Beer Mug Assault and Burning Crosses

I ran into this last night:

"Charges: Woman attacked non-English speaking Applebee's diner"
KARE 11 Staff, KARE (November 5, 2015)

"A woman is charged with assault for allegedly smashing a beer mug across a diner's face at a local Applebee's -- all because the victim wasn't speaking English, according to the complaint.

"Jodie Marie Burchard-Risch, 43, was charged with third-degree assault for an incident that occurred on Oct. 30 at the Applebee's in Coon Rapids.

"According to the criminal complaint, Burchard-Risch was dining with her husband when she became upset after hearing the victim speaking in a foreign language in the neighboring booth...."

Managers at Applebee's tried to get Burchard-Risch to leave at that point. She did: after yelling a bit more at the other diner and using her beer mug as a weapon, hitting the other woman's face.

One of Applebee's managers followed Burchard-Risch out of the restaurant, staying with her until responding officers arrested her.

The victim has a deep cut across her nose; a cut on her right eyebrow and a big, deep, cut on her lower lip. That's bad, but it could have been worse. Apparently her eyes are okay, and she probably got medical attention promptly.

Burchard-Rish was charged Monday: and there may be more legal trouble coming.

Hate Crimes and Attitudes

I'm not a big fan of hate crime/bias-motivated crime laws, mostly because I think they wouldn't be needed if America's courts paid attention to earlier legal sanctions against slander and physical violence.

That said, I think this attack looks a lot like a 'hate crime.'

The violence of the attack encouraged my suspicion that the 'non-English' language would be Arabic or Spanish. I was wrong. The victim was speaking Swahili:

"Attack on diner at Coon Rapids Applebee's being examined for hate-crime charges"
"The victim, targeted because she wasn't speaking English, suffered deep cuts on her face in the beer-mug attack, according to assault charges."
Shannon Prather Star Tribune (November 7, 2015)

"An Anoka County prosecutor said Friday that authorities are looking into possible hate-crime counts against a woman charged with attacking a diner at the Coon Rapids Applebee's because she was speaking Swahili.

"The victim suffered deep cuts to her face when she was struck with a beer mug Oct. 30 as she ate lunch with her husband and friends, Anoka County authorities said this week.

"Jodie Burchard-Risch, 43, of Ramsey, was charged Monday in Anoka County District Court with third-degree assault.

"On Friday, the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) called for hate-crime charges against Burchard-Risch...."

At this point, I could start ranting about the dangers of insufficiently-American foreigners, the need for beer mug control laws, or why restaurants breed violence and obesity.

That would be silly — but no more silly, I think, than many political debates. And that's another topic.

I'm not a Swahili-speaking young woman, so why should I care what happened in that restaurant?

For starters, I don't think 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' makes sense in situations like this. If I don't care when folks who aren't just like me get hurt, I can't reasonably expect sympathy if I'm the next target.

I don't fit today's 'victim' stereotype, but some 'real Americans' might see folks like me as a threat to 'their' country.

I look like a WASP, but I'm not. I'm a half-Irish Catholic. Happily, most Americans have realized that many Irishmen aren't violence-prone drunkards with criminal tendencies.

I've discussed attitudes, bias, and internment camps, before. (A Catholic Citizen in America June 21, 2015; Another War-on-Terror Blog September 12, 2009; January 22, 2009)

Avoiding Hasty Generalizations

I've seen a few folks who might speak Swahili in the small central-Minnesota town I call home, but I haven't heard that language here — apart from someone saying the Lord's Prayer in Swahili at the parish church.

I have, however, heard Spanish more frequently in recent years: mostly while standing in a grocery checkout line: and, rarely, an east-Asian language I didn't recognize.

My lack of violent response to these 'foreign threats' is no virtue. I see new families moving in as a sign that my town is in good shape, and likely to endure: at least for another generation or two.

Besides, as an American, I'd be very concerned if folks weren't pulling up stakes and moving here.

Maybe it's easier to divide the world into 'people like me' and 'foreign threats.' But that attitude doesn't make sense. Not to me.

Sure, some folks who speak Swahili, Arabic, Spanish, or Latvian, might try to blow up the post office or kill me. But but assuming that all Africans, Arabs, Hispanics, or whatever, are threats that makes about as much sense as assuming that all Christians are in the Ku Klux Klan. And that, sadly, is not another topic. (A Catholic Citizen in America January 18, 2015)

Living with difference:

• "Charleston Church Shooting: Emotions and Reason"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (June 21, 2015)
  Particularly
  • "Our Country?" Difference, Acceptance, and Murder
  • Life and Reality
  • Looking Out For Each Other
  • Emotions and Reason
• "Remembering 9/11, Living in a Big World"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 11, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Burning Crosses
  • Freedom: For Everybody
• "Holy Land Foundation Sentencing: It's About Terrorism, Not Islam"
  (May 27, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Holy Land Foundation Sentencing: Texophobia??
  • The Defunct Holy Land Foundation Isn't Islam
• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  (January 2, 2009)
  Particularly
  • The FBI, the Irfan Party, and Airtran: Common Sense and Full-Bore Bias
  • This is Very Important: Bombs Bad; Beards Okay
• "Al Aqaeda Leader's "House Slave" Remarks Not Big Hit With American Muslims"
  (November 21, 2008)

A Blast, Bullets, Bodies, Norway, and Getting a Grip

More than a dozen people were killed in Norway today. At least one bomb in Oslo, and a lot of bullets in a camp for teenagers, are responsible. It's early days, but my guess is that it's a terrorist attack with two targets.

I think it's probably a "terrorist attack:" but that's not the whole story.

Depending on whose headlines you read, the attack wasn't done by Islamic Islamist terrorists. (Associated Press, via The Washington Post) and, more specifically, it was a domestic terror attack. (Nils Myklebost, Forbes)

But, like I said, it's still early days.

Remember Oklahoma City

The dude who was arrested - here's what Mr. Myklebost wrote, in part:

"...A police official said the 32-year-old ethnic Norwegian suspect arrested at the camp on Utoya island appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that 'it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organizations at all.' The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that information had not been officially released by Norway's police.

" 'It seems it's not Islamic-terror related,' the official said. 'This seems like a madman's work.'

"The official said the attack 'is probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center.' Domestic terrorists carried out the 1995 attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City, while foreign terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks...."
(Nils Myklebost, Forbes)

As I've said before, right-wing extremists sometimes really are terrorists. (June 6, 2009) Which isn't the same as saying that everybody who disagrees with Code Pink is a terrorist.

"Islamist," "Islamic," and Unintended Consequences

Establishment news services in America, when they must, often call Islamic crazies who kill people "Islamist" terrorists. This mincing around the unpleasant reality that some folks believe that they're defending Islam by killing people is, I hope, well-intentioned.

Just as some folks assume that the CIA blew up the World Trade Center, others seem convinced that all terrorists are Ay-rabs, that everybody in the Middle East follows Islam, and that all Muslims are terrorists. Or at least support terrorists. And, perhaps just as bad: aren't Americans.

I've posted about that sort of chauvinism before:

• " 'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society"
  (February 24, 2009)
• " 'They're all Muslims' - This Does Not Help"
  (December 29, 2007)

I doubt - very much - that any euphemism will change the mind of a chauvinist. And euphemisms have a way of drawing attention to what they're dancing around. Think the way many still try not to use the word "sex," in many contexts - and that isn't quite another topic.

Outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban make no secret about being Muslims. They say they're waging a holy war. I think it's silly to pretend that they're not "Islamic," at least by their own definitions.

Unpleasant Realities - are Still Realities

Using a euphemism like "Islamist" may draw attention to warped religious beliefs of that particular lot of terrorists.¹ Think how terms like "collateral damage" and "friendly casualties" did nothing, at best, to make folks feel better about unpleasant realities of war.

Here in America, the shine seems to have worn off political correctness. Silly labels, occasionally ham-handed efforts to avoid "sexist" pronouns like s/he, and goofball neologisms like waitron: all failed to unite everyone in an affirming siblinghood of person.

It also made a fair number of folks in this country very tired of living in another person's fantasy world. I've opined about that, in another blog:

• "Natural Moral Law, Catholicism, Karma, and the Tea Party"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (October 16, 2010)

But - Norway's too Nice for Terror?

Quite a lot has changed since my Norwegian ancestors raided my Irish forebears - and most of the rest of Europe. Norway, and Sweden, have a reputation for being very nice places to live.

So, how could something like today's attack possibly happen in such a nice place? It's actually a sensible question.

There seems to be an assumption that nice places shouldn't have nasty experiences. It's jarring, when an unpleasant reality plows through that expectation.

"...Ian Dutton, who was in a nearby hotel, said the building 'shook as if it had been struck by lightning or an earthquake.' He looked outside and saw 'a wall of debris and smoke.'

"Dutton, who is from New York, said the scene reminded him of Sept. 11 -- people 'just covered in rubble' walking through 'a fog of debris.'

" 'It wasn't any sort of a panic,' he said, 'It was really just people in disbelief and shock, especially in a such as safe and open country as Norway, you don't even think something like that is possible.'..."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

I sympathize with Mr. Dutton, and the folks in my ancestral homeland. It's a shock when parts of an orderly, civilized, society get blown to bits - along with some of the folks living in it.

But - trouble happens. Over two dozen centuries ago, someone made this observation:

"For mischief comes not out of the earth, nor does trouble spring out of the ground; ²But man himself begets mischief, as sparks fly upward."
(Job 5:6,7)

I've opined about that before, in another blog: A Catholic Citizen in America (September 6, 2010).

And yes: I'm one of those people. A practicing Catholic. Which may not mean what you've heard it does.

Finally, an example of labels and reality. These folks are Christians. Their group identifies itself with that label.


(Reuters photo, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

They are not, however, typical Christians. Not even here in America. And that's another topic, for another blog.

Somewhat-related posts:

• Assumptions
  • "Today's World: Not Boring; Not Simple"
    (February 10, 2011)
  • "Jared Loughner, Sarah Palin, James Eric Fuller, and Getting a Grip"
    (January 18, 2011)
  • "Bombs in Rome: Another Flavor of Terrorist"
    (December 24, 2010)
  • "Terror Bombing in Sweden: Troops, Cartoons, a Widow, and Questions"
    (December 16, 2010)
  • "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
    (December 29, 2008)
• Hello, 21st century
  • "Gmail, China, Knee-Jerk Response, and the Information Age"
    (June 4, 2011)
  • " 'Everybody Knows' Poverty Causes Terrorism: So How Come - - - ?"
    (January 7, 2010)
  • "Terrorists as an Oppressed Class: That was Then, This is Now"
    (February 23, 2008)
  • "A Better Class of Terrorist"
    (July 8, 2007)
  • "Doctors, Terrorists, and the Proletariat: What's a Person to Think?"
    (July 3, 2007)

In the news:

• "Police: Oslo bomb, camp shootings domestic terror"
  Nils Myklebost, Forbes (July 22, 2011)
• "Norway police official tells AP attacks in Norway don’t appear linked to Islamist terrorism"
  Associated Press, via The Washington Post (July 22, 2011)
• "Teenagers swam for their lives in Norway carnage"
  Gwladys Fouche, Newslandet, via Edition: U.S., Reuters (July 22, 2011)
• "At Least 16 Dead in Homegrown Terror Attacks on Norway Capital, Youth Camp"
  Associated Press, via Foxnews.com (July 22, 2011)

¹ "Warped religious beliefs?" That's not entirely my view.

I think the habit of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, of killing folks who disagree, has started surviving Muslims thinking. That, and the way that Information Age technology lets folks compare old-world customs with post-18th-century law.

It'll take time for changes to happen, but I think significant numbers of Muslims are re-evaluating what they believe:

• "Honor Killing is Against Islam, Islamic Party Members Say"
  (September 7, 2008)
• ""Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2"
  (July 15, 2007)

Fatwa Condemning Terrorism? Apparently

If this is on the level, it's a big step:

"A Muslim scholar has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that says suicide bombers are destined for hell.

"Tahir ul-Qadri condemned terrorism and criticized Islamic extremists who cite their religion to justify violence.

"Ul-Qadri's 600-page fatwa is "arguably the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date," according to the Quilliam Foundation, a London organization that describes itself as a counterterrorism think tank...."
(CNN)

Sounds nice, and I'd like to believe that what CNN says is the whole story. That's not a criticism of CNN, by the way. Any reasonably short summary of a lengthy document - particularly if the original is in another language, which this fatwa may or may not be - runs the risk of leaving out critical subtleties.

Like the much-vaunted Jihadist reform program run by Saudi Arabia, a few years back. Sure enough: terrorists who went through the program were (probably) convinced that they should renounce terrorism and not commit violent acts. Against the House of Saud. On the Arabian Peninsula.

After those little qualifiers leaked out, we didn't hear quite so much about the program.

In this case, I'd like to believe that the fatwa really says what CNN says it does.

What we read sounds very nice:

"...'Terrorism is terrorism,' ul-Qadri said at a news conference hosted by the foundation. 'Violence is violence. It has no place in Islamic teaching, and no justification can be provided to it ...'..."
(CNN)

Given what we've heard so many times, though: I find it hard to take this at face value.

I hope that "terrorism" is not defined as acts of violence directed against Muslims without the direct approval of an imam; that "violence" is not defined as a destructive act committed by a non-Muslim under the direction of a Muslim - you get the idea.

Am I being overly-suspicious? Maybe. I rather hope so.

I'd prefer to believe that a few Muslim leaders, here and there around the world, are following the example of a mosque in Canada: and stepping into today's society.

For many, whose ancestors had been out of the loop since around the time Abraham moved out of Ur, the change is going to be very difficult. Others, not so much.

I think there is hope that Islam can exist in the Information Age.

That's not just wishful thinking. Quite a few Minnesotans are first- and second- generation Somali immigrants now: going through the same difficult process of putting down roots that many of my ancestors went through, not all that long ago.

Although some have dropped out of sight, to reappear in pieces in Somalia, most are quietly going about the business of making a living and raising a family. Don't expect to read about that in the news, though: that sort of common sense seems to confuse old-school news editors. (More: "Somali-Americans in Minnesota: According to The New York Times" (July 12, 2009))

Related posts:

• "Sudan, Women, Trousers, Culture and Common Sense"
  (September 7, 2009)
• "Canadian Mosque's 'Specialized De-Radicalization Intervention Program' - Sounds Good"
  (February 26, 2009)
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "Saudi Arabia's National Day, Islam, and Tribalism: This is Big"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Is the War on Terror a War on Islam? Not Quite"
  (December 8, 2007)
• "Saudi Breakthrough! Jihadists Reformed!! Al Qaeda Members Promise No More Jihad*!!!"
  (November 27, 2007)
  • *on the Arabian Peninsula, that is.
• "It's Arabic, Is It Islamic?"
  (November 21, 2007)
• "Saudi Wisdom on Terrorism, Wife Beating"
  (November 2, 2007)

In the news:

• "Muslim scholar's fatwa condemns terrorism"
  CNN (March 3, 2010)

No More "War on Terror" - Officially?

"Obama team drops 'war on terror' rhetoric"
Reuters (March 30, 2009)

"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped "war on terror" from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.

" 'The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,' Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his "global war on terror.'..."

That's the gist of the article, and all the others I read.

I believe it. President Obama promised change: and dropping a divisive term like "war on terror" is certainly a change.

I'm quite confident that President Obama's administration will be much nicer, more conciliatory, open, understanding, and caring than the "diabolical" George W. Bush's administration was.

Words, Actions, and Common Sense

I am one of those people who are convinced that words have meanings, and that it matters: what words are used.

Clinton and Obama notwithstanding, I'm keeping the name of this blog: on the practical side, it'd be a big fuss to start with a new name, and you might have trouble finding this blog; on the philosophical side, I think it's a mistake to pretend that a war isn't a war.

What's going on now, between outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and everyone they don't approve of - the West included - is a war. It's not like the wars that were fought in Aristotle's time, or the conflicts of the twentieth century, but it's still a war. Even if only one side admits it.

'Defense Department'?!

If I remember correctly, America had a 'United States Department of War' from its very early years, until 1947. Then, since 'war was no longer possible,' as a character in a sixties show (Ironside, I think), it became the 'Department of Defense.'

I think that giving the Department of War a 'nicer' name may have been a mistake. It's true, the American department of war's purpose is to defend America. But, in their own way, that's a function of the State Department, and all the other federal departments.

The 'Department of Defense' defends America by being prepared to wage war: and, on occasion, waging war. That's not nice, I'll agree: but this world isn't particularly nice. And, like it or not, we all live in the real world.

No More "War on Terror"?

Maybe the Obama administration has a grand plan for preventing religious maniacs from doing a re-play of the 9/11 attack. I sincerely hope so.

I also hope that President Obama does not believe that the leaders of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded people, will stop being mean if America stops being mean. There's very little evidence to support the notion that, deep down inside, Osama bin Laden is a nice guy who just wants to get along.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help "
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)
• "Obama Ignorant, Exporting Terrorism: Chavez Says So"
  (March 22, 2009)
• "The West and Today's Somali President: The Enemy of Your Enemy is Your Friend?"
  (March 19, 2009)
• "Carville, Limbaugh, 9/11, Obama, and Objectivity in the News"
  (March 11, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
  • Not one of my best: I didn't make it clear that Obama was reaching out to people supporting the Taliban - there's a difference.

News and Views:

• "U.S. Drops 'War on Terror' Phrase, Clinton Says"
  The Wall Street Journal (March 31, 2009)
• "Is There a War on the Term 'War on Terror' "
  Political Punch, ABC News (March 30, 2009)
"Obama team drops 'war on terror' rhetoric"
Reuters (March 30, 2009)
• "Obama administration abandons 'war on terror' "
  AFP (March 30, 2009)

Be Grateful for News Translated Into English - And Be Aware

Translations can be tricky. It's challenging to take a sequence of ideas, expressed in prose, from one language and culture, and translate it into a sequence that someone using another language, from another culture, will understand. (Poetry, in my opinion as a recovering English teacher, cannot be translated. At best, a similar poem can be written in the second language.)

The Tale of a Frog, Translated from English to French, to English

Even prose presents problems. Mark Twain, (Samuel Langhorne Clemens), wrote "The Celebrated Frog of Calaveras County" in the 1860s. It was a hit. These days, in America, he might have been hounded by animal-rights enthusiasts, but that's another matter.

What is important to recall is that "The Celebrated Frog of Calaveras County" was written in English, American English, and a very popular story. So popular that a translation into the French was attempted.

This translation, I am told, was not the commercial success that had been hoped. Mr. Clemens, obtaining a copy of the translation, had it - - - I think it is best if I use the American writer's own words, as used in a title of a monograph which discussed the matter: "The Jumping Frog: in English, then in French, and then Clawed Back into a Civilized Language Once More by Patient, Unremunerated Toil" - Mr. Clemens had a marked preference for English, particularly American English, and took no pains to conceal it.

A facsimile of Twain's "The Jumping Frog: in English, then in French, and then Clawed Back into a Civilized Language Once More by Patient, Unremunerated Toil" is available online.

Mr. Twain's re-translation intentionally retained the French synatx - which looks, to be polite, weird in English of any variety.

Before jumping into what prompted this post, Twain's story, online is available several places, including:

• "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" From The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County and Other Sketches Mark Twain (1867) edited by: Angel Price (November, 1996)
• "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County and Other Sketches"
  by Mark Twain - on Wikisource, undated

Thank You Very Much, Editors and Staff of 毎日新聞の

I don't know more that a few words of Japanese, so I rely on people who know both English and Japanese, or machine translations (usually one of Google's translation tools. The results are, well, less than ideal. For example, here's the first three paragraphs in 毎日新聞の article on Mr. Yamaguchi :

広島、長崎で直接被爆しながら、長崎での被爆しか被爆者健康手帳に記載されていなかった山口彊（つとむ）さん（９３）＝長崎市＝に対し、長崎市は２３日、広島での直接被爆と入市被爆を山口さんの手帳に追加記載した。広島、長崎での二重被爆者の存在について、厚生労働省は確認しておらず、長崎、広島両県市は「把握している限り、二重被爆が手帳に記載されるのは初めて」としている。

　長崎市の認定内容などによると、山口さんは４５年８月６日、三菱重工業長崎造船所の技師として広島市に出張中、爆心地から３キロの地点で直接被爆し、左上半身に大やけどを負った。翌日、避難列車に乗るため爆心地から約２キロ以内を通って入市被爆。８月８日に長崎市に戻り、翌９日に爆心地から３キロ付近で再び直接被爆した。同１３日に親族を探すため、爆心地付近に入り入市被爆した。別の被爆者の証言から二重被爆を裏付けた。

　山口さんによると、旧原爆医療法（現被爆者援護法）施行で被爆者健康手帳制度が始まった５７年８月、長崎市に申請し、手帳を交付された。当時は両方の直接被爆が記載されていたが、更新後の新たな手帳には長崎での直接被爆と入市被爆しか載っていなかったという。６０年の更新時とみられる。

Google translation:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings directly, Yamaguti Tsuyoshi was not mentioned in the health card only survivors of the Nagasaki bombing (as conductor), (93) = = The city of Nagasaki, Nagasaki on August 23, directly in Hiroshima Add to that described in the handbook at Yamaguchi City bombing and the bombing. Hiroshima, about the existence of a double-bomb survivors in Nagasaki, the ministry has not confirmed, Nagasaki and Hiroshima Prefecture, "as long as you know, are described in the handbook is the first dual-bomb" that.

According to the certification of the contents of Nagasaki, Yamaguchi 1945 August 6, during a trip to Hiroshima Mitsubishi engineer長崎造船所from ground zero to three miles directly bombed, burned a large left upper half suffered. The next day, about a train ride from ground zero to escape the bombing, entered through the two said. August 8 to return to Nagasaki, from ground zero in the next 9 days directly bombed again at around 3 km. Looking for relatives in the 13 days, bombed the city to enter into and around ground zero.裏付KETA a double bombing by the testimony of survivors.

According to Yamaguchi, the former atomic bomb Medical Law (Law survivors now support) hibakusha health card system began implementation in August 1957, to apply to the city of Nagasaki, was issued a handbook. At the time, was described by both direct bombing, a new notebook with the new City bombing did not just turn on and directly in the bombing of Nagasaki. Said 60-year update.

The Manichi Daily News English version, first three paragraphs:
NAGASAKI -- A 93-year-old man who experienced atomic bombings in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki has won official recognition as a dual hibakusha.

The Nagasaki Municipal Government acknowledged on Monday that Tsutomu Yamaguchi, 93, from Nagasaki, Nagasaki Prefecture, was not only exposed to the atomic bomb in Nagasaki but also in Hiroshima, and updated his A-bomb survivor's ID. So far, only his experience in Nagasaki had been recognized.

"As far as we know, it is the first time that a dual exposure to atomic bombings has been entered into an A-bomb survivor's ID," said officials of the prefectural and municipal governments of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has not confirmed the existence of a dual hibakusha.

It's (Not Quite) the Same Article

The most obvious difference is the lead paragraph. The Manichi Daily News English version leads with a shorter paragraph, for starters.

My best guess is that the editors decided to do more than a simple translation. Their English-language article conforms to a style which may be better suited to people whose cradle language is English.

A search for a Japanese rendering of the term "hibakusha," which I had found in today's news. I was writing another post at the time, and was verifying a few facts.

I didn't find "hibakusha" in The Manichi Daily News Japanese article. Actually, I'm sure I did: I just couldn't sort out which symbols added up to "hibakusha." the closest I got was 被爆者健康手帳制度 which apparently means "Hibakusha health card system," but I couldn't get "Hibakush" out of that string of characters. 被爆 apparently means "bombing" and 被爆者 "survivors."

At that point, I dropped the matter and went on to finish the post.

Don't Be Suspicious: But do Be Aware

When someone who almost certainly was not speaking English is quoted in the news - in English - that's not what the person said. It's a translation. It may be very accurate, somewhat accurate, or wildly wrong.

One of the better examples is on the SCMTranslation website:

"During a state visit to Poland in 1977, President Jimmy Carter delivered an address at Warsaw Airport. His speech was translated by a certain S. Seymour, whose grasp of Polish was sadly lacking.

"When Carter spoke of his 'desires for the future,' Seymour relayed the phrase as 'lusts for the future.' And when Carter mentioned his safe arrival in Poland, Seymour inadvertently explained that the president had 'left America, never to return.'

"['I had to grit my teeth from time to time,' Poland's President Gierek remarked, 'but one must not be rude to ladies or interpreters.']"

Missouri Focus Group MIAC: Ron Paul Supporters May Be Terrorists

You can't make this sort of thing up.

• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

Supporters of trouble-makers like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr may be terrorists, too.

After 9/11, 58 focus groups were set up, including the Missouri Information Analysis Center, or MIAC. MIAC is a government collective set up by the Missouri state government. It's supposed to identify warning signs, so law enforcement can spot potential domestic terrorists.

What I sincerely hope was a rough draft, written after a weekend binge, was leaked recently.

If anybody with real authority takes MIAC recommendations seriously, we could all be in really big trouble.

On the up side, it looks like I'm a suspected anti-establishment radical, by MIAC's standards. Cool!

I missed my chance in the sixties and seventies: nice to know I finally made the grade.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)
• "Tolerance, Opinions, Newspeak, and Today's America"
  (March 13, 2008)
• "CCSU Students Talk About Guns: Naturally, Their Professor Called the Police"
  (March 4, 2009)
• "William Felkner vs. College Conformity: Traditional Information Gatekeepers Face Another Challenge"
  (December 16, 2008)
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (November 3, 2008)
  
• "Maryland State Police to 'Terrorist' Nuns: Oops, Our Bad"
  (October 11, 2008)

Abu Gharib? Abu Ghraib? Abu Ghrib? Abu Ghurayb?! A Spelling Issue

The spelling of names in a language that uses the Latin alphabet is tricky, when the name comes from a language that uses another system for expressing sounds: and gets even more interesting when the other language uses a non-phonetic system for the visual system of encoding data that we call "writing."

That prison in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had people tortured and killed, and the American military investigated a bunch of naughty soldiers, is called Abu Gharib, Abu Ghraib, even Abu Ghrib. I think that last may be a typo, but it is pronounceable.

To Change or Not to Change? That is the Question

Researching a post today, I found that no less authority than The New York Times likes "Abu Ghraib." ("...Torture at Abu Ghraib American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?") (American soldiers brutalized Iraqis: it must be happening all the time. You know what those Americans are like!)

I've gone back and 'corrected' names in this blog a few times, as I learned that my first posts used an obscure spelling. Not often: but I have done it. And, since Abu Gh[-whatever] seems destined to be with us for a while, as a recurring news item, and I discovered just how many ways there were to spell it in English, I decided to go back and do a little extra research.

I generally take the spelling used by a vast majority of sources, unless there's good reason to think that the majority is wrong, and someone else actually knows what the score is.

With no less illustrious authority than The New York Times as a guide, I should probably change the spelling I've been using ("Abu Gharib") to what The New York Times likes ("Abu Ghraib").

On the other hand, "Abu Gharib" got 3,280,000 hits in a Google search earlier today, compared to 3,220,000 for "Abu Ghraib." By that standard (a sort of popularity poll), there's only about a 2% difference in how many people use the two spellings, with "Abu Gharib" winning by a very short lead.

Just to make things more difficult, I found another spelling: "Abu Ghurayb, [Abu Ghraib]" (GlobalSecurity.org).

"Abu Ghurayb" got 42,400 hits on Google a few minutes ago. It may be more accurate, by some standards, but with about 1/100 as many people using it as front-running spellings, it doesn't seem like a good choice. I don't want readers stumbling over an unfamiliar spelling.

So, for now, "Abu Gharib" will be the standard spelling in this blog.

Now, back to my research.

---

Update (January 25, 2009)

I got to thinking: The New York Times liking "Abu Ghraib" is one thing. But, when The New York Times and Reuters both think that's the 'right' way to spell the name, that's another.

Quite a few people regard those two traditional news outlets as authoritative: so, "Abu Gharib" will change to "Abu Ghraib" today.

America to Unilaterally Attack Somalia!

Well, no.

The fact is, an international naval force is assembling "to battle pirates off the coast of Somalia." (AP) By the time its mission starts, later this month, more than 20 nations will probably be involved.

The international force must be "unilateral" though. An American is commanding it: U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Terence McKnight.


(U.S. Navy photo by Anderson Bomjardim, used without permission)
Task Force 59's commander, Rear Admiral Terence E. Mcknight, fielding questions at a coalition forces' crisis response exercise. (November 6, 2007)

"Unliateral," "Quagmire," and Living in the Sixties

To be fair, I don't think we'll be hearing all that much about "unilateral" American action against Somali pirates.

• Terms like "unilateral" and "going it alone" fell out of fashion rather early in the presidential election: Partly, I think, because people found out how many countries had "unilaterally" invaded Iraq.
• Since it is an international force, credit for success can be doled out to
  • Participating nations
    • This may already be happening
  • The Obama administration
    • Thereby vindicating hopes that Barack Obama will restore America's standing in world opinion

The Obama administration? It's quite possible. Barack Obama will be president by the time the international force's mission is at its most active, and I think it will be much easier to associate successes with the current president. If things don't go well, we'll probably read that the international force was part of the 'failed policies' of George W. Bush.

I'm not cynical: but I have been following the news for decades, and think I've spotted a few journalistic habits.

Woodstock's Over, Disco Died, It's Time to Wake Up

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but: It isn't the sixties any more. It's time to tune in, and drop back in. Quite a bit has happened in the last forty years.

For one thing, the Vietnam war ended: badly, but it ended. From the way "quagmire" kept being used to describe wars fought in deserts, I get the impression that many Americans didn't get the memo.

Word seems to be getting around, though. I recently found "quicksand" used to describe America's 'failure' in the Middle East.

There was, and is, an almost nostalgic quality to many reports from Iraq. A few years ago, headlines like "Iraq's My Lai!" and "Defining atrocity of the Iraq War!" heralded an incident at Haditha, Iraq. People like me, who aren't working for the traditional information gatekeepers, found out what actually happened. The fanfare of "Iraq's My Lai!" faded, like echoes of a trumpet in the hills.

I don't expect people to give up memories of their youth, but I do think that it's a good idea to keep up with the times.

Today, outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a rather definite idea about how the world should be run. The 9/11 attack that took out New York City's World Trade Center was part of their efforts to make the world safe for their version of Islam.

This is a real threat to America, and practically everybody else. Their approach to people who protest against them, or are counter-cultural (like men who wear trousers), makes Kent State look like a tea party.

Pirates and the War on Terror

The Somali pirates are not Islamic terrorists. In fact, real terrorists, based in south Sudan, attacked the northern-Sudan pirates after a Saudi ship was captured. Apparently, it's okay to pillage non-Muslims, but 'Islamic' interests should be left alone.

The way I see it, dealing with Somali pirates and the War on Terror are closely related, because both stem from cluelessly idealistic efforts to 'help' European colonial holdings become nations (like the Versailles Treaty).

America, at least, seems to have learned something about dealing with people who aren't European. The invasion of Iraq and this international force to deal with piracy are two examples of an approach that seems to work:

• Treat local leaders with respect
  • If they want to communicate with bullets, oblige them
• Find out which nations are willing to help deal with a situation
  • Get them organized - odds are, this will mean leading them
• Let nations whose leaders don't want to help know what you're doing
  • But don't wait for their permission

Let's hope it works in the waters off Somalia.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Goodbye Quagmire, Hello Quicksand: Champions of Relevance Catch Up"
  (January 5, 2009)
• "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
  (December 29, 2008)
• "Chinese Navy to Somali Waters - Time Running out for Somalia?"
  (December 18, 2008)
• "Recruiting for Terror? Somali Minnesotans Missing, One Found Dead"
  (December 4, 2008)
• "Cruise Ships and Safety: Designated Smoking Areas and Sonic Cannons"
  (December 1, 2008)
• "Negotiated End to Somali Piracy - This Just Might Work"
  (November 26, 2008)
• "Baghdad's Palestine Hotel Open for Business: Nothing to See Here, Move Along?"
  (November 16, 2008)
• "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions"
  (October 21, 2008)
• "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!"
  (August 9, 2007)

News and views:

• "US to head anti-pirate patrols off Somalia"
  The Associated Press (January 8, 2009)
• "French ship released as China begins anti-pirate patrols"
  CNN (January 7, 2009)
• "A Barack Obama Presidency Will Restore America's Prestige"
  American Chronicle (June 6, 2008)

Background:

• "McKnight Relieves Hall as Commander Expeditionary Strike Group 2"
  United States Navy (September 30, 2007)
• "Rear Admiral Terence E. "Terry" McKnight
  Expeditionary Strike Group 2/Commander, Task Force 51/59"
  United States Navy Biography (last updated September 25, 2007)

---

Related posts on piracy and the War on Terror.

Goodbye Quagmire, Hello Quicksand: Champions of Relevance Catch Up

Here's the headline:

"America's 'good war' turns into quicksand"
Media Monitors Network (A service of MMN International Inc.) (January 5, 2009)

The article itself is unremarkable. It's more of the usual:

"...US and NATO forces are adding to his problems by killing innocent civilians in the thousands...."

"...Obama’s announcement to send 20,000 additional troops to the .good war. in Afghanistan has been greeted by the Taliban with glee. They regard it as an opportunity to attack a .bigger army, bigger target and more shiny new weapons to take from the toy soldiers....."

What stands out is the use of the word, "quicksand" as a metaphor.

The author, Zia Sarhadi, seems to be aware that there are very few rice paddies in the Middle East - which makes use of the traditional "quagmire," so beloved of American champions of peace, love, and grooviness, rather inappropriate for today's political rhetoric.

Attention, Traditional American Liberals and Peaceniks! Vietnam is Over!

"Quagmire" was a useful metaphor, back when all right-thinking collegians believed that the American military were baby-killers - or worse.

That was then, this is now.

Today, people who like to think for themselves face a real threat from an enemy whose spiritual home, and major bases of operation, are in some of driest real estate on Earth. Calling efforts to stop outfits like the Talban and Al Qaeda a "quagmire" is not only debatably prudent: considering the Middle East's climate, it's downright silly.

But then, so is nostalgically clinging to a set of assumptions and preferences that were already passing when Disco died.

Related post:

• " 'Quagmire's' Back: Georgia, Russia, NATO, Bush, and the Blame Game"
  (August 24, 2008)

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Chief Saudi Judge: Death to Network Owners!

Okay, you've heard about 'death to the mice! Death to the great Satan Mickey!' (No, Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Muhammad Munajid didn't say that, but he did identify Mickey Mouse as "one of Satan's soldiers.")

Followers of Islam now have the go-ahead to kill television network owners: immoral ones, that is.

It's Okay to Kill Network Owners, Says Saudi Cleric and Judge

"Riyadh: Saudi cleric Saleh al-Luhaidan, Chairman of the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council, has issued a fatwa permitting the murder of the owners of Arabic satellite TV channels which broadcast programmes that encourage immorality, media reports said on Friday." ("Saudi fatwa on 'immoral' satellite channels" Sify news (September 13, 2008).)

After the head of Saudi Arabia's highest tribunal declared open season on network owners, an unnamed cleric said that al Lihedan's edict wasn't a good idea. This other cleric said that it encouraged terrorism and, as the Associated Press put it, "allows 'the enemies of Islam' to portray the faith as one that favors murder."

It's hard to say whether that reality check made a difference, but last Sunday the Saudi cleric/judge clarified his position:

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia: A senior Saudi official said Sunday that owners of satellite TV networks that show "immoral" content should be brought to trial and sentenced to death if other penalties don't deter them from airing such broadcasts.

"The comments by Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan, the chief of the kingdom's highest tribunal, the Supreme Judiciary Council, were an attempt to explain a fatwa, or decree, he issued last week, in which he said just that it was permissible to kill the network's owners." ("Saudi official: Death for 'immoral' network owners" International Herald Tribune (September 14, 2008).)

That's a slight improvement. At least Sheik Saleh al Lihedan thinks that erring owners should be given a fair trial before being executed. On the other hand, since various flavors of Islam regard everything from teddy bears to trousers as "immoral," I'd say that anyone who owns or runs a television network in the Middle East would be well-advised to leave, fast.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Sheik Saleh al Lihedan made his 'go ahead, waste on a daily radio program, "Light in the Path," where he and others pass rulings on what is permissible under Islamic law.

Excerpt from the International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2008:

• "...Al-Lihedan's edict was broadcast Thursday during the daily "Light in the Path" radio program in which he and others pass rulings on what is permissible under Islamic law.
• "One caller asked about Islam's view of the owners of satellite TV channels that show 'bad programs' during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, which began two weeks ago.
• " 'I want to advise the owners of these channels, who broadcast calls for such indecency and impudence ... and I warn them of the consequences,' al-Lihedan said. 'What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?'
• " 'Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,' al-Lihedan added. 'Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.'
• "Al-Lihedan, 79, did not name a particular TV channel or programs in the radio show, which was taped a couple of months ago.
• "On Sunday, he said his 'advice' was aimed at owners who broadcast witchcraft, indecent programs, shows that mock scholars or the religious police and comedies that are not appropriate for Ramadan...."

That "indecent programs" and "not appropriate for Ramadan" still leaves many opportunities for offing offending owners.

Speaking Out in the Middle East

That unnamed cleric who said that the 'death to network owners' fatwa wasn't good for public relations isn't alone. An article in Middle East Online (September 19, 2008), "Mideasterners fed up with unreasonable edicts," reported:

• "Observers say harsh religious views are increasingly annoying Middle Easterners, and although Muslim clerics usually get the lion's share of scrutiny in the media, Christian and Jewish liberals are equally unhappy with their own communities' religious figures.
• "Israeli women had expressed anger at discrimination by rabbis in issues relating to divorce, their seating in certain bus lines, and even their careers...."

Two things struck me about that article.

1. The allegation that people at street level in the Middle East are "fed up" with "unreasonable edicts" from Islamic leaders. There's an implication that Muslims in that part of the world are starting to think about what they're being told
2. What seems to me to be an invocation of moral equivalence. 'Sure, Muslim leaders tell us it's okay to kill network owners: but those Jews discriminate against women. And homosexuals'

Middle East Online isn't the only outfit expressing concern about the Saudi Sheikh's fatwa. The National, published in Dubai, ran an op-ed by Ayman Safadi: "Sheikh's TV fatwa is a symptom of the cancer of extremism." The author identifies Middle Eastern governments' typical policies toward the wacky side of Islam as "appeasement." And, doesn't use the 'Jews and Christians are just as bad' argument.

I was impressed by this insight: "...The lightness with which the Sheikh views human life is shocking. But equally disturbing is that a man who does not blink at issuing what could amount to death sentences against a large number of people remains in a position of power – and in a country whose leadership has recently launched a global effort to promote moderate and tolerant Islam...."

Oddly, Ayman Safadi wrote that "the Sheikh retracted his statement," which may be true. On the other hand, Sheikh Saleh al Lihedan's Sunday statement, as translated, didn't seem so much a retraction as a clarification.

Maybe the Sheikh made another statement, that was a retraction.

Crisis in the Kasbah?

I get the impression that Islam, at least the sort practiced in the Middle East, has been coasting along for centuries with a comfortable mix of tradition and antique scholarship.

Customs that were ancient when Abraham was born have worked quite well. For men. Who didn't wear trousers. And didn't tick off the local imam.

When a speedy camel was the fastest communication medium available, and the pronouncements were in a language that very few outsiders knew, or were interested in, it was possible to pass every 'death to the mice,' 'death to the network owners,' 'death to whoever I don't like' fatwa as true Islam.

Provided that enough of the locals agreed with the imam.

That was then.

This is the Information Age. Words travel fast and far: and get translated into more widely-understood languages.

That spells trouble for people who like the good old days, when a man could be executed for wearing trousers.

On the other hand, I think this is a great opportunity for serious Muslims, who may want to re-evaluate just what Islam is.

In the news:

• "Mideasterners fed up with unreasonable edicts"
  Middle East Online (September 19, 2008)
• "Arabs Denounce Cleric's Edict to Kill Satellite TV Station Owners"
  FOXNews (September 19, 2008)
• "Sheikh's TV fatwa is a symptom of the cancer of extremism"
  The National (September 17, 2008)
• "Surveying the Arab World for Ramadan's Best and Worst"
  About.com (September 16, 2008)
Mickey Mouse must die: Saudi Arabian cleric"
DNA (Daily News & Analysis) (September 16, 2008)
• "Mickey Mouse must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric"
  Daily Telegraph (September 15, 2008)
• "Cleric issues fatwa against TV networks"
  AME (United Arab Emirates) (September 14, 2008)
• "Saudi official: Death for 'immoral' network owners"
  International Herald Tribune (September 14, 2008)
• "Saudi fatwa on 'immoral' satellite channels"
  Sify news (September 13, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric

I'm not making this up.

You've probably heard about it by now: Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Muhammad Munajid has identified Mickey Mouse as "one of Satan's soldiers" - and warns that everything Mickey touches is impure.

Sheikh Muhammad Munajid isn't some fringe nut case. At least, not the usual sort. He's a prominent Saudi, and for a while was a Saudi diplomat in Washington, D.C..

The Saudi cleric explains that, under sharia law, mice are unclean. He discussed his flavor of Islam in a religious affairs program on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network.

In the good old days, saying something in a language other than English was a pretty good way of keeping it away from Americans, Englishmen, and Australians. That's all changed. The Middle East Media Research Institute, an American press monitoring service, translated the Muslim cleric's remarks: "The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers and is steered by him.

"If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure.

"According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature. How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?..." (From the Daily Telegraph (September 15, 2008).)

In a way, Sheikh Munajid is right. Mice are not the sort of creature you want falling on your food. Or running through it.

But, "agent of Satan?!" I think that's carrying a dislike of household pests a little far.

In addition to being anti-mouse, Sheikh Muhammad Munajid doesn't approve of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. He called them the "bikini Olympics," because the women weren't wearing as much clothing as he though appropriate. Again, he's got a point. In some cases, I've got a very clear memory of how the female athletes looked, from the chin down: but only a vague notion of what event they were competing in.

The Sheikh turns the volume of his protests up so much, that any reasonable objections get lost in the noise.

Sheikh Muhammed Mnajid didn't stop with 'death to the mouse.' It gets better. Or worse.

In the news:

• "Mickey Mouse must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric"
  Daily Telegraph (September 15, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Another Fortnight, and Still No Quagmires

Another two weeks has passed, and I still haven't heard "quagmire" come out of a politico or campaigner. With just a little over five months to go before the America election, that's a good sign.

I noted the campaign's quagmirelessness back in "Lies, Quagmires, and Straight Thinking" (May 14, 2008). There's a more detailed discussion of "quagmire" and political rhetoric in "Quagmire: Now and Forever, it Seems" (November 11, 2007), with links to earlier related posts. (I hope it's simply political rhetoric, and that the 'quagmire' people don't actually think in those rather dated terms.)

Place Names in Conventional English Form, or 'Correctly?'

I learn quite a bit from comments on these posts. Today, someone took the time to make a comment on "Today's Main Event: Protesters vs. the Olympic Torch in San Francisco" (April 9, 2008), bringing up an interesting point.

Here's the comment, by that prolific author, Anonymous:

"Don't pretend that you know a lot about history. Tibet is still a An English TRANSLATION name as same as Xizang. Now that you don't like China, you can call Xiazang any name you want.

"Suggest you goto a library to read a little more about Tibet then comment on this 'Independence', though suggesting going to library is often a mother's duty.
"April 26, 2008 7:54 PM"

My response, in part, was "... I write for an English-speaking audience. And so, when I refer to the the country on the coast of Europe that depends on dikes for keeping much of its territory dry, I write 'the Netherlands.'

"I do so, not out of ignorance, but because this blog is in English. I'm aware that the local name of the country is Nederland (or, more formally, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) - but many readers might not be."

"The same goes for Tibet."

This Raises a Good Question

What do you think?

There was a time, when I gave names in Arabic form, as well as Latinized forms. I'll still do that, from time to time, but only if there's a good reason. However, it took time to do the necessary research: and I wasn't at all sure that you wanted that sort of information.

I could spend more time with each post, researching the various "correct" forms of each country, before posting. I'd rather not: "Tibet," for example, is known as Pö or Bö, in Lhasa dialect: or maybe Bod. Determining which was the "correct" form - and whose "correct" form should be used - is possible, but would be time-consuming.

Besides, I don't have a font available to me that would handle the Lhasa language, and suspect that you may not, either.

I'd appreciate feedback: I may not change my habits, but knowing what you would prefer will help me make a decision as to how I handle names of places - and people.

Thank you in advance.

What's in a Name? Hajj Imad is Dead, Imad Hajj is Gainfully Employed

Okay, the terrorist's name is Imad Mughniyeh. But Hezbollah's head, Hassan Nasrallah, got quoted as saying "You have killed Hajj Imad outside the natural battlefield."

My guess is that "Hajj Imad" will stick in English-speaking brains better than "Imad Mughniyeh."

That's going to be a little confusing, since Hajj Imad, the Hezbollah leader, is dead: but the Chief Development Officer with a similar name at Thomas & Betts Corporation is alive and well - and possibly rather annoyed at this point.

I'll get back to the terrorist in another post.

Remember, while people were still picking pieces of other people out of New York City's rooftops and air conditioners, how crazy some got about the name "bin Laden?" And the word "laden," for that matter?

I seem to remember that an admirably cautious worker in Europe raised an alarm after seeing "LADEN" on a package. That made sense, sort of, considering the chance that envelopes with anthrax or boxes with bombs might be getting shipped.

On the other hand, seeing "LADEN" on something being shipped in Europe shouldn't be too unusual. In German, "laden" means charge, shop, load, or loading: among other things.

Today, Hezbollah leader Hajj Imad is in the news.

I'd like to think that most people will have the good sense to realize that someone with a similar name may have no connection whatsoever with terrorism.

But there always seem to be that special few, generously endowed with enthusiasm, and uninhibited by common sense, to add a note of irrelevance and annoyance.

Usama, Osama, Tomayto, Tomahto

If you're really on the ball, you've noticed a few changes in "Another War-on-Terror Blog."

Up until this morning, I referred to the leader of Al Qaeda as "Usama Bin Laden." Yesterday, I read a comment which said out that "Osama" was the correct spelling.

Actually, it seems that أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن (Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden) is the correct spelling of his full name, and that أسامة بن لادن (Osama bin Laden) is a shortened form.

Since many readers might have trouble reading أسامة بن لادن, I decided to use a Latinized form of the name. When I started tracking Sheik bin Laden, I ran into "Usama" more often than "Osama," and so I standardized on that form of the name.

I see now that "Osama bin Laden" is used more often than "Usama bin Laden," by a ratio of 2,870,000 - 536,000. So, "Osama" it is. I spent part of this morning making the changes, and believe that I caught all instances.

This is a good example of how interesting it is, as an American, dealing with people and issues for which many names and terms are written in an alphabet other than those derived from the Latin writing system.

Thanks for the feedback!

The Names of Abu Sayyaf: Thinking About Translations

Terrible as it is, the efforts of religious fanatics to convert or kill the rest of the world has been an opportunity for me to learn a little about the Arabic language.

Researching a recent post, I found items about Arabic and Abu Sayyaf that didn't quite relate to the post's topic, but were too interesting to file and forget.

Abu Sayyaf has quite a few names. "Abu Sayyaf," "Jamāʿah Abū Sayyāf," (جماعة أبو سياف written in the Roman alphabet), and "al-Harakat al-Islamiyah." The Wikipedia article says that the name comes from Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith").

As usual, translations of the name don't agree. "bearer of the sword" or "Sword of God" or literally "Father of the Sword" in Arabic.

Council on Foreign Relations, renown experts since the Wilson administration, says this about them, "Abu Sayyaf (the phrase means 'bearer of the sword' in Arabic) is a militant organization based in the southern Philippines seeking a separate Islamic state for the country's Muslim minority."

So what? I'm directing the next remarks mostly at American citizens, but the principles apply to many other people.

Unless you read, and speak, Arabic and other languages, you're getting your information about affairs in the Islamic world through a medium that translates statements. And translation involves choosing which word or phrase to use, of many possibilities.

I don't advocate not believing what you read. I do suggest that you think about what can happen in translations as you read.

Related posts:

• The Names of Abu Sayyaf: Thinking About Translations (August 19, 2007)
• "Quagmire," the Revolutionary Guard, and the News (August 19, 2007)
• News, Truth, and the Big Picture (August 11, 2007)
• Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up! (August 9, 2007)