, of course, tumeric seems to be having its day in the fad sun, with vendors of a tumeric tea type drink to be found around shopping centres lately.

Seems that some spices are "hot" at the moment, in the matter of health.

More Yglesias

I'm finding Matthew Yglesias's explanations on economics to be rather like Greg Jericho's in Australia:  neither are economists (I think) but both have a convincing way of explaining economics issues.

Hence, Yglesias's article on the likely effect of the Republican's desired tax cuts sounds about right to me.

Pandamania

I strongly recommend that the gentle reader make haste to view a series of cute and kooky looking photos of pandas, many also featuring Chinese carers dressed as said animal, in this charming feature in The Atlantic.   An example:

I know that Star Trek IV featured aliens coming to Earth to find out what had happened to their favourite animals, the humpback whales, but I think it more likely that it would be this charming, but  inept, creature that looks like it was dropped off here for safekeeping 10,000 years ago...

A funny Travel Man

Yay:  SBS Viceland (I think) is showing another series of Travel Man, and they are up on SBS on Demand.

While Richard Ayoade is never unwatchable, some episodes are funnier than others, depending to an extent on the person he's travelling with.

The episode we watched last night, in Valencia (a gorgeous looking place to visit, incidentally), with a female comedian who I am not familiar with, struck me as particularly funny.   The paella cooking lessons were a highlight for my amusement:

Yes, pretty amusing (and sort of encouraging)

Spotted on Twitter:

Premier pro-Trump website in Australia is run by Sinclair Davidson

I see that the increasingly potty Rafe Champion, who used to respected enough to have blogging rights at Club Troppo, has been utterly convinced by a book by Newt Gingrich (who more sensible people blame for starting the rapid, poisonous decline in the dynamics of American politics) that Trump is just a great, salt-of-the-earth, man-of-the-people sorta guy, with remarkable political talent.

So Sinclair Davidson, libertarian and Trump skeptic himself, now hosts two of our nations most gullible and slavishly pro-Trump commentators on Catallaxy.   Sure, he has one (maybe two?) anonymous contributors who put the boot into Trump occasionally, but the blog commenters run about 90% in favour of Trump, I reckon.

I don't know how Davidson reconciles himself to the fact that running a supposedly libertarian/centre right blog has been taken over by the most wingnutty/conservative voices in the country.

The only - and I mean only - unifying thing about anyone who regularly participates at that blog is that they all know climate change is a crock.