Skip to content

Posts authored by Gretchen

Update

Update published on No Comments on Update

The rioting continues in Afghanistan. The estimated toll is now 20 dead and more than 80 injured.

Two suicide attackers disguised as women blew themselves up and a third was gunned down Saturday when they used force to try to enter a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, NATO and Afghan police said. Earlier in the week, six U.S. soldiers died during an operation against insurgents in eastern Afghanistan near Pakistan, where the Taliban retain safe havens. President Hamid Karzai expressed regret for the 20 protest deaths, but he also further stoked possible anti-foreign sentiment by again demanding that the United States and United Nations bring to justice the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, where the Quran was burned March 20. Many Afghans did not know about the Quran-burning until Karzai condemned it four days after it happened. The pastor, the Rev. Terry Jones, had threatened to destroy a copy of Islam’s holy book last year but initially backed down. On Friday he said Islam and its followers were responsible for the killings. U.S. President Barack Obama extended his condolences to the families of those killed by the protesters and said desecration of the Quran “is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry.” But he said that does not justify attacking and killing innocent people, calling it “outrageous and an affront to human decency and dignity.”

While I would guess that Terry Jones and his congregation are almost certainly intolerant bigots, that doesn’t mean that any desecration of a Qur’an is inherently a bigoted act. Intentions are what make bigotry. I also wonder if Karzai has contemplated for even a second whether all of this destruction would have taken place if he had not publicly condemned a stupid ritual conducted by a few dozen people in a Florida church.

ETA:  Being fiercely opposed to the initial invasion as well as our current occupation of Afghanistan, I’m certainly not overlooking the possibility that this rioting is simply a sign of the camel’s back having been broken and general anti-American sentiment having come to a head. That very well might be the case. Nevertheless, it’s still horrifying that the Qur’an burning has been taken as endorsed by the entirety of the U.S. and that it legitimizes this kind of reaction. Terry Jones’s congregation is not occupying Afghanistan.

And considering the fallout from the Danish cartoons in 2007, I can’t imagine that hatred of America due to the occupation is the only reason for the rioting. The Danes have troops in Afghanistan, too– about 700 of them. That wasn’t why Muslims throughout the Middle East were burning embassies.

Afghans attack U.N. building, murder workers and each other after Qur’an burning

Afghans attack U.N. building, murder workers and each other after Qur’an burning published on 6 Comments on Afghans attack U.N. building, murder workers and each other after Qur’an burning
Rioters condemning America in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan

Remember Terry Jones? Not the guy from Monty Python, but the Florida pastor who threatened to burn copies of the Qur’an last August in response to the building of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center used to stand? And the president actually got on television to ask him not to do it? And Jones responded that he wouldn’t, not ever?

He finally got around to burning a Qur’an about a week ago. Well, another pastor actually did it but Jones “supervised,” during a mock trial of the text in which it was apparently found guilty. And nobody much cared…until some angry mullahs in Afghanistan encouraged a crowd of 20,000 Muslims to “avenge” the burning. Which they did yesterday, by attacking a United Nations compound in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, killing at least twelve people, none of whom were American. Seven of them were United Nations workers from European countries, and five were Afghani. The crowd had attacked the United Nations building because they had been unable to find any Americans on which to vent their anger.

Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor, caused an international uproar by threatening to burn the Koran last year on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Among others, the overall commander of forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, had warned at that time that such an action could provoke violence in Afghanistan and could endanger American troops. Mr. Jones subsequently promised not to burn a Koran, but he nonetheless presided over a mock trial and then the burning of the Koran at his small church in Gainesville, Fla., on March 20, with only 30 worshipers attending.The act drew little response worldwide, but provoked angry condemnation in this region, where it was reported in the local media and where anti-American sentiment already runs high. Last week, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan condemned the burning in an address before Parliament, and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Thursday called on the United States to bring those responsible for the Koran burning to justice. A prominent Afghan cleric, Mullah Qyamudin Kashaf, the acting head of the influential Ulema Council of Afghanistan and a Karzai appointee, also called for American authorities to arrest and try Mr. Jones in the Koran burning. The Ulema Council recently met to discuss the Koran burning, Mullah Kashaf said in a telephone interview. “We expressed our deep concerns about this act, and we were expecting the violence that we are witnessing now,” he said. “Unless they try him and give him the highest possible punishment, we will witness violence and protests not only in Afghanistan but in the entire world.”Mr. Jones was unrepentant. “We must hold these countries and people accountable for what they have done as well as for any excuses they may use to promote their terrorist activities,” he said in a statement. “Islam is not a religion of peace. It is time that we call these people to accountability.”

Do I need to list off all of the absurd elements in this situation? Maybe I do:

  1. Both sides were blaming enormous groups for the actions of individuals. In Jones’ case it was the entirety of Islam for the acts of some terrorists; in the mob’s case it was the entirety of America for the acts of a small congregation of loony Americans. And in the mob’s case they not only decided to punish the group as a whole, but couldn’t even be bothered to make sure that the people they attacked were even members of it or that the property they destroyed was owned by members of it.
  2. Had the three mullahs in Mazari-i-Sharif not encouraged people to take to the streets and commit murder, they almost certainly would not have done so. Just as with the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, none of this destruction would have happened had it not been for mullahs stirring up the anger of Muslims.
  3. And yet, Mullah Kashaf holds Jones responsible. He, along with President Karzai, want the United States to bring Jones to justice for doing something that is perfectly legal here. Jones burnt a book in another country; the mullahs actively incited violence in the angry mob standing before them. Obviously, Jones is the guilty party.
Let’s be clear on one thing– in no sense do I have to condone Jones’ ideology, his hatred of Muslims, or his decision to burn a copy of their sacred text in order to hold the Afghani mullahs and rioters 100% responsible for what they did. They reacted violently in response to desecration of a symbol, a reaction to which Americans are not immune (as can be seen in the effort every couple of years to ban burning of the flag) but which for the most part we have rightly condemned as a fundamentally unacceptable response. Burning a sacred text is not shouting “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater; it is not incitement to violence; it is not a violation of anyone’s property rights provided the copy you burn is your own. It is Constitutionally protected free speech in America, something that Afghanistan might want to try. There just might be fewer violent outbursts if their own government decided that the destruction of sacred symbols is not desirable but also doesn’t justify attacking anyone or anything.
Afghanistan, I’m sorry you are a country in which is considered okay to react to blasphemy in this way.  But that’s not Jones’s fault– it is, ironically, part of what he was complaining about. He went wrong by blaming Islam as a whole, but it is the fault of specific Muslims that this happened. Just as with the Danish cartoons, reacting by wishing death on an entire country and taking to the streets to kill people and burn down buildings kind of puts the lie to that “religion of peace” thing.
I’ve written before about the heckler’s veto— the attempt to convince someone not to do something by threatening that you will throw a fit about it. In the interests of preventing violence, otherwise decent people react to these threats by encouraging the speaker to not say whatever he or she was going to say. It’s a means of transferring blame for violent behavior away from the actual violent person, and nobody should condone it. I was happy to see that Obama’s comment on the U.N. attacks did not mention Terry Jones or his church at all:

In Washington, President Obama issued a statement strongly condemning the violence against United Nations workers. “Their work is essential to building a stronger Afghanistan for the benefit of all its citizens,” he said. “We stress the importance of calm and urge all parties to reject violence.” The statement made no reference to the Florida church or the Koran burning.

It would have been better, of course, for the president to flatly reject any and all suggestions that Jones should be punished by his government for anything, and to affirm that desecration of religious symbols should be legal everywhere and reacted to with displeased words at most. But I probably would’ve fainted dead away if he’d said that.

Please don’t molest the feminist bloggers

Please don’t molest the feminist bloggers published on 2 Comments on Please don’t molest the feminist bloggers
From the wonderful xkcd.com

Poor Jen McCreight. Seriously. If all she did was post about things that offend her, I could understand people thinking that she’s too sensitive and probably a miserable person generally– even though, of course, there are more than enough offensive things happening every second of every day that documenting them could be a full-time job for many people. But she seems to be a pretty upbeat, curious, enthusiastic person who blogs on a variety of topics, and when she does post about something that bothers her, people pop in and pronounce such comments a sign of everything that’s wrong with feminism. Or, if they’re even less charitable, women. On what planet does that make sense?

To return to a comparison I made before, nobody would disavow the cause of racial equality if someone involved in that effort accused someone unfairly of racism. They wouldn’t throw up their hands and say “Can’t anyone make a joke anymore? I just don’t understand these anti-racists!” Yet for some reason it’s perfectly okay to say such things if the topic at hand is sexism instead. That’s not to say that Jen’s complaint is justified or unjustified (though my opinion on that will be clear if you read the comments on that post), but that its legitimacy is entirely beside the point. Even if she made the stupidest accusation ever (and I’m willing to grant that accusations of bias can be terribly stupid), that wouldn’t come close to legitimizing bashing the entire enterprise of feminism.

Being specific about why you disagree with the offense someone has taken says “I share your concerns. I just don’t think that this is a case in which something harmful has been said or done for a reason that I can articulate.” Taking the opportunity to say “I don’t understand you ______ people,” on the other hand, says “I don’t give a damn about your concerns, and I’m using this particular event of your offense as an excuse to dismiss them.” Big difference. If you honestly don’t care, what are you doing on the blog of a person who does care, aside from trolling? What actual contribution are you making?

Yes, yes, it’s important to have a thick skin. Everybody with a blog knows that, especially the ones which allow comments. But honestly, intellectual laziness can be exhausting. And it’s the height of intellectual laziness to seize on a single comment, let alone a single blog, single person, or single group, and use that as basis for dismissing an entire movement.

I’m tempted to get into a discussion about whether sex-based forms of bigotry are the most permissible these days, but a) that’s a huge topic and b) it’s really hard to approach objectivity on that sort of thing.  Regardless, it isn’t necessary to make the basic point that replying to complaints of prejudice, justified or otherwise, with prejudice makes a person a jerk.

Mashups worth mentioning

Mashups worth mentioning published on No Comments on Mashups worth mentioning

By the way, the song I posted on Sunday I got from the Best of Bootie mashups, a series of albums consisting of tracks combining songs or audio recordings from the past couple of decades. They’re all free to download, and there are some definite gems in there. For example, did you know that Avril Levigne goes well with Toni Basil, that the Jackson 5 gets along famously with Guns n’ Roses, or that LL Cool J and Dexy’s Midnight Runners are a match made in heaven?  I thought not. But don’t take my word for it…

“A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists”

“A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists” published on No Comments on “A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists”
Doesn’t care about the difference between a secular nation
and a Muslim theocracy, and you shouldn’t either.

That’s what Newt Gingrich is afraid his country will become by the time his grandchildren are adults, if people like him do not themselves dominate. The full quote:

“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

Ten years of right-wingers attempting to portray radical Muslims as the bosom buddies of liberals/secularists/atheists (take your pick; they sure treat them as identical), and it hasn’t gotten any more convincing for some reason. Sorry Newt, but I just can’t seem to swallow the idea that a people who are highly religious and morally opposed to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and freedom of expression (which includes the freedom to blaspheme) are more like me than you.

But of course speeches like this aren’t intended for people like me. They’re intended for people whose gorges don’t rise at the mere thought of electing someone like Newt president. Those are the only people who could listen to someone describe a secular atheist country dominated by radical Muslims with a straight face, unaware of or unconcerned about (not sure which is worse) the utterly nonsensical nature of that statement. The kind of people who would actually turn up by the thousands to hear Newt speak in a church in my fair state. I do not understand these people.

Tuesday links

Tuesday links published on No Comments on Tuesday links

Monday links

Monday links published on No Comments on Monday links
  • Dan Savage reports that pro-gay marriage advocates are protesting outside the home of a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding: “Not cool.”
  • Radley Balko points to a story of New Jersey police arresting five teenagers after a noise complaint…and then leaving them in the police van out in the freezing cold for fourteen hours without food, water, or access to a bathroom. I’m curious what will happen to the officers in question.
  • Hehmant Mehta at Friendly Atheist wants to know how many Christian pastors actually believe in Hell, and whether they mention it at the funerals of people they believe are going there.  
  • Dr. X’s Free Associations posts a Youtube video from an 8th grader about her experiences being bullied that probably matches, word for word, what a lot of us experienced at that age. The difference is that Youtube wasn’t around when we were 13, so we couldn’t post such videos and have it get attention from school officials. Here’s hoping that in her case, they use the information wisely.  

Video game death

Video game death published on 3 Comments on Video game death

Boingboing produced this video montage of deaths in the old school age of video games (Atari and NES/Sega mostly, for you young’uns). Along with the memories, the music is actually what makes it– it has a serene yet wistful feeling, bringing to mind the monologue at the end of American Beauty as though it had been spoken by a video game character:

Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much, my heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst… And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life… plus the three additional ones I earned in those dungeons on levels 5 and 7.

Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)?

Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)? published on No Comments on Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)?

The designated Badass Quote of the Day for today over on Dispatches is from Jason Easley at Politics USA:

Sarah Palin has become the political equivalent of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. America regrets the one night stand they had with Palin, but now she has broken into our house and is ready to boil our bunny. Sarah Palin is America’s ultimate political stalker. It all makes you wonder where Michael Douglas is when we need him most.

Which is indeed a great quote, although I’d distance myself by saying that she’s more like the stalker with whom my housemate had a one night stand– I had nothing to do with it, thanks very much, and would have evicted that housemate long ago for entirely different reasons if such a thing were possible.

But the following exchange in the comments caught my interest:

Sarah Palin does not boil bunnys.She shoots them with high powered rifles with sniper scopes.you forgot “from helicopters”. And that it takes her an average of 7 shots to hit them. 

We’re probably all familiar with the “hunting from helicopters” bit. But where does the “7 shots” thing come from?  Well, this— an opinion piece in USA Today describing Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC:

The caribou hunt episode provides a centerpiece of the series’ excesses, as well as Palin’s ineptitude. According to script, it’s Palin’s turn to replenish the family’s dwindling freezer with wild meat — from an Alaska point of view, all good. But the logistics of the trip defy common sense. Instead of hunting within reasonable distance of home, her party flies 600-plus miles to a remote camp in multiple chartered aircraft. This isn’t subsistence but the sort of experiential safari popular among high-end, non-resident sport hunters. For all that, Palin ends up with a skinny juvenile cow caribou. Boned out, we’re talking maybe 100 pounds of meat, at a staggering cost per pound. Faced with that hapless animal, this darling of Second Amendment supporters nervously asks her dad whether the small-caliber rifle kicks. Then, even more astoundingly, her father repeatedly works the bolt and loads for her as she misses shot after shot before scoring a kill on the seventh round — enough bullets for a decent hunter to take down at least five animals. (Given Palin’s infamous tweet “Don’t retreat, reload,” we can infer she plans to keep her dad close by.) Later, Palin blames the scope, but any marksman would recognize the flinching, the unsteady aim and poor shot selection — and the glaring ethical fault of both shooter and gun owner if the rifle wasn’t properly sighted. Instead of some frontier passion play, we’re rendered a dark comedy of errors.

Why should we give a damn about whether Sarah Palin can hunt, and whether she does so efficiently?  Is making fun of that just a cheap shot (pardon the pun)?  After all, how many of us could go out and easily kill something to feed our family for dinner?

Probably not many, but that’s really beside the point. The point is populism, or what should be a failure thereof.  It’s perfectly okay with me if Sarah Palin is a lousy hunter. What’s not okay is that hunting (presumably well, presumably for a purpose aside from show) is part of the persona she has adopted in order to appeal to a certain demographic, and it seems pretty clear that the persona is contrived. This led to a rather fascinating discussion amongst Ed’s readers, some of whom live in Michigan or other northern states in which hunting is a way of life, about what exactly being a good hunter means. Apparently it means being responsible and trying to minimize suffering. It means not taking a shot unless you are pretty sure it’s the only shot you’re going to need to take. It means you know your weapon intimately and can operate it safely and effectively by yourself. Pretty much common sense, right?  Even a non-hunter should be able to guess those rules, and expect that anyone who claims to be an active hunter would abide by them.

Not Ted Nugent:

To be fair, it’s possible that Nugent just didn’t know that Palin’s hunting abilities are a façade.  He probably just heard all of the rhetoric on the subject and thought “Hey, one of my kind!” I know that Nugent himself is perceived by many as a whackjob and that reputation is not undeserved, but:

  • A lot of people do like and listen to him, and
  • When he talks about hunting and sustainability, I can’t help but half-nod in agreement.
He’s wrong, of course, that hunting is sustainable. America simply could not feed itself on the same diet we’re accustomed to now if the meat we ate came from hunting alone. We could not eat meat to the same degree that actual hunters do now if we all had to get our meat only from hunting– there just aren’t enough wild animals out there. If we all turned into Ted Nugent tomorrow, we would almost certainly hunt the prominent game animals into extinction. There are just too many of us. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with being a hunter, but for that reason alone it’s misguided to suggest that we all should become hunters even if we were so inclined (which is a tremendous “if”).
What’s unfortunate is not just that Nugent doesn’t appear to realize that, but that he thinks that just because Palin is gung-ho about hunting (whether she can actually do it or not), she’s on board with his sustainability thing. That she gives a damn about preserving God’s earth, the balance between man and nature, and the general glamorized picture of hunting that Nugent appears to genuinely believe in.  Which means that Nugent, in addition to being a nutter, is a sucker. I feel kind of sorry for the guy– Sarah Palin really isn’t good enough for him, as much as he wants to believe she is. 
Standards, gun-toting God-praising right-wingers….you need ’em.  

You make the music go back; you hear Satan speakin’

You make the music go back; you hear Satan speakin’ published on 2 Comments on You make the music go back; you hear Satan speakin’

According to Wikipedia,

Pareidolia ( /pærɪˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para– – “beside”, “with”, or “alongside”—meaning, in this context, something faulty or wrong (as in paraphasia, disordered speech) and eidōlon – “image”; the diminutive of eidos – “image”, “form”, “shape”. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.