10/24/2004
Tertiary Phase continues...
Remember, the Tertiary Phase is almost over! The second-to-last episode can be streamed until thursday, and the last episode will be broadcast tuesday.
The Guardian falls
This British publication tried to interfere with the American election by irritating undecided voters in Ohio with smarmy, condescending letter-writing campaigns, puts forth the ridiculous suggestion that William Shakespeare derived inspiration from Sufi Islam in the writing of King Lear, and most outrageously, has indulged in Presidential assassination fantasies (don't miss Andrew Sullivan's comment on this).
I hope that no one I respect treats this magazine seriously anymore, because anyone who does has a serious judgement deficit, IMHO.
UPDATE: TheBit of Muslims Under Progress blog takes issue in the comments with my fit of pique:
Endorsements are an expression of a personal opinion. Coming from a local newspaper, they are intended to sway opinion; coming from anyone non-local to the election in question, they are intended to serve as a statement of affiliation, and always have political overtones. Putin, of which neither TheBit nor I are fans of, endorsed Bush solely to influence the relationship of Putin with Bush, nothing more. Chechnya is of course involved.
The Guardian's letter-writing campaign is another matter. Rather than an expression of opinion, it was intended to sway - in effect, trying to co-opt the role of a local newspaper endorsement and affect the outcome.
Let's make the general principle explicit. If it's your election (ie, one in which you are eligible to participate), then swaying the outcome is not only allowed but verges on duty. The ideal vehicle for this is to express your arguments in the public forum, and expose themn to criticism and debate. That is the essence of free speech in the service of the common good. The First Amendment guarantees this process by which Americans can play an active role in the most basic function of our democracy.
However, if it's not your election, then your attempt to sway the outcome reflects your self-interest, and not the self-interest of the comunity holding the election. It is literally none of your business. Endorsements by individuals are fine because they are the expression of a personal opinion; if TheBit or any other aggrieved Guardian fan takes the time to assess the content of the letters in question, they will find that the letter campaign far trangresssed beyond that threshold, and into outright coercion, naked in its narcissism.
The campaign is being advertised as "How you can have a say in the US election" ! Even Presidential Daily Briefings from Aug. 6th don't get any clearer than that in their titles. Really, it's disingenous to pretend that its just Putin-endorsement level.
And the tone of the letters has been defined by celebrities explicitly recruited to set an example, such as John Le Carr�, who pleads in his letter, "Give us back the America we loved, and your friends will be waiting for you." Exactly what relevance does Le Carr�'s professed love of America have to how anyone should vote? The sentence encapsulates an arrogant self-absorption that is simply beyond my ability to communicate.
For the record, the addressses of undecided voters were purchased by the Guardian. I find that in itself objectionable, verging on an invasion of privacy.
On another issue, TheBit writes:
I've re-read the article, and TheBit is correct, the article was actually a report ON someone with the hare-brained idea that Sufism could underlie William Shakespeare's inspiration, constructed on such flimsy evidence as the line "We are such stuff as dreams are made of" (which could just as easily reflect inspiration from an ABBA song, IMHO). Some of my ire has thus cooled. Still, would it have been too much to ask Madam Arts Correspondent to do a little bit of extra work to find a Shakespearean scholar who could at least offer the opposing view? This isn't journalism, nor is it an arts critique (since the author writes in news style and does not undertake any literary criticism of the content).
I find the comparison to the virgins/dates issue (hinging on whether the word houris derives from Arabic or Aramaic) rather strained, though. That's an actual literary and scholalrly study; this Ling fellow is a bit too enamoured of his suibject matter to be even capable of a rigorous analysis. Note that he proffers not a single example of a Sufi text or source material to offer as comparative proof of a similarity, relying instead entirely on inference and assumption. Neither does the Guardian piece ask for any, which is by far the worse offender.
If the Guardian seeks to just be an opinion rag, that's its prerogative, but this changes my opinion of the magazine not one iota.
I hope that no one I respect treats this magazine seriously anymore, because anyone who does has a serious judgement deficit, IMHO.
UPDATE: TheBit of Muslims Under Progress blog takes issue in the comments with my fit of pique:
I don't see any concern from Americans at Pootie Poot's endorsement of Bush. Why is this any better?
Further, how is this "interference" in the American election? Have they rigged the voting procedures? Made it difficult for American's to vote?
Endorsements are an expression of a personal opinion. Coming from a local newspaper, they are intended to sway opinion; coming from anyone non-local to the election in question, they are intended to serve as a statement of affiliation, and always have political overtones. Putin, of which neither TheBit nor I are fans of, endorsed Bush solely to influence the relationship of Putin with Bush, nothing more. Chechnya is of course involved.
The Guardian's letter-writing campaign is another matter. Rather than an expression of opinion, it was intended to sway - in effect, trying to co-opt the role of a local newspaper endorsement and affect the outcome.
Let's make the general principle explicit. If it's your election (ie, one in which you are eligible to participate), then swaying the outcome is not only allowed but verges on duty. The ideal vehicle for this is to express your arguments in the public forum, and expose themn to criticism and debate. That is the essence of free speech in the service of the common good. The First Amendment guarantees this process by which Americans can play an active role in the most basic function of our democracy.
However, if it's not your election, then your attempt to sway the outcome reflects your self-interest, and not the self-interest of the comunity holding the election. It is literally none of your business. Endorsements by individuals are fine because they are the expression of a personal opinion; if TheBit or any other aggrieved Guardian fan takes the time to assess the content of the letters in question, they will find that the letter campaign far trangresssed beyond that threshold, and into outright coercion, naked in its narcissism.
The campaign is being advertised as "How you can have a say in the US election" ! Even Presidential Daily Briefings from Aug. 6th don't get any clearer than that in their titles. Really, it's disingenous to pretend that its just Putin-endorsement level.
And the tone of the letters has been defined by celebrities explicitly recruited to set an example, such as John Le Carr�, who pleads in his letter, "Give us back the America we loved, and your friends will be waiting for you." Exactly what relevance does Le Carr�'s professed love of America have to how anyone should vote? The sentence encapsulates an arrogant self-absorption that is simply beyond my ability to communicate.
So what if someone writes to me asking me to vote for X? I can read it or do what I do what any sort of spam and junk mail: file it in the bin. The only reasonable objection is that the paper got hold of voters emails and mailing addresses in some dubious way.
For the record, the addressses of undecided voters were purchased by the Guardian. I find that in itself objectionable, verging on an invasion of privacy.
On another issue, TheBit writes:
And it was Lings who put forward the 'theory' regarding Shakespeare not the newspaper (who were 'reporting' it). This is no different from Lunxenburg's 'theory' regading virgins and raisins which was trumpeted around
I've re-read the article, and TheBit is correct, the article was actually a report ON someone with the hare-brained idea that Sufism could underlie William Shakespeare's inspiration, constructed on such flimsy evidence as the line "We are such stuff as dreams are made of" (which could just as easily reflect inspiration from an ABBA song, IMHO). Some of my ire has thus cooled. Still, would it have been too much to ask Madam Arts Correspondent to do a little bit of extra work to find a Shakespearean scholar who could at least offer the opposing view? This isn't journalism, nor is it an arts critique (since the author writes in news style and does not undertake any literary criticism of the content).
I find the comparison to the virgins/dates issue (hinging on whether the word houris derives from Arabic or Aramaic) rather strained, though. That's an actual literary and scholalrly study; this Ling fellow is a bit too enamoured of his suibject matter to be even capable of a rigorous analysis. Note that he proffers not a single example of a Sufi text or source material to offer as comparative proof of a similarity, relying instead entirely on inference and assumption. Neither does the Guardian piece ask for any, which is by far the worse offender.
If the Guardian seeks to just be an opinion rag, that's its prerogative, but this changes my opinion of the magazine not one iota.
Kerry will kill terrorists, not let them go
enough reason for me, a 9-11 Liberal, to vote Kerry, not Bush in a nutshell - Washington Post, April 17th 2002:
The White House is of course LYING about this now.
More on OBL's escape from the Christian Science Monitor in late 2001.
and even more from the CSM in 2002.
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.
The White House is of course LYING about this now.
More on OBL's escape from the Christian Science Monitor in late 2001.
and even more from the CSM in 2002.
10/22/2004
apples and oranges
I have great respect for Steven den Beste, pine for his return to blogging, and will defer to his judgement on matters pertaining to engineering, World War II strategy, and anime. However, his recent analysis of polling trends[1], and especially his conclusion[2], are I think a validation of Razib's basic thesis, that ferociously intelligent people can often be quite dumb when they wander off their intellectual reservation. Steven den Beste is, simply put, not a statistician.
(Of course, if you apply that thesis to me, it means that I'm out of my league either here or here. Preferably the former, otherwise the past six years will have been a remarkable waste of effort...)
[1] It is statistically meaningless to assume that polls with different question methodologies, likely voter models, weighting (or not) of party ID, and sampling distribution between Republicans and Democrats, can be "averaged" together the way that Steven's source material tries to do. Plus, there is a severe misunderstanding of what "margin of error" means - it's not as simple as "if the lead is within the MoE then there is no lead". It's actually a measure of probability. The abuse of statistics aside, these are mostly national polls being analyzed, which can only measure the popular vote, which does not determine the winner by any means. Finally, the polls do not take into account the enormous surge in new-voter registrations across the country, which usually portends poorly for an incumbent,m especially one with approval ratings below the 50% mark, from which no incumbent has ever prevailed. The engineering analogies that Steven invokes are strained, to put it charitably. This isn't engineering, it's social engineering, which is as far removed from the mathematical kind of Steven's expertise as genetics is from Intellgient Design.
[2] In general, conspiracy theories are the sign of a weak argument, especially when the data can be explained easily by long-known phenomena. Polling is neither an exact nor a new science. The kind of manipulation that Steven imputes to his results (themselves false, see point 1 above) would require that polling be much more.. engineering-like.. than it can ever be. I am no engineer myself, but even I know it's not a stochastic process. Perhaps another fallacy of Steven's is the old saw, "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
(Of course, if you apply that thesis to me, it means that I'm out of my league either here or here. Preferably the former, otherwise the past six years will have been a remarkable waste of effort...)
[1] It is statistically meaningless to assume that polls with different question methodologies, likely voter models, weighting (or not) of party ID, and sampling distribution between Republicans and Democrats, can be "averaged" together the way that Steven's source material tries to do. Plus, there is a severe misunderstanding of what "margin of error" means - it's not as simple as "if the lead is within the MoE then there is no lead". It's actually a measure of probability. The abuse of statistics aside, these are mostly national polls being analyzed, which can only measure the popular vote, which does not determine the winner by any means. Finally, the polls do not take into account the enormous surge in new-voter registrations across the country, which usually portends poorly for an incumbent,m especially one with approval ratings below the 50% mark, from which no incumbent has ever prevailed. The engineering analogies that Steven invokes are strained, to put it charitably. This isn't engineering, it's social engineering, which is as far removed from the mathematical kind of Steven's expertise as genetics is from Intellgient Design.
[2] In general, conspiracy theories are the sign of a weak argument, especially when the data can be explained easily by long-known phenomena. Polling is neither an exact nor a new science. The kind of manipulation that Steven imputes to his results (themselves false, see point 1 above) would require that polling be much more.. engineering-like.. than it can ever be. I am no engineer myself, but even I know it's not a stochastic process. Perhaps another fallacy of Steven's is the old saw, "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
10/21/2004
Outsourcing Osama
Andrew Sullivan falls into the Mickey Kaus anti-Kerry Spin Zone, posting a quote from a CNN transcript of Kerry seemingly endorsing the outsourcing of caoturing Osama bin Laden to the warlords in Afghanistan (for which he chastized Bush in the debates).
Except, the quote in question has absolutely nothing to do with outsourcing Osama's capture to warlords, it has to do with a caller's question about using flamethrowers in the mountain caves. Full context from the transcript follows:
The question being posed to Kerry here is clearly about using flamethrowers, and Kerry's answer is largely about the risk to our own troops being in proximity to such non-precise weapons. The issue of ourtsourcing the capture of bin Laden never arises. It's sadly typical of Kaus to try to smear Kerry this way, but Andrew should have actually read the full transcript before blindly accepting Kaus' spin.
By the way, its worth reading a bit further, as Larry King asks Kerry about the war on Terror. The exchange:
There's no doubt in my mind that Kerry does understand the careful balance between military power and other sources - and would use the selectively as needed for maximum effect rather than a one-size fits all strategy like Bush.
Except, the quote in question has absolutely nothing to do with outsourcing Osama's capture to warlords, it has to do with a caller's question about using flamethrowers in the mountain caves. Full context from the transcript follows:
CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?
KING: Senator Kerry?
CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.
KING: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.
KING: Congressman Cunningham, what do you think of that question?
CUNNINGHAM: I think Senator Kerry is right on the mark. To use a flamethrower, you've got to get right into the area close in. And plus, it doesn't penetrate that deep in those tunnels. You've got to go in there after him. So I think you have to neutralize that threat. And then you can get him out in a lot of different, various ways including what the gentleman spoke about.
The question being posed to Kerry here is clearly about using flamethrowers, and Kerry's answer is largely about the risk to our own troops being in proximity to such non-precise weapons. The issue of ourtsourcing the capture of bin Laden never arises. It's sadly typical of Kaus to try to smear Kerry this way, but Andrew should have actually read the full transcript before blindly accepting Kaus' spin.
By the way, its worth reading a bit further, as Larry King asks Kerry about the war on Terror. The exchange:
KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places...
KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we...
KING: We should go to Iraq? KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.
But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kerry does understand the careful balance between military power and other sources - and would use the selectively as needed for maximum effect rather than a one-size fits all strategy like Bush.
10/15/2004
Ramadan begins on Ramadan 1st
For the benefit of non-muslims who have emailed me asking why I announced Ramadan had begun yesterday, whereas other muslims are beginning their fasting today instead, here's a succinct piece in the BBC.
Islamic events are governed by the Hijri calendar, which is lunar-based. This calendar is equally accurate as the Gregorian calendar and the days of the week for a given date can be predicted just as accurately for any year in the future or past.
The moon-sighting practice is defended by invoking a specific hadith, but in my opinion the interpretation of that hadith is too literal (my opinion is of course in accord with and completely determined by the theological teaching of our religious authority).
So, muslims like myself believe that Ramadan begins on the known date of Ramadan 1st, and that fasting begins on Ramadan 1st. We do not believe that the date of Ramadan 1st is flexible, or that fasting should not commence until the moon itself has been sighted. The basic philosophical difference hinges on whether the position of the moon determines Time, or whether time determines the position of the moon. On that score, I rely not on hadith but on the Qur'an:
The moon is servant, not master - and the appointed time governs what I do.
Ramadan mubarak!
Islamic events are governed by the Hijri calendar, which is lunar-based. This calendar is equally accurate as the Gregorian calendar and the days of the week for a given date can be predicted just as accurately for any year in the future or past.
The moon-sighting practice is defended by invoking a specific hadith, but in my opinion the interpretation of that hadith is too literal (my opinion is of course in accord with and completely determined by the theological teaching of our religious authority).
So, muslims like myself believe that Ramadan begins on the known date of Ramadan 1st, and that fasting begins on Ramadan 1st. We do not believe that the date of Ramadan 1st is flexible, or that fasting should not commence until the moon itself has been sighted. The basic philosophical difference hinges on whether the position of the moon determines Time, or whether time determines the position of the moon. On that score, I rely not on hadith but on the Qur'an:
[31.29] Do you not see that Allah makes the night to enter into the day, and He makes the day to enter into the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each pursues its course till an appointed time; and that Allah is Aware of what you do?
[13.2] Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you see, and He is firm in power and He made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each one pursues its course to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, making clear the signs that you may be certain of meeting your Lord.
The moon is servant, not master - and the appointed time governs what I do.
Ramadan mubarak!
10/14/2004
The muslim vote
The election and religion are two completely separate things. This should be obvious, but it often is not. There's a dangerous attitude among Islamic fanatics to equate their political aims with religious duty - there's an addictive quality to such a rationale that infects even well-meaning moderates.
I've posted a diary at Kos on the topic which reflects and summarizes my own thoughts on the argument that muslims must strive to always act according to some premise about the "good of the ummah." Such an attitude leads to pointless, and distracting, angst. Here's what I wrote at Kos:
I've written on these topics before in these posts:
I also should mention that Laura (al-Muhajabah) has compiled a list of judgements (PDF) from many respected Islamic scholars that attempt to debunk the strange notion in some muslim circles that voting is not halal. Laura has been criticized by some for taking the argument seriously, but that's unfair. To those muslims who genuinely have been led to believe that voting is somehow at odds with teh concept of Islam, we must first reach out to them within the framework of their belief before we can change it. But change it we must. Islam is not only compatible with democracy, it mandates it.
Where I part ways with Laura is on the neccessity for a "muslim bloc" - at least until such a bloc can be guaranteed to interpret the self-interest of American muslims in a strictly American context, rather than the "ummah" false dichotomy mentioned earlier.
BTW, calling a muslim who donates to the Bush campaign an "Uncle Tom", is reprehensible. Such pronouncements are as closed-minded and ruthlessly political an appropriation of religion as the Taliban. Kudos to MWU for addressing the issue.
The challenge to American muslims to is to articulate self-interest from an American perspective - which means we should be willing to find ourselves at odds on occassion with muslims elsewhere. Especially on divisive topics such as Israel-Palestine, we must not allow our positions to be influenced by those of muslims outside the United States, who do not have our interest in mind, be assured. Just as Tariq Ramadan has begun forging a European muslim integrated identity in his books, so too must we do the same.
I've posted a diary at Kos on the topic which reflects and summarizes my own thoughts on the argument that muslims must strive to always act according to some premise about the "good of the ummah." Such an attitude leads to pointless, and distracting, angst. Here's what I wrote at Kos:
we as muslims should not try to confuse religion with political motives. There is a concerted effort underway by some in the muslim community to try and paint the outcome of the election as crucial to the "good of the ummah". I feel that this is a false understanding of our civid responsibilities, and an artificial construct.
False because our duty in the election is to vote for America's future, not the ummah. Artificial because the Ummah is not an entity whose welfare can be affected by something so.. dunya.. as an election (important though it is on the civic sphere). The ummah is not a political party, it is the collective quality of the muslims' actions - and as such, if there is any action we must take, it is to make sure that this Ramadan, we perform our duties with piety, humility, and honor. Give Allah his due - not Caesar.
I've written on these topics before in these posts:
I also should mention that Laura (al-Muhajabah) has compiled a list of judgements (PDF) from many respected Islamic scholars that attempt to debunk the strange notion in some muslim circles that voting is not halal. Laura has been criticized by some for taking the argument seriously, but that's unfair. To those muslims who genuinely have been led to believe that voting is somehow at odds with teh concept of Islam, we must first reach out to them within the framework of their belief before we can change it. But change it we must. Islam is not only compatible with democracy, it mandates it.
Where I part ways with Laura is on the neccessity for a "muslim bloc" - at least until such a bloc can be guaranteed to interpret the self-interest of American muslims in a strictly American context, rather than the "ummah" false dichotomy mentioned earlier.
BTW, calling a muslim who donates to the Bush campaign an "Uncle Tom", is reprehensible. Such pronouncements are as closed-minded and ruthlessly political an appropriation of religion as the Taliban. Kudos to MWU for addressing the issue.
The challenge to American muslims to is to articulate self-interest from an American perspective - which means we should be willing to find ourselves at odds on occassion with muslims elsewhere. Especially on divisive topics such as Israel-Palestine, we must not allow our positions to be influenced by those of muslims outside the United States, who do not have our interest in mind, be assured. Just as Tariq Ramadan has begun forging a European muslim integrated identity in his books, so too must we do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)