Paul Cella throws a gauntlet; I pick it up.
Steven den Beste also throws one, but the FARK collective handles it better than I could.
And add Dennis Prager to the jafi pile, for the record.
11/15/2005
11/12/2005
Moustapha Akkad killed by hirabists
InnaLillahi Wa inna Ilahi Raji'un
Famed director Moustapaha Akkad, and his daughter, were among the victims of the vicious bombings by Al Qaeda in Jordan.
Akkad may be most well known to American audiences for his work on the Halloween series, but the muslim community will always revere his masterpiece The Message, starring Anthony Quinn. Here is what I wrote about The Message two years ago:
The damage done to the muslim world by hirabists such as Al Qaeda is incalculable. They invoke with empty words the welfare of muslims as justification for their evil, yet muslims are always their most numerous victims. And the damage extends far beyond tragic loss of life, to culture and heritage as well. For their crimes against muslims and greater humanity alone, not taking into account how they defame the holy faith of Islam itself, they are a blight upon the earth and they deserve death and speedy return to the fires of hell from whence they came.
Famed director Moustapaha Akkad, and his daughter, were among the victims of the vicious bombings by Al Qaeda in Jordan.
Akkad may be most well known to American audiences for his work on the Halloween series, but the muslim community will always revere his masterpiece The Message, starring Anthony Quinn. Here is what I wrote about The Message two years ago:
The definitive project in film to narrate the early history of Islam was the powerful movie, The Message (1976). The director, Moustapha Akkad, actually shot each scene twice, with different sets of actors for the English version and the Arabic version, because he felt that subtitles would mar the film. Anthony Quinn played Hamza in the English version. Akkad also introduced the cinematic equivalent of the Islamic tradition of not representing the Prophet SAW visually, by framing scenes involving Muhammad SAW from his point of view. Thus, when other characters address the Prophet SAW, they are actually addressing the viewer of the movie. Some scenes had the Prophet SAW off-screen, and Akkad used a haunting musical theme to indicate Muhammad's presence. Muhammad's SAW spoken words are never heard by the audience but are heard by the other characters. The net effect is to convincingly establish the presence of the Prophet SAW but yet never actually violate the tradition against representation. It's partly a brilliant statement about perception and cue within movies in general as well as a merely functional device to circumvent offense. I consider Akkad's use of this device to be the opposite of Jar Jar Binks - rather than visualize an artificial person, the character has enormous impact upon the film and the mportance of the character is underscored, by their absence (visually speaking. But in cues from other actors and the music, the character exists. With even more realism than the jarring artifice of a CGI construct).
The damage done to the muslim world by hirabists such as Al Qaeda is incalculable. They invoke with empty words the welfare of muslims as justification for their evil, yet muslims are always their most numerous victims. And the damage extends far beyond tragic loss of life, to culture and heritage as well. For their crimes against muslims and greater humanity alone, not taking into account how they defame the holy faith of Islam itself, they are a blight upon the earth and they deserve death and speedy return to the fires of hell from whence they came.
11/07/2005
Texas Amendment Proposition 2 - Marriage Ammendment
Which way should we vote? For me the answer is very simply, "YES". Let me explain. I feel marriage is a social contract and concept. Its a matter of society deciding what is acceptable for our society. Having said that, yes I am also a stern believer in providing equal economic opportunity for any other unions. Remember, our country has always promised equal economic opportunity not social equality. We would not want social equality. Social equality strips identity and culture.
The only argument I have seen that makes sense against this proposition is the one that suggest that by "banning" marriages for all other unions, you effectively remove economic opportunity and benefits that are afforded to married couples.
But proposition 2 when read in its entirety, clearly talks about defining the word marriage as defined between man and woman. It does not take away rights from any other unions. It simply says marriage does not include other unions. So you may say, "what about same sex unions? What about their right?" That is where opportunity exists to create new laws to afford economic equality.
We need laws to define other unions and therefore providing benefits of inheritance, common property, etc to unions between same sex couples. Instead of fighting for the same word, "marriage", why not fight for the economic benefits for the same sex couples and call it something else - because it is different after all.
The only argument I have seen that makes sense against this proposition is the one that suggest that by "banning" marriages for all other unions, you effectively remove economic opportunity and benefits that are afforded to married couples.
But proposition 2 when read in its entirety, clearly talks about defining the word marriage as defined between man and woman. It does not take away rights from any other unions. It simply says marriage does not include other unions. So you may say, "what about same sex unions? What about their right?" That is where opportunity exists to create new laws to afford economic equality.
We need laws to define other unions and therefore providing benefits of inheritance, common property, etc to unions between same sex couples. Instead of fighting for the same word, "marriage", why not fight for the economic benefits for the same sex couples and call it something else - because it is different after all.
Paris
There is much heat generated from the fires in Paris. And not just that from burning cars, mind you. Any student of history can look at the Parisian civil unrest and see reflections of a thousand incidents of urban rioting by an alienated immigrant or minority underclass. However, for the polemically inclined, the fires are themselves kindling for an entrenchment of the attitudes that led to such profound alienation in the first place.
However, I think that there is indeed authentic analysis of the Parisian rioting to be found elsewhere. This Washington Post article is a good start:
There is plenty of first-hand anecdotal evidence that lends some nuance to the situation on the ground. For example, Jérôme at the European Tribune provides some perspective, pointing out that this is not some apocalyptic "End of France" scenario, but rather a symptom of an underlying sickness and mistakes by the French government (for example: both police budgets and social activity programs have been cut heavily). Also, see Tim at Balloon Juice, whose wife is French and just returned from Paris. He makes the key point that these rioters rage not because they are muslim, but because they are french.
See Also Greg at Belgravia Dispatch, who offers his own lengthy and reasoned analysis of the political ramifications and likely outcomes. Greg is no apologist for muslim terror, but in his assessment there is a failure of society, not faith, at work here. I fully agree with his prescription that every rioter - no matter how young - must be prosecuted under maximum extent of the law. But "fixing" what is wrong with France is not as easy as banning more headscarves. It will require hard decisions about the economy and a repudiation of the stifling business environment which strangle opportunity and deny economic entry and participation to the under class. As Greg puts it,
Dave Schuler also has similar comments with a very helpful rundown of what we do know and what we don't know. There is a thoughtful discussion at Tacitus that is also worth reading.
But what of those who insist that Islam must be relevant in some way? Well, as far as cause, they are simply wrong. But their dogmatic insistence obscures the very real threat that these riots provide as an opportunity for Islamists to capitalize upon. Francis Fukuyama sounds the alarm for European home-grown Islamism in a much more restrained and productive fashion that the "Eurabia" rantings of Bat Ye'or. The antidote is more freedom, not less; more opportunity, not less. As Theodore Dalyrymple wrote in his now classic essay about the French immigrant ghettoes:
Prescient, but hardly eerily so, of Rezzoug's "kids" quoted above, eh? France has every right to require its citizens to be French. But every Frenchman - regardless of origin or creed - must be given a genuine share of Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité.
However, I think that there is indeed authentic analysis of the Parisian rioting to be found elsewhere. This Washington Post article is a good start:
While French politicians say the violence now circling and even entering the capital of France and spreading to towns across the country is the work of organized criminal gangs, the residents of Le Blanc-Mesnil know better. Many of the rioters grew up playing soccer on Rezzoug's field. They are the children of baggage handlers at nearby Charles de Gaulle International Airport and cleaners at the local schools.
"It's not a political revolution or a Muslim revolution," said Rezzoug. "There's a lot of rage. Through this burning, they're saying, 'I exist, I'm here.' "
Such a dramatic demand for recognition underscores the chasm between the fastest growing segment of France's population and the staid political hierarchy that has been inept at responding to societal shifts. The youths rampaging through France's poorest neighborhoods are the French-born children of African and Arab immigrants, the most neglected of the country's citizens. A large percentage are members of the Muslim community that accounts for about 10 percent of France's 60 million people.
One of Rezzoug's "kids" -- the countless youths who use the sports facilities he oversees -- is a husky, French-born 18-year-old whose parents moved here from Ivory Coast. At 3 p.m. on Saturday, he'd just awakened and ventured back onto the streets after a night of setting cars ablaze.
"We want to change the government," he said, a black baseball cap pulled low over large, chocolate-brown eyes and an ebony face. "There's no way of getting their attention. The only way to communicate is by burning."
There is plenty of first-hand anecdotal evidence that lends some nuance to the situation on the ground. For example, Jérôme at the European Tribune provides some perspective, pointing out that this is not some apocalyptic "End of France" scenario, but rather a symptom of an underlying sickness and mistakes by the French government (for example: both police budgets and social activity programs have been cut heavily). Also, see Tim at Balloon Juice, whose wife is French and just returned from Paris. He makes the key point that these rioters rage not because they are muslim, but because they are french.
See Also Greg at Belgravia Dispatch, who offers his own lengthy and reasoned analysis of the political ramifications and likely outcomes. Greg is no apologist for muslim terror, but in his assessment there is a failure of society, not faith, at work here. I fully agree with his prescription that every rioter - no matter how young - must be prosecuted under maximum extent of the law. But "fixing" what is wrong with France is not as easy as banning more headscarves. It will require hard decisions about the economy and a repudiation of the stifling business environment which strangle opportunity and deny economic entry and participation to the under class. As Greg puts it,
It's time to shine a strong light right there at home, put aside the defensive, diversionary pseudo-narratives and deceptions, and get to the hard work of putting the nation on a better course (particularly the dismal employment picture). If not, openings to more radical avenues will likely result--whether of a rightist or leftist variety (more likely the former, I'd say).
Dave Schuler also has similar comments with a very helpful rundown of what we do know and what we don't know. There is a thoughtful discussion at Tacitus that is also worth reading.
But what of those who insist that Islam must be relevant in some way? Well, as far as cause, they are simply wrong. But their dogmatic insistence obscures the very real threat that these riots provide as an opportunity for Islamists to capitalize upon. Francis Fukuyama sounds the alarm for European home-grown Islamism in a much more restrained and productive fashion that the "Eurabia" rantings of Bat Ye'or. The antidote is more freedom, not less; more opportunity, not less. As Theodore Dalyrymple wrote in his now classic essay about the French immigrant ghettoes:
...among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation...? Would you not seek a "worthwhile" direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc.
Prescient, but hardly eerily so, of Rezzoug's "kids" quoted above, eh? France has every right to require its citizens to be French. But every Frenchman - regardless of origin or creed - must be given a genuine share of Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité.
10/23/2005
Blogger geneaology
This is a great idea: a family tree of the Blogsphere. I launched UNMEDIA (which became City of Brass) in March 2002, and I credit Steven den Beste of USS Clueless as the direct blogfather. When Steven stopped blogging (for personal reasons), I wrote a brief tribute that really captured what it was about his blog that inspired me. I suppose (the Reichenbach analogy aside) that it is unlikely Steven will return to active blogging at USS Clueless, though you can find him still participating in the blogsphere if you know where to look :)
10/17/2005
whither the Clash? religion and freedom are uncorrelated
There have been some conservative essayists whose thesis includes the assertion that Islam is a threat to Western values of freedom. This, despite the fact that tens of millions of muslims live in the West, are good members of society, bear their civic duties without complaint and fully participate in the fabric of community. Yet, the skeptics remain quite cold in their assessments, advocating that their fellow patriots like myself - muslim Americans, note noun and adjective - are simply unrepresentative, and that our families shoudl have been barred from ever having immigrated here on sole basis of their professed faith.
To those critics, I offer the following.
Dean Esmay recently looked at data from Freedom House and posed a simple question: are liberal democratic (i.e. free) and electoral democratic (i.e. partly free) nations particularly troubled by the presence of Islam within their borders? And, do countries become less free when Islam has a major foothold?
His findings - untainted by sentiment or blinders, as those of who who are familiar with his writing can attest - are here.
Further, a reader of Dean's World took the data and performed a more rigorous statistical analysis upon it. He has published the excel file containing the raw data and the analysis methodology for all to review.
I invite the critics referred to above to inspect these results. In this, the holy month of Ramadan, and the Abrahamic convergence between three faiths, my aim is only to foster goodwill, not ill will. I accuse no one of racism, nor of evil intent, and I recognize the underlying patriotic impulse beneath the words with which I have taken offense and which I seek to answer here. Nothing more.
To those critics, I offer the following.
Dean Esmay recently looked at data from Freedom House and posed a simple question: are liberal democratic (i.e. free) and electoral democratic (i.e. partly free) nations particularly troubled by the presence of Islam within their borders? And, do countries become less free when Islam has a major foothold?
His findings - untainted by sentiment or blinders, as those of who who are familiar with his writing can attest - are here.
Further, a reader of Dean's World took the data and performed a more rigorous statistical analysis upon it. He has published the excel file containing the raw data and the analysis methodology for all to review.
I invite the critics referred to above to inspect these results. In this, the holy month of Ramadan, and the Abrahamic convergence between three faiths, my aim is only to foster goodwill, not ill will. I accuse no one of racism, nor of evil intent, and I recognize the underlying patriotic impulse beneath the words with which I have taken offense and which I seek to answer here. Nothing more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)