01 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
When I bought the Complete New Yorker, I knew that I wanted to transfer it to a hard drive and bought an external drive a couple days later. [...] But, you can't copy it to a hard drive. I tried everything [...b]ut, it didn't work because it is copy protected with Macrovision.
[...] What are they afraid of? The 8 DVD's are going to be on P2P sites? The New Yorker is concerned that people will be downloading 60 GBs to read old Talk of the Town snippets? That high school kids are going to be trading them in the parking lot? They will be sold on street corners along with Harry Potter? Wouldn't this huge black market of Complete New Yorker piracy just create more demand for the magazine and more ad space dollars? It is fitting of a New Yorker cartoon!
I would be downloading all 60GBs, I am that devoted. But I don't have to because The Complete New Yorker is cheap, beautifully packaged and comes with a great highlights book [...]but I do revoke my recommendation that it is worth buying. You buy it, but you don't own it. Conde Nast still owns it. You can't use it in a fair, legal and sensible manner and you don't know that until you own it, as it doesn't have a sticker reading 'This DVD is Fucked.' It is not unreasonable to expect that consumers would choose to archive and eliminate the onerous disc swapping that is caused by being spread over 8 DVDs.
In fact it gets worse. After playing with a number of tools the reviewer is able to get to the point where he has evaded the part of the DRM that stops copying but not the part that insists on DVD swapping so, as the reviewer sums up:... the copy protection was beaten quite easily - I could sell copies all day long. Maybe in a fake Kate Spade bag. But the protection lives and prevents legal, sensible use.
The issue here is similar, though not as egregious, as the Sony Rootkit affair. The point is that the publisher attempts to limit what the user may do with the stuff he has legally bought. Frequently this negates the some or all of the advantages that digital media should have compared to its traditional alternatives. Now in a free market world this is basically his choice but it should not surprise him if his artificial failure to meet customer demand does not lead to someone else trying to meet it.There’s a reason why I’m going through Baen’s pile of published books. He is the only publisher I know who gets ebooks, I mean really gets them. (Virtually?) all of his catalogue is available in ebook form – with no Digital Restrictions Management! – for a reasonable price, and quite a few are available for free in the Baen Free Library. You can read these books on the browser, or download them to your PDA, whatever works for you. Naturally, you can always buy a dead-tree version, instead. I figure, this publisher is worth the money I pour at him, and hence I pour it in quantity.
[yes sorry Baen again but it isn't a coincidence - DRM is a huge irritant to most customers and Baen seem to be the only publisher who really does treat his readers as trustworthy fellow human beings]01 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Another thing that caught me completely off guard was the morale of our troops. I was expecting a morass of demoralized, bitching and generally depressed bunch of guys and gals. I couldn't have been more wrong. With the exception of FOB Speicher - which was staffed by New Yorkers who were probably dead set against the war to begin with - every trooper I've come across simply does the absolute best job they can with what they have available. Don't get me wrong, they'd (usually) much rather be back at home. That, and The Army is having issues meeting recruiting goals. But pretty much everyone out here knew this was a possibility when they signed up, so they just make the best of it.
In other words, this guy is your classic blue-stater and fails to comprehend the red-states and how they think. It chimes in well with the views we see reported by Margaret from the News Miner Permalink02 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
03 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
The West has to tell Russia that, plainly and simply, its conduct is unacceptable if it wishes to remain part of the club of civilised nations.
Although Britain takes no gas from Russia, it too must speak up for stability in the former Soviet Union and not be seen to condone the punishment by Russia of its former satellites. Mr Blair used his influence with President Putin to secure deals for BP to extract energy supplies from Russia on a long-term basis.
He was right to note that Britain's self-sufficiency is over and that such supplies must be secured from Russia as well as elsewhere. However, for Russia to use its natural resources as a means of behaving ruthlessly and unscrupulously with its neighbours is a medieval tactic that cannot be condoned in the modern world.
However I want to go back to Mr (Professor?) Stone's dire effort and critique it for the 1938 era language it employs. Firstly, while it may well be that the Baltic languages are not exactly major ones, they are no less insignificant than say Slovenian or Albanian and no one suggests that the inhabitants of these countries should not be expected to communicate on their language. Stone is remarkably patronizing to these states which were seized though conquest by Stalin.In the Baltic states, now members of the European Union, there are Russian minorities (and in the case of Latvia an only-just minority). There, the Russians are meant to learn Baltic languages that, with the best will in the world, Russians cannot take seriously as cultural vehicles (and the Euro Parliament is strangely silent as to the linguistic oppression that results, whereas there is jumping up and down about Kurdish in Turkey). The Baltic states are in the end pimples on the Russian back and, in their historic role as entry ports to Europe, better off, for themselves and for Russia, as nominally independent entities.
The difference between the Russians in the Baltic states and the Kurds is that the Russians are, effectively, the invaders, just as the Turks are. The right of the original inhabitants to maintain their language despite the strictures of their (former) invaders and overlords is the same in the Baltics as it is in the Kurdish parts of Turkey. Even if you claim that the Russian language is unfairly oppressed in a manner similar to the Kurdish one, the Russian speaking inhabitants of the Baltics have it even better than the Kurds in that they can easily return to the land of their parents/grandparents and speak Russian. The fact is that actually they seem to be doing the opposite, probably because of the better economic conditions and the linguistic tests imposed on these immigrants is merely an attempt to stem the tide and no worse than the various immigration limits placed upon (say) Polish plumbers in France.Enter that weird piece of pantomime, "the Orange Revolution". There were Ukrainians - the western ones especially - who absolutely did not like the deals being done with Moscow. Why not launch a campaign for the country to join Europe, as Poland and Lithuania had done? Unfortunately, electoral results were very far from being in their favour and a coup was launched. The "stage army of the good", on which our Peter Simple used to write so memorably, has now become a sort of feministo-Euro-non-governmental-organisational-ecologisto-free-media panjandrum, complete with Euro MPs living in tents in the main square of Kiev listening to amplified rock music while pretending to ward off the charge of the Cossacks.
Electoral results were "far from being in their favour" because of blatant vote rigging. It does not seem to me to be a coup to demand that your democratic vote be actually counted. Stone it seems mourns the demise of the Soviet Union as a unified entity despite ackowledging its failings such as the Ukrainain famine. The result is he wants to see Russia reimpose itself on its former empre apparently and he sees nothing wrong with crude threats and economic warfare being used to achieve this aim.The results of the Orange Revolution have been political division and economic insecurity - and deep anxiety for Russia. With Ukraine (in some form), she is another version of the United States; without Ukraine, she is a Canada. But there is one weapon in her armoury: she is a Canada with oil and gas.
If Ukraine attempts to join the Germano-Polish west, which exploited her people cruelly up to the 17th century, then the Moskale (Ukrainian for Russians) will show who is boss. And maybe - maybe - it is for the good of us all. Europe needs a functioning Russia much more than a semi-functioning Ukraine.
The statement that Russia "without Ukraine... is a Canada. But there is one weapon in her armoury: she is a Canada with oil and gas." is totally bizarre. Canada as eny fule kno has major oil and gas, not to mention oil shales and the like, in its westerns provinces. But this pales in respect of the "Sudetenland" echoes of the concluding paragraph. The justifications of Russian control of the Ukraine do seem very much redolent of the policies of Neville Chamberlain with respect to Hitler's Germany and given that Putin seems to have as limited a grasp of concepts like "the rule of law" or "property rights" as Hitler did this is not a policy with a good track record.06 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
06 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
What I find fascinating is the democratization of what was once the privilege of aristocracy: to patronize the artist and so have your mug (or, in this case, name) immortalized.
That Jim Baen has arrived at a way to cash in on this tickles me to no end.
Well one of Baen's authors - John Ringo - is democratizing things even more in an effort to get his thriller/S&M bikini ripper listed as the #1 Romance Novel in the Preditors and Editors poll where he is throwing out promises to redshirt people with rank dependant on the publicity they bring:
Given that my brain is still cackling evilly at the thought of Ghost as a "Romance" novel I just have to publicise this and ask my reader(s) to please vote early, get the word out, but not vote often unless thy are sure they won't get caught because that would be cheating. Oh and do read the book - first few chapters online at the link above - and the amazon reviews. And for that matter all the other reviews. A lot of people have got their knickers in a twist over this book.
06 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
06 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
When Bush followers use terms like "subversives" and "traitors," and when they accuse people of engaging in "treason," many assume that they are joking, that it’s a form of political hyperbole and it’s only meant symbolically.
He seems shocked to learn that Dean Esmay actually has to explain that "traitor" means "committed treason" and that the correct punishment for treason is, in fact, death. This shock is, IMO, symptomatic of the usual liberal disconnect from the "cause" and "effect" relationship that works for the rest of us. I'm not sure that the NY Times and the NSA leakers are in fact guilty of treason, I'll leave that to the lawyers and juries in the USA, but I do think that a reasonable case can be made that could be broaught before a court and hence logically, if they they are found guilty, they should be punished with the mandated punishment. This is not hyperbole, it is called the rule of law, and it is the same rule of law that applies to President Bush, Jack Abramof and Tooke Williams. To the left though it's all a game or should be, and the appropriate response for getting caught for overstepping the mark, if you are a "liberal" and have your heart in the right place at least, is to be told not to do it again and this time we mean it.But many listeners in our day and age have lost sight--not just of truth vs. relative truth, or objective vs. subjective truth--but of any truth-falsehood distinction outside of their own perceptions. So the new definition of a lie has become: something that fooled me. Something that I heard and thought was true, and then discovered wasn't true. It made me angry to be jerked around like that. So it's a lie.
Such a listener lacks awareness of any need to ascertain the state of mind of the speaker in order to define an utterance as a lie--it is simply irrelevant; it does not compute in the equation. In fact, the so-called liar is actually often either mistaken, misinformed by others, in denial, or deluded. But that doesn't matter to a listener who hears everything only in terms of him/herself and how something makes him/her feel.
It is the same problem as that I mentioned up front about how things far away don't count and precisely the reason why Majithise and Greenwald don't see how the NY Times can possibly be guilty of treason and for that matter how it is possible that the NSA was not in fact breaking the law. It boils down to the whine - "but I don't want that to be true so it isn't" - and is precisely the lesson that has resulted in children who aren't allowed to have their self esteem dented by any taint of failure:Behold the wholly sanitized childhood, without skinned knees or the occasional C in history. "Kids need to feel badly sometimes," says child psychologist David Elkind, professor at Tufts University. "We learn through experience and we learn through bad experiences. Through failure we learn how to cope."
Messing up, however, even in the playground, is wildly out of style. Although error and experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking pains to remove failure from the equation.
And as the article goes on to explain when it does finally kick in, generally in college, the law of cause and effect gets an extra kick due to the simultaneous application of the law of unintended consequences. I don't know what the fix is, but I reckon that it must involve some version of "the burned hand teaches best" that is to say a rather horrible event somewhere. Fortunately for the Blue staters in the USA, the smash is more likely to come over here on this side of the pond - whether it involves an attempted or actual nuclear atteck on Isreal or a civil war in our European cities - the red staters are going to keep the US safe where the rest of us aren't because we don't have enough of the same, or rather we don't let them have the power they need to take action.07 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.
And, how come it has taken 3 years for this evidnce to come to light? obviously it takes a while to do the counterfeiting. This is a poor, crude effort compared to those documents St Mary Mapes found.08 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
08 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Now the government is funding a list of national icons that some hope could save England from the “white van man” image of a St George’s flag stuck to the inside of a vehicle window.
Now if his flag is apparently not appropriate might I suggest that a suitable icon be this:09 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
10 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
...I give him the country’s history in a nutshell. First, it was repeatedly invaded by the Japanese, then it was repeatedly invaded by the Mongols, then it was repeatedly invaded by the Chinese, then it was repeatedly invaded by the Manchus, then it got one big, maybe-they’ll-get-the-message-this-time invasion from the Japanese again, and in 1950 it invaded itself. This experience, I explain, has made these people the proud and noble mouth-frothing xenophobes we all know and love today, threatening to send hordes of vicious peasant warriors to Hong Kong if our Government does not honour their birthright as sons of the Hermit Kingdom, namely immunity from laws against assaulting policewomen with bamboo poles. Odell thinks about it. “Maybe it’s the other way around,” he suggests. “Maybe they kept on getting invaded because they’re assholes.”
I can't help thinking that there are other nationalities/countries which could benefit from a similarly rude summary of their history. How about France?Having failed to fight off the vikings and preventing them from colonising the cold north of the country next to the troublesome celts, the French thought they'd managed a cunning trick a thousand years ago by suggesting that they invade England. True this did remove the Norman threat from France, as Normans have rarely signified in French history since then, but it laid the foundation, not helped by some injudicious marital diplomacy over the next couple of centuries, for an England that has been hell bent on fighting most of its wars with the French or, if against someone else, trying to do it on French soil. A couple of centuries ago the French had a revolution and in their efforts to export this, they managed to get up the noses of the Prussians and they spent the next 150 years losing to them except when bailed out by the English. A few decades ago they came up with a cunning plan to get these former enemies to pay for the French lifestyle by joining something called the EEC, something which has worked a treat, although up until the present.
Other suggestions welcome10 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Danish Muslim organisations are planning to take the daily Jyllands-Posten to the European Court of Human Rights over controversial cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
The decision was announced Monday (9 January) by Kasem Ahmad, leader of Danish Islamic religious body Islamsk Trossamfund, uniting various Muslim organisations, following an announcement that a Danish local attorney general had rejected their case.
This was after, as noted, sanity seemed to breaking out with the Danish government and legal establishment standing firm and the "international community" making sympathetic noises but not exactly springing to action and apparently being willing to accept the Danish prime-minister's duck billed platitudes that "we should not resort to the freedom of speech as a way of increasing social hatred and fragmentation."Hadi Kahn, chairman of the Organization of Pakistani Students in Denmark (OPSA), stressed that the group travelling to the Muslim countries does not represent all Muslims in Denmark.
But while not completely isolated this rare outbreak of sanity on the Muslim side is not the usual reaction with most Muslims doing their best to prove that they really do act like spoiled eight-year old brats:
Most recently the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) called upon its 51 member states to boycott Denmark unless the Danish government apologizes for the cartoons.
Of course quite what the ISESCO does when it isn't getting its knickers in a twist about Danish cartoons is unclear. The Islamic world has had a miserable record with regard to education, science and culture for the last 500 years.11 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
...no matter what we are told about child support and custody laws, ultimately the state’s main concern is itself. In the meantime, a specialized set of lawmakers make a racket off of our greatest fears of forcible separation from our families.
The third case, also from across the pond, is the "annoying" internet speech statute which rocketed around the blogosphere. As with numero deux, although some of the details are US-centric, the chances are high that our European masters will come up with something similar - indeed the proposed British "hate-speech" legislation is not disimilar. The problem here is that in an attempt to reduce stalking and harassing phone calls a law was passed that makes such calls an offense. This law has just been updated to cover the internet and as is the norm the legislators have drafted the law in such a way that practically anything could be considered an offense. Whether existing case law will make it less over-reaching is debatable - the page linked above has opinions for and against - but either way the lesson is clear. Governments pass stupid laws and then pass more laws to try and rectify the damage caused by their previous laws and never consider the idea of actually revoking the original.11 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Update: Via Brussels Journal and Dansk-Svensk are links to two Norwegian papers which have reprinted the cartoons
Permalink12 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Presenter Eddie Mair: Is homosexuality itself harmful to society?
Sacranie: "Certainly it is a practice that – in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in society – it is not acceptable. And what is not acceptable, there is a good reason for it."
"Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."
Eddie: And how does one society square and comfortably hold your view with the views of same-sex couples who have been getting married in recent weeks? Does that "tolerance" always get borne out?
Sacranie: "Well tolerance comes from both ways. We have an opportunity to express our views. This is what we have, this is the privilege we have living in an open democratic society. This is something which we felt deeply concerned about because we felt it does not promote the social or family harmony in society. Now, whilst its there, what do we do? We have to confront in the manner which is acceptable to all of us, but in the same way I have the right to express my view, others have the right to oppose and put their arguments."
The interesting, indeed fascinating, thing here is that Sir Idiot does his best to tar other religions with the same brush. Now this simply doesn't fly because while it may be true that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are against gays, the Jewish and Christian religions have moved away from such blanket denounciations. Indeed Sir Idiot's subsequent attempt to explicitly compare his remarks with those of Anglican christians is in fact illuminating in a way he would probably not like:"We see the great controversy it has created within the world Anglican communion with the real threat of major division over this question. So our views are quite relevant."
The problem for Sir Idiot is that the Anglicans have actully ordained openly gay priests and bishops, as well as female priests, and there are no such equivalents in Islam. In fact any Imam who openly admitted homosexuality would be in trouble. A google search, for example, shows that a Turkish gay who wishes to be an Imam has been forced to flee. That same search also shows up this Islam online "fatwa" that comes out strongly against the idea of a gay Imam and homosexuality in general:As for your question, it should be clear that homosexuality is sinful and shameful. In Islamic terminology it is called 'Al-Fahsha' or an atrocious and obscene act. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts, nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, "Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not." (Al-Nur: 19)
...
In brief, verily this conduct, whether it comes from two males or females, is considered an abomination and a crime. Therefore, what these lewd people allege is not accepted by Islam at all and is rejected completely. Moreover, the fact that some religious groups, due to being pressured, have allowed their followers to engage in this conduct cannot be considered as justification for prohibited actions. There is precedence in history of some people changing their religions by adding and subtracting from them. As for Islam, it is unequivocal in this matter, for it does not accept any bargaining in any situation whatsoever.
The Muslim needs to take precautions against these deviants and not to give them any opportunity to mix with and corrupt their children. Furthermore, they are neither fit to establish masajid and frequent them, nor are they fit to lead those who frequent the masjid whomever they may be. More importantly for them is to seek a cure for themselves from their own illness, to purify their souls from whatever filthiness became attached to it, and return to a sound path instead of mocking and ridiculing the sentiments of Muslims.”
The key difference between Islam and Chrisitianity is laid out in this Fatwa. The latter religion is willing to reinterpret their scriptures the former is not. Until Islam becomes more tolerant it is going to fail to cope with modernity. It may win tactical victories but IMO its inflexibility is going to kill its acceptability in the eyes of the woolly-minded who have previously been supportive. I anticipate that Europe is going to see some radical realignments as the PC brigade finally figure out what their Islamic fellow travellers really are.12 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
MINA, 12 January 2006 — The Muslim World League yesterday expressed its resentment over the cartoons published by a Norwegian magazine offensive to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
“The cartoons published in the magazine’s Tuesday issue are offensive to the Prophet and they deliberately chose Eid day to launch a sinister campaign,” WML Secretary-General Dr. Abdullah Al-Turki said in a statement.
He warned of the negative consequences that might follow.
“This will not affect international relations but give rise to hatred in the Muslim world for such countries,” he said and reminded the consequences that followed when a Danish newspaper published 12 offending cartoons some years ago.
“Such incidents anger over 1.5 billion Muslims who want to live in peace and harmony the world over,” he said and urged cultural and social institutions across Europe to halt the hate campaign against Islam forthwith.
When I first read this I pretty much waved it off as being the usual Muslim combination intolerance and sensitivity to insult: apparently the crime is worse when it occurs on Eid day. Eid day? sorry mate but I have no idea when Eid day is - apparently though it is the January 10th though - or what it is and I'll bet that the average Norwegian has a similar view. I am sort of aware that the Hajj pilgrimage is going on (only 300 dead so far this year out of 2 million pilgrims) and I guess that Eid day is something to do with this but I afraid that that pretty much exhausts my knowledge and interest.14 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
15 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Democratic leaders say that President Bush is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation's judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the tide without winning back control of the Senate or the White House.
Well Duh! Bush can nominate conservatives becauseIn interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.
That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they would take the courts too far to the right.
Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.
Let me summarise this. "Bush nominates candidates that are emminently able for the role but don't have our policies. We think that when we tell this to the public they'll get upset but actually they mostly don't give a shit.""It may be a mistake to think that their failure demonstrates that they necessarily did something wrong," said Richard H. Fallon, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Referring to one of the major Democratic complaints about Judge Alito's testimony, Mr. Fallon said: "As long as most of the public will settle for evasive or uninformative answers, maybe there was nothing that they could have done to get Alito to make a major error."
You know if the Senate actually asked coherent questions it would help. I admit to not spending any time watching the CSPAN hearings - hey its not my country - but the edited "highlights" that I have watched make it clear that, as the Economist described it, this was "the Brainbox vs the Blowhards". If you want intelligent probing questions then you need intelligent probing senators. Going on the evidence, not just from this hearing BTW, I'd say that "intelligent, probing" is not a combination that applies to any US Senator. And then there is the shock that insulting the nominee enough to make his wife, who seems like an archtypical Mrs America, burst into tears is going to get more airplay than the rambling bloviating of any senator.Members of the committee, while defending their performance, said they had been hampered because many of the issues they needed to deal with - like theories of executive power - were arcane and did not lend themselves to building a public case against Judge Alito.
Mr. Kennedy said that the nomination process, and particularly the hearings, had "turned into a political campaign," and that the White House had proved increasingly skilled in turning that to its advantage.
"These issues are so sophisticated - half the Senate didn't know what the unitary presidency was, let alone the people of Boston," he said, referring to one of the legal theories that was a focus of the hearings. "I'm sure we could have done better."
Well it would really help if half the senate did understand "unitary presidency". Thanks to a couple of blogs I understand it enough to follow what points were mostly not maide by democratic senators. In fact what I read/saw was a smart but unassuming nominee show up his questioners as a bunch of clueless morons who didn't understand the questions they were asking. Fortunately no one will ever niminate me to be a judge because if I had to listen to these windbags phrases like "do you tie your own shoes?" would spring to mind if not ruder varients of the same."George Bush won the election," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat. "If you don't like it, you better win elections."
Permalink16 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
I note that Bishop Hill: Jelly-bellied flag flapper and Liberal England: Rudyard Kipling answers Gordon Brown and Tim Worstall and Crooked Timber » » A flag in every garden and Langford Home Page (Pardon?) have finally caught up with a suggestion that The Englishman have been making for eighteen months. Had I not been out enjoying myself this weekend instead of gluing myself to the computer I would have joined in earlier.
Gordon Brown is a Jelly-bellied Flag-flapper.
And so he worked towards his peroration - which, by the way, he used later with overwhelming success at a meeting of electors - while they sat, flushed and uneasy, in sour disgust. After many many words, he reached for the cloth-wrapped stick and thrust one hand in his bosom. This - this was the concrete symbol of their land - worthy of all honour and reverence! Let no boy look on this flag who did not purpose to worthily add to its imperishable lustre. He shook it before them - a large calico Union Jack, staring in all three colours, and waited for the thunder of applause that should crown his effort.
They looked in silence. They had certainly seen the thing before - down at the coastguard station, or through a telescope, half-mast high when a brig went ashore on Braunton sands; above the roof of the Golf Club, and in Keyte's window, where a certain kind of striped sweetmeat bore it in paper on each box. But the College never displayed it; it was no part of the scheme of their lives; the Head had never alluded to it; their fathers had not declared it unto them. It was a matter shut up, sacred and apart. What, in the name of everything caddish, was he driving at, who waved that horror before their eves? Happy thought! Perhaps he was drunk.
From The Flag of their Country - from Stalky & Co. - Rudyard Kipling
Unfortunately for Englnd the flag Brown prefers to flap looks like the one on the right above.
Permalink20 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
20 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Instead of the Danish government surrendering to Muslim radicals, moderate Danish Muslims are now speaking out against the extremists. A group of Muslims in the Danish city of Århus intend to organize a network of Muslims who do not want to be represented by fundamentalist Danish imams or others who preach the Sharia laws and oppression of women. “There is a large group of Muslims in this city who want to live in a secular society and adhere to the principle that religion is an issue between them and God and not something that should involve society,” said Bünyamin Simsek, a city councillor and one of the organizers. Århus witnessed severe riots after the publication of the cartoons in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten last Autumn.
What may be key here is that the moderates are apparently predominantly Turks. I could be over generalizing but it seems to me that the Turks are more tolerant than the North Africans, hence there are fewer problems with Turkish immigrants in Europe than with N African ones. In England, Pakistanis likewise seem to be less tolerant than Bangladeshis - although I think that Pakistanis are less militant than N Africans in some respects, for example in Denmark the OPSA (Organization of Pakistani Students in Denmark) spokesperson is apparently less than impressed with the imams at the local mosque.20 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
21 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
A Danish fashion firm is to sell T-shirts inspired by rebel fighters, with proceeds to go to militant groups.
The T-shirts have as logos the initials of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
The firm, Fighters and Lovers, says it will donate 5 euros (£3) for each T-shirt it sells.
The Colombian government has protested to the Danish authorities over the sale of the T-shirts.
"Financing terrorist groups is unacceptable and goes against all the international norms," Colombian Foreign Minister Carolina Barco told private Caracol Radio on Friday.
"Yesterday our ambassador contacted the Danish government, we sent a protest note and have demanded an explanation."
The designers say Palestianian militant Leila Khaled and Colombian rebel leader Jacobo Arenas were among their inspirations.
Money from the sale of the T-shirts will help finance Farc radio stations in Colombia and a graphics studio in the Palestinian territories.
Now there are many things to be proud of in the state of Denmark - such as the excellent stand over those cartoons - but unfortunately it seems Denmark has also got a bunch of morons who don't seem to quite grasp why praising drucg traffickers and the sponsors of suicide bombers is an outstandingly dumb idea.26 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
26 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
26 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
27 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
27 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
RIYADH, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Thursday it had recalled its ambassador to Denmark, saying the government had not taken enough action over newspaper cartoons seen as mocking Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. "The Saudi government recalled its ambassador for consultations in light of the Danish government's lack of attention to insulting the Prophet Mohammad by its newspapers," a government official said. "This led to an escalation of the situation and its development."
Can we finally admit that Muslims have blown out of all proportion their outrage over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper last September? In the latest twist, last week both the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Gulf Cooperation Council condemned a Norwegian newspaper for reprinting the drawings - a decision the publication defended as protecting freedom of expression.
The initial printing of the cartoons in Denmark led to death threats being issued against the artists, demonstrations in Kashmir, and condemnation from 11 countries. What did any of this achieve but prove the original point of the newspaper's culture editor, that artists in Europe were censoring themselves because they feared Muslim reaction? He commissioned the cartoons after hearing that Danish artists were too scared to illustrate a children's book about the prophet.
just read the whole thing - it's worth it - including this which is precisely why I'm happy to publish these cartoons:Here are a few facts we should remember. However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims - the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons.
Second, the cartoon incident belongs at the very center of the kind of debate that Muslims must have in the European countries where they live - particularly after the Madrid train bombings of 2003 and the London subway bombings of 2005. While right-wing anti-immigration groups whip up Islamophobia in Denmark, Muslim communities wallow in denial over the increasing role of their own extremists.
As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. He distributed leaflets calling on Muslims in Denmark to go to Fallujah in Iraq and fight the Americans, and to kill their own leaders if they obstructed them. [...] Abdullatif used the Koran to justify incitement to violence! And we still wonder why people associate Islam with violence?
Update: It occurs to me that if the Religious Hatred law is passed a UK newspaper publishing those Danish cartoons or any UK website that does so could be in trouble. The two campaigns MUST be combined: i.e. as the Brussels Journal suggests concentrate on getting as many European (and especially) UK blog and media outlets to publish the cartoons ASAP and note that it could be illegal to do so once the bill becomes law. Personally as a French resident with a server hosted in California my response to any UK legal action would be modelled on the Holy Grail: "You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Bliar King, you and all your silly English lawyers. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt! ... I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
Update 2: Also see the post above and this news item about Iraqi complaints
Permalink27 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Dear Minster of Cultural affairs (Norway)
Dear Minster of Cultural affairs (Denmark)
The Muslim world has been following with anger and sorrow the humiliating cartoons that were published for the Nobel Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Jyllands Posten newspaper (Denmark) and Magazinet newspaper (Norway).
In Islam, embodying Prophet Mohammad PBUH in a picture, drawing or a statue is completely prohibited; even within a context of showing respect, admiration or recognition. As a result, and as you may have found out already, drawing Prophet Mohammed within a negative attitude and picturing him as a person representing evil force does firmly form a sever compound and complicated act of aggression conducted against our believes, hearts, minds and souls. Muslims can hardly think of any worse cultural harassment!
We strongly believe in freedom of _expression and freedom of press. However, what was published in those two newspapers is inappropriate and goes beyond freedom of _expression. It humiliates, without any reason or purpose, approximately one billion Muslims who consider Prophet Muhammad as the messenger of mercy.
We forward you this letter to express our strong condemnation for what was published and we hope your respect to others' beliefs and religious symbols will motivate you to condemn these drawings and make sure that they will not be published once again because publishing them again will cause more tensions between nations, will harm Muslims' feelings and their beliefs
It would be unfair to note or criticise the spelling errors, seeing as I can neither read nor write a word of Arabic, however even once one gets past that there are plenty of things that make you realise that we have a long way to go.Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.
And hence, just as the Calvinists and Puritans rejected the decorative Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions and proudly destroyed art both religious and secular, so too do the stricter forms of Islam.Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
The result of this miscomprehension of degees of harassment means that "It humiliates, without any reason or purpose, approximately one billion Muslims who consider Prophet Muhammad as the messenger of mercy" makes some sort of sense. Again this is flat out wrong in any other setting.what really beats me is the fact that i assume the muslim countries dont understand the whole essense about freedom to. How can they understand something they never have tried themselves. if they tasted freedom then they would maybe understand.
In another thread a Mohamed Talaat from Egypt shows how the issue is completely misunderstood:if danish government still firm and refuse to give apology and not response to this case that because muslims are weak but if this case done with jewish people i am sure the prime minister and king of this country called danemark would apology and kiss hands of jewishes because they have the buzz all over the world and the prime minister would not talk about freedom of speech or any thing like that but will talk about burning of jewish in 2nd world war because this world like the wood don't know any thing but force ....ok.
Not only does this miss the point it is demonstrably untrue. I don't know enough about Denmark to know if there are as many anti-semites there that plague the rest of Europe but google seems to show that there are (and that many of the more recent incidents are caused by Muslims) and that they have been around for a long time - despite the Danish resistance to the Nazis - and some are leading Christians:...Anders Gadegaard, who holds a leading position in the Church, on 30 December 2001 gave a sermon in Copenhagen’s main church which had a clear anti-Semitic tendency. It was later transmitted to the official website of the church under the headline: "Children are still killed in Bethlehem by the authorities who fear the demands for justice and freedom by the oppressed population." The sermon took as its starting point the episode related in the New Testament about King Herod, who ordered all children below the age of two to be killed in order to prevent the emergence of the Messiah, who the three wise men had said was born in Bethlehem. From here Gadegaard went straight to modern events with the words: "On TV we watched the terrible pictures, which went around the world, of a little boy and his father in Ramallah (sic!) who was caught in Israeli (!) crossfire, and defenseless people begging for their lives but shot in cold blood."
Not only did the priest give an untrue and distorted picture of the death of Muhammad al-Dura in Gaza on 30 September 2000, he supplemented it with further invented details, thereby strengthening the defamation of Israel. He linked it to the story from the Gospels about the wicked Jewish king Herod, thereby reviving centuries-old Christian anti-Semitism that had been forgotten in Denmark.
28 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
29 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
STOP FOR A SECOND! Please read!
Why are you boycotting ALL danish products? You should boycot the MAGAZINE who printed these pictures! One magazine is not the same as everyone in denmark! Maiwani even suggested KILLING danish people because SOMEONE drew a picture. So now everyone who lives in denmark is guilty?? That is insanity! You are acting just like americans when french people protested against the war in iraq, americans hated everything from france, and everyone.
**********
Why cannot the muslim world realise that one magazine does not represent the whole nation???
**********
Shabal | 29.Jan.06 - 2:02 |
i have just received a fifth email from so calld devout muslims telling me what to boycot dane products and send e-mails to danish foriegn ministry (they have it written in engish for people who can't write in english)
this is way too crazy!!!
wakeup muslims
they have the emails in the title of making your prophet victorious!!!
how will he be victorious by punishing people who did nothing to him
just because a magazine published something, its not the fault of the danes
you muslims are acting like children
if they didn't make all of this fuzz probably not so many people around the world would have seen the cartoons
frantz | 29.Jan.06 - 11:31 |
29 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Leave all your goodies (In this case your life details) in one place for long enough, and someone will be bound to break in and have it away with them. Why? Because anyone with a dodgy past and a reason to hide will be able to become you. Won’t they get caught when I report my ID missing / wiped? Er, well let’s put it this way, in order to report your ID stolen you will need your ID Card to prove who you are. With the card effectively wiped, you won’t get past reception front desk. Social services won’t touch you. Your Bank won’t believe you (Long gone are the days of personal relationships between Manager & customer). Lost your National Insurance number? Can’t remember your bank account number? Can’t recall your National Health number? How many people can remember all that? Not that many.
Now do you understand why having all your personal details in one place is so bloody silly. That’s why ‘smart’ ID cards are a really stupid idea. Just keeping the database up to scratch will create a whole new layer of bureaucrats. Even then I’ll be willing to bet that the database will never be more than 40% up to date, and that’s being optimistic.
Tim's suggestion yesterday of tin foil wallets is looking better all the time. It occurs to me that something like those nice metal business card holders would be even more stylish and just as efficient. BONUS: It would also double as a bit of armour to protect you against muggers who wanted to stab you to get hold of your ID card... something that a piece of tin foil woudn't do.30 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
Ten Palestinians armed with assault rifles and grenade launchers rallied outside the European Union headquarters in Gaza City and fired in the air, demanding an apology and saying Danes and Norwegians there would be at risk of attack.
“We warn the citizens of the above-mentioned governments to take this warning seriously because our groups are ready to implement it across the Gaza Strip,” one of the gunmen said, reading from a prepared statement.
Militants set fire to Norwegian and Danish flags and painted a footprint on the Danish flag, a severe insult for Arabs.
Thousands of protesters in the West Bank town of Qalqilya marched through the streets, demanding an apology and burning Denmark’s flag, a white cross on a red background.
Militant groups linked to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction issued a statement saying, “We call upon all Danish citizens in (Palestine) to leave immediately.”
Hamas, the militant Islamic group which won Palestinian elections last week, urged Islamic countries to take “deterrent steps against idiotic Danish behavior”.
“We call on Muslim nations to boycott all Danish products because the Danish people supported the hateful racism under the pretext of freedom of expression,” it said in a statement.
Congratulations! It is possible that Hamas will indeed put an end to kleptocracy and corruption in the Palestinian Authority but that will be because there is nothing to steal. I may at some point have a rant about the Palestinians, a group of people for whom I have much sympathy but whose leaders seem determined to squader every single piece of good will they might inherit, but this is about the cartoons.30 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
DOHA (AFP) - Former US president Bill Clinton warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
"So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.
The Junkyardblogger points out that despite Bill's claims to be a Christian he has failed to make similar complaints about those who insult his own religion. I would say worse is that he seems so keen to feel the pain of the poor Muslims that he completely mis-states recent history
"In Europe, most of the struggles we've had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism," he said.
Clinton described as "appalling" the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September depicting Prophet Mohammed and causing uproar in the Muslim world.
"None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions ... there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark ... these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam," he said.
Clinton criticised the tendency to generalise negative news of Islamic militancy.
"Because people see headlines that they don't like (they will) apply that to a whole religion, a whole faith, a whole region and a whole people?" he asked.
This was a large chunk of my previous post. If Muslims don't want to be treated like potentially explosive spoiledd brats then perhaps they need to act responsibly and not threaten death to critics of their religion. So far we have31 January 2006 Blog Home : January 2006 : Permalink
I am concerned to know the exact boundaries of Freedom of Speech from all the persons who are supporting it. I think the unconditional supporters of this Freedom should analyze if they are actually misusing the term. I have already posted the questions in my previous comment but haven't got the answers. Another person (who has anonymously posted comment on 31.Jan.06 - 9:47) asked the similar questions though I don't agree the way he is putting up the questions. Can any one give a clear explanation to these issues? I have also explained that different people having different moral and religius values cannot be held as an example to each other, So if christians do not protest against the blasphemy then it doesn't imply that all other religions should also act in the same manner. By the way I believe that Islam doesn't allow muslims to support blasphemy against any other religion. So if even if any muslim is doing such act, then its not wise to condemn Islam for that, rather he is committing a sin and should be punished for that.
I reiterate that I strongly support the reasonable logical and non-emotional way of dealing all the matters. So if the concept of unconditional freedom of speech is reasonable and logical enough then I will not only support it myself but also try to convince people around me to support it.
The answer as far as I am concerned is that there is no boundary. Freedom of Speech means the right to say anything you please from "Jews eat human babies" or "The pope is Nazi pederast" to "Hindus have sex with cows" and "Preseident Bush is the new messiah" - I disagree strongly with all these statements but I would defend the right of people to say them; just as I would for example protect the right of Presdent Ahmadinejad or David Irving to say that the Nazis did not murder millions of Jews in WWII. The correct response to that sort of a claim is to make a factually backed up counter-claim that shows that the holocaust did actually occur. The only limit that I would place on it should be that an individual should be able to sue for libel against someone who prints as fact something that is provably false concerning that person.The religious hatred bill shifts the cultural balance away from free speech and towards appeasement
The culture of thought-crime and self-censorship is a creeping thing. Invisibly it chills debate and cautions editors, publishers and TV producers. It restrains the pen and puts marbles in the mouth of free speech. If only Voltaire were speaking in the House of Commons this evening when MPs have a chance to vote against a law that makes offending or insulting religion a crime with a seven-year prison sentence.
The incitement to religious hatred bill, put first by David Blunkett five years ago, has bounced back and forth, opposed by Tories and Lib Dems, The intellectual demolition has been led by the National Secular Society, with Humanists, Liberty, Pen the writers' group and comedy writers led by Rowan Atkinson now joined by Christian Institute fundamentalists afraid their hell-fire sermons will put them in peril.
...
What's at stake here is the right to be insulting and cause offence. Many Muslim groups think it will protect their religious sensitivities - and so it will, by shifting the cultural balance away from free speech towards a sanctimonious right to feel offended. It puts religious belief into a sacred compound protected by legal razor-wire from robust mockery or public abuse. In this inquisition of a bill, religion will become a minefield, a no-go area in the world of ideas. Before you speak or write, ask yourself not only if you intend to abuse and insult, but if you are "reckless" about any insult that may unwittingly be caused to someone somewhere? Expect the degree of insult people feel to tighten a little more each year under case law. It is already happening under employment law with certain kinds of harassment: if someone says they feel harassed, then lawyers warn no other evidence is required.
...
This free-speech guarantee seeks to protect "debate" and "ridiculing". However, unpick the language: a person can debate and ridicule "unless he intends to stir up religious hatred or is reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up thereby", which immediately removes any extra safeguard. Lawyers say that instead it specifically draws "debate" and "ridicule" into the act's dragnet. Accept no assurances from Goggins on this. Even a senior Home Office lawyer admitted it was meaningless.