My latest article, What the #hashtag?, on hashtag diplomacy and Boko Haram, is up at Da TechGuy Blog.
Please read it, and hit Da Tip Jar!
UPDATE:
Ace:
Hashtag Activism
For moral preening without all the exertion and bother of moral action.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s courage
Big Hollywood reports on her lecture and book signing in Santa Monica,
In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?
Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.
Go read the full article.
You can listen to her BBC Today radio interview here. She basically hands the interviewer his lunch in less than five minutes.
20889
Comedy Central folds under threats
‘South Park’ Episode Is Altered After Muslim Group’s Warning
An episode of “South Park” that continued a story line involving the Prophet Muhammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central with audio bleeps and image blocks reading “CENSORED” after a Muslim group warned the show’s creators that they could face violence for depicting that holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim, a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker “will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” for an episode shown last week in which a character said to be the Prophet Muhammad was seen wearing a bear costume. Mr. Van Gogh was slain in Amsterdam in 2004 after making a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.
Comedy Central censored South Park from even saying “Muhammed”:
Tim Blair posted Anderson Cooper’s report, including an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to Come to the Aid of ‘South Park’.
Those who have no backbone will do the bidding of those who do.
Indeed.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on reason vs. fanaticism, and the individual
In this week’s New York Times Book Review Ayan Hirsi Ali reviews Lee Harris’s The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.
In the book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains,
Harris is pessimistic in a way that the Enlightenment thinkers were not. He takes a Darwinian view of the struggle between clashing cultures, criticizing the West for an ethos of selfishness, and he follows Hegel in asserting that where the interest of the individual collides with that of the state, it is the state that should prevail. This is why he attributes such strength to Islamic fanaticism. The collectivity of the umma elevates the communal interest above that of the individual believer. Each Muslim is a slave, first of God, then of the caliphate. Although Harris does not condone this extreme subversion of the self, still a note of admiration seems to creep into his descriptions of Islam’s fierce solidarity, its adherence to tradition and the willingness of individual Muslims to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the greater good.
But this is what she has to say,
I was not born in the West. I was raised with the code of Islam, and from birth I was indoctrinated into a tribal mind-set. Yet I have changed, I have adopted the values of the Enlightenment, and as a result I have to live with the rejection of my native clan as well as the Islamic tribe. Why have I done so? Because in a tribal society, life is cruel and terrible. And I am not alone. Muslims have been migrating to the West in droves for decades now. They are in search of a better life. Yet their tribal and cultural constraints have traveled with them. And the multiculturalism and moral relativism that reign in the West have accommodated this.
Harris is correct, I believe, that many Western leaders are terribly confused about the Islamic world. They are woefully uninformed and often unwilling to confront the tribal nature of Islam. The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little. Harris also fails to address the enemies of reason within the West: religion and the Romantic movement. It is out of rejection of religion that the Enlightenment emerged; Romanticism was a revolt against reason.
Both the Romantic movement and organized religion have contributed a great deal to the arts and to the spirituality of the Western mind, but they share a hostility to modernity. Moral and cultural relativism (and their popular manifestation, multiculturalism) are the hallmarks of the Romantics. To argue that reason is the mother of the current mess the West is in is to miss the major impact this movement has had, first in the West and perhaps even more profoundly outside the West, particularly in Muslim lands.
Thus, it is not reason that accommodates and encourages the persistent segregation and tribalism of immigrant Muslim populations in the West. It is Romanticism. Multiculturalism and moral relativism promote an idealization of tribal life and have shown themselves to be impervious to empirical criticism. My reasons for reproaching today’s Western leaders are different from Harris’s. I see them squandering a great and vital opportunity to compete with the agents of radical Islam for the minds of Muslims, especially those within their borders. But to do so, they must allow reason to prevail over sentiment.
She concludes by saying “while this conflict is undeniably a deadly struggle between cultures, it is individuals who will determine the outcome.”
Another individual who has spoken on reason is Pope Benedict, who created quite a stir in 2006 when he said, “Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature”.
This statement reflects a tradition that has come down for thousands of years, reflecting how reason itself is at war with the forces of chaos. Indeed, the story of civilization is the struggle of reason against chaos.
As it turns out, as I was working on this post Neoneocon also posted,
I believe what Harris may really be saying is that, in our emphasis on reason and tolerance, we must not forget to include a robust defense of our own culture and our own values. It is a balancing act; we don’t want to segue back into intolerance ourselves. But there is no other way to fight the forces of intolerance than to believe in and defend ourselves.
It all starts with the individual.
The endless debates, Celebrity Hostage Draft, and today’s items
The WaPo and the NYT are discussing the finessing of the cut-and-run party.
Which means they’re discussing how they’ll cut-and-run.
Anyway, Steven Green did a better job at PJM on the debate than any of the newspapers.
This morning they were showing on TV a clip of Edwards’s referring to Hillary’s cover on Fortune Mag, saying something to the effect that he’ll never be the cover boy for big business:
Plweeze. As if he’s such a man of the people.
But that aside, had I been Hillary, after hearing that remark I’d have turned right around and told him that at least I won’t be the Esquire cover girl for the sexiest woman alive:
I don’t know about you all, but these so-called “debates” just grate. I don’t care if it’s the Democrats, the Republicans, or what. Besides, they’re round-robin press conferences, not debates.
More on the compassionate misanthrope, via Jeremayakovka
After Mia Farrow volunteered to take the place of a hostage, Doug Ross has First Annual Celebrity Hostage Draft! (h/t Larwyn).
Gustavo Coronel has A letter to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez: On the subject of his oil handouts to Fidel Castro
You argue that the volumes of oil being given to Fidel Castro are “small”, as compared to the amounts Venezuela has supplied to the U.S. for “one hundred years”, in occasions “a gift”. Let me tell you that Venezuela has never given away its oil as you do today. It always obtained money for its exports. The money coming from oil has often been wasted by governments, but never in greater amounts than today, under your regime. The only Venezuelan president that has given oil at great subsidies to U.S. citizens is you, through a program of “oil for the poor” that already costs us over $100 million and targets U.S. communities that have an average income ten times higher than the average income of millions of Venezuelans. You do it for political propaganda, at the expense of our real national needs.
Too bad I’m a global warming skeptic, or I’d be taking on the ultimate global warming challenge . I could use $100,000.
Via Deb,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Is Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy?
More blogging later.
Pork in today’s items
List that pork, Dana. As Betsy said,
Not only does this bill send the message to our enemies in Iraq that all they have to do is wait us out until the congressional deadline and then they can move in to wreak their terror on Iraq. But concerns about what would happen in Iraq or the rest of the Middle East after this pullout was secondary to posturing before the public and squeezing out more taxpayer money for their pet projects.
Today California will become the first state to decide whether or not it will continue to do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Calories, not Chemicals, Make us Fat. Michael knows: he wrote a book about it:
Michael also has a post about the best Combat Video of 2006.
Cliff May writes about A Dangerous Woman: Why Islamists want to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali
In a lighter mode,
You know what I’ll be reading when it comes out:
UK Final “Harry Potter” book cover revealed. The American cover looks different,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in today’s WSJ
Don’t miss the WSJ’s interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Free Radical
Ayaan Hirsi Ali infuriates Muslims and discomfits liberals.
Many liberals loathe her for disrupting an imagined “diversity” consensus: It is absurd, she argues, to pretend that cultures are all equal, or all equally desirable. But conservatives, and others, might be reasonably unnerved by her dim view of religion. She does not believe that Islam has been “hijacked” by fanatics, but that fanaticism is intrinsic in Islam itself: “Islam, even Islam in its nonviolent form, is dangerous.”
The Muslim faith has many variations, but Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the unities are of greater significance. “Islam has a very consistent doctrine,” she says, “and I define Islam as I was taught to define it: submission to the will of Allah. His will is written in the Quran, and in the hadith and Sunna. What we are all taught is that when you want to make a distinction between right and wrong, you follow the prophet. Muhammad is the model guide for every Muslim through time, throughout history.”
This supposition justifies, in her view, a withering critique of Islam’s most holy human messenger. “You start by scrutinizing the morality of the prophet,” and then ask: “Are you prepared to follow the morality of the prophet in a society such as this one?” She draws a connection between Mohammed’s taking of child brides in the first century A.D. and modern sexual oppressions–what she calls “this imprisonment of women.” She decries the murder of adulteresses and rape victims, the wearing of the veil, arranged marriages, domestic violence, genital mutilation and other contraventions of “the most basic freedoms.”
About the culture war:
The most grievous failing of the West is self-congratulatory passivity: We face “an external enemy that to a degree has become an internal enemy, that has infiltrated the system and wants to destroy it.” She believes a more drastic reaction is required: “It’s easy,” she says, “to weigh liberties against the damage that can be done to society and decide to deny liberties. As it should be. A free society should be prepared to recognize the patterns in front of it, and do something about them.”
Go and read every word.
Cross-posted at MSN
The French, global warming, and today’s items
Nidra Poller continues to explain the French elections: Francois Bayrou, French Insiders’ Outsider. It’s more of the same-old, same-old:
Bayrou’s socialeconomic program, in which every economic measure is linked to a corresponding “social” or welfare measure, is based on the assumption that an unfettered, flourishing economy does not automatically favor the general welfare. Bayrou’s recipe for stimulating the sluggish French economy is a plodding reform package involving a balanced budget and small increment improvements – a 5% yearly increase in the research budget over a ten-year period, a referendum to reform the pension system, improved synergy between academic and professional spheres, slight advantages to employees willing to work 39 instead of 35 hours. He would make deficit spending unconstitutional, tax fossil fuel to encourage alternate energy sources, and somehow prod banks to invest in business.
Bayrou proposes a Small Business Act similar to the one established in the U.S. in the Fifties. This would favor small business in bidding for modest government contracts, and reduce the employer’s contribution to the employee’s social protection package; a contribution that doubles the real cost of French salaries.
In the interim, Bayrou would institute a quick fix for job creation: every company would be allowed an exoneration of the employer’s social security contribution for two newly hired employees. Similar selective exonerations have been applied in the past without ever demonstrating their effectiveness. Bayrou believes that the only thing missing is the spark! Something that would awaken and liberate energies, create a momentum, run on its own steam. But that wouldn’t be socialeconomy! It would be crude, crass American money-worshiping capitalism.
It hasn’t worked yet, but they dream on…
Update Helen asks, Is this the third man?
Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame
Inconvenient Truth: Bush greener than Gore
So, while you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore…except when he cancels interviews that might make him address…inconvenient dissent.
Martin Luther protested against the selling of indulgences and got excommunicated. Nowadays you protest against the purchasing of carbon offsets and you get excommunicated, too.
Some things never change.
Update I {heart} Gerard
“The big lie is that all religions are basically alike”
Click on the image to read the story:
In a lighter mode, Maria’s addicted to watching the San Diego Zoo pandas.