Charlie Hebdo: Dealing With Difference

(From Jeremy Schultz, via Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("Police entering the supermarket."
(Reuters))

Here we go again. This time it's in Paris, France.

My guess is that body count will keep going up.

I'll skip the conventional 'it is the fault of the Jews/Muslims/police/whatever' rhetoric.

Oddly enough, cherry-picking facts from recent events could be twisted into a claim that Paris police declared war on a kosher supermarket.

I do not think this was a Zionist conspiracy to assassinate insufficiently-kosher Jews, or a plot by McDonalds to take over the kosher food industry, by the way.

Death at a Kosher Supermarket

"French forces kill newspaper attack suspects, hostages die in second siege"
John Irish, Emmanuel Jarry and Ingrid Melander; Reuters (January 9, 2015)

"Two brothers suspected of a bloody attack on the offices of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo were killed when police stormed their hideout on Friday, while a second siege ended with the deaths of four hostages.

"The violent end to the simultaneous stand-offs followed a police operation of unprecedented scale as France tackled one of the worst threats to its internal security in decades. The heavy loss of life over three consecutive days also risked fuelling anti-immigrant voices in the country and elsewhere in the West.

"Officials said Cherif Kouachi and his brother Said, both in their thirties, died when anti-terrorist forces moved in on a print shop in the small town of Dammartin-en-Goele, northeast of Paris, where the chief suspects in Wednesday's attack had been holed up. The hostage they had taken was safe, an official said....

"...Minutes later police broke the second siege at a Jewish supermarket in eastern Paris. A police union source said four hostages had died there along with a gunman, believed to have had links to the same Islamist group as the Kouachi brothers, who was holding them.

"HOSTAGES RUSHED OUT

"News footage of the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in the Vincennes district showed dozens of heavily armed police officers massed outside of two entrances. The assault began with gunfire and a loud explosion at the door, after which hostages were rushed out...."

The folks who murdered Charlie Hebdo staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski; economist Bernard Maris; and two police officers on duty at the magazine; may have believed they were lions on Islam, defending their faith against blasphemers.

Outside their fan base, my guess is that they've added more fuel to the argument that Islam and the 21st century do not mix well.

Islam in the Information Age

"...During the attack the gunmen were heard to shout Allahu akbar, 'the Prophet is avenged', ... ^{[30][38][39][40]} President François Hollande described it as a 'terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity'.^[41] The three attackers were identified as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both French, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, whose nationality is unknown...."
(Charlie Hebdo, Wikipedia [emphasis mine])

This week's lions of Islam apparently had a reason for murdering eight folks at Charlie Hebdo. That's the November 3, 2011 issue's cover. I gather that the issue was "guest-edited" by Muhammad, and depicted Muhammad saying: "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing."

Then, in September of 2012, Charlie Hebdo ran an issue with nude caricatures of Mohammad. That was after other lions of Islam killed folks at U.S. embassies in the Middle East. Those attacks were presumably a response to an anti-Islamic film: "Innocence of Muslims."

I run into folks who rant about some threat to their beliefs — based on what they read in The Onion, an American digital media company and news satire organization.

I've read a few Onion pieces: and can understand how someone with a negligible sense of humor and stunted imagination might mistake their satire for 'real' news.

But I don't think killing Onion staff would be a sensible way to express displeasure.

The good news, I suppose, is that Charlie Hebdo went this long without a lethal attack.

I do not think that the French government will respond to this week's events by suspending their Parliament, declaring France an Islamic state, and giving French citizens 24 hours to convert or die.

It's quite possible that Muslims will continue to enjoy whatever rights they share with the rest of the citizenry: but after this, I don't think their popularity will increase among the non-Muslims.

Dealing With Difference: or Not

Being a Catholic in America, I know a little about living in a country where one's faith is not universally respected.

Chick Publications occasionally publishes another warning against Catholic beliefs.

I'm not gleeful about that, or the continuing popularity of Maria Monk's perennial bestseller.

But I wouldn't kill anyone to express my disapproval: not even if I felt like it. I'm a Catholic, murder is against the rules, and that's another topic.

Related posts, not entirely in this blog:

• "Remembering 9/11, Living in a Big World"
  (September 11, 2014)
• ""Displaced Aggression:" Terrorism, Culture, and Assumptions"
  (December 1, 2013)
  Particularly
  • Sincere, Maybe: Justified, No
  • Dealing With Difference
  • From the Days of Abram to Cable TV and Beer in One Generation
• "Using a Machete in a Global Civilization"
  (May 23, 2013)
• "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
  (April 7, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Why the Rights of Muslims Matter to This Catholic
• "Jesus Christ, Beer, Tobacco, Idols and Indian Law"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (February 22, 2010)

Air France 447: Equipment Problems; Stall Warnings; Pilot Error

Air France Flight 447 took off from Rio de Janeiro and headed toward Paris. Some time later, the Airbus A330-200 disappeared from radar.

Evidence, But Not Much

That was May 31, 2009. By June 10, we knew that an airliner and 228 people had disappeared, and that:

• Two names that were on a terrorist watch list appeared on Air France Flight 447's passenger list
• The Airbus A330-200 had an older set of Pitot tubes
  • Air speed sensors
• Pilots in the area saw an "intense flash" when the airliner disappeared
• A fuel slick found wasn't jet fuel
  (June 10, 2009)

All we knew was that more than 200 people were missing and presumed dead.

I could make that bright flash seem like an explosion, but there was a thunderstorm in the area: and lightning is notoriously bright.

Passengers with names that appeared on a terrorist watch list were suggestive, but far from proof. The names may not have been as common as "Jim Johnson" was in northern Minnesota: but different people often have the same name.

The Pitot tubes, which were going to be replaced, hinted at technical problems: but a 'hint' isn't proof.

Almost two years later, AF 447's flight recorder was found. (April 28, 2011

Training Pilots: Yes, It's Important

Apparently AF447's pilots hadn't been trained for high-altitude flight, or what to do when airspeed sensors don't work right. (BBC News, July 29, 2011) Putting them on a high-altitude flight in an airliner with slightly obsolete airspeed sensors may not have been a prudent decision. Air France says that the pilots were so trained.

Airbus and Air France may face manslaughter charges over the little oopsies in AF 447.

A BBC News article included a timeline of the last few minutes of Air France 447:

"...0135 GMT: The crew informs the controller of the flight's location

"0159-0206 GMT: The co-pilot warns of turbulence ahead before the captain leaves the cockpit for a rest break

"0208 GMT: The plane turns left, diverting from the planned route. Turbulence increases

"0210 GMT: The auto-pilot and auto-thrust mechanisms disengage. The plane rolls to the right. The co-pilot attempts to raise the nose. The stall warning sounds twice and the plane's speed drops. The co-pilot calls the captain

"0210 GMT: The stall warning sounds again. The plane climbs to 38,000ft

"0211-0213 GMT: The captain re-enters the cockpit. The plane is flying at 35,000 ft but is descending 10,000 ft per minute. The co-pilot says 'I don't have any more indications', pulls the nose down and the stall warning sounds again...

"...02:14 GMT: Recordings stop"
(BBC News)

I think there are a few things to learn from AF 447, including:

• 'Accidents happen'
• It's a good idea to train pilots
• Faulty equipment isn't reliable
• Deferring judgment until there's enough evidence is sensible

Related posts:

• "Air France 447: Part of a Black (Orange, Really) Box Found"
  (April 28, 2011)
  Particularly
  • The Good News is What's Not in the News
• "Air France Flight 447 Wreckage Found: My Take"
  (April 4, 2011)
• "euronews, " 'Dustbin' Airline," Cultures, and the War on Terror"
  (July 2, 2009)
• "Air France Flight 447 Investigators Find Terror List Names: Suggestive, But Far From Proof"
  (June 10, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Cherry-Picking Evidence
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
  Particularly
  • "They're all Muslims"? Hardly
  • Wannabe Terrorist Outed by His Father
  • Bottom Line: Nobody Killed, and A Whole Lot of Review to Do

In the news:

• Air France crash 'due to pilot and technical failings'
  BBC News (July 5, 2012)
• "Air France Rio crash: Pilots 'lacked training' "
  (July 29, 2011)

France and Online Social Media: Dealing With E-Mail and Other Threats

I live in central Minnesota, and love it here. I'm rather pleased that the pontoon boat was invented by a Minnesota farmer. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 15, 2007)

I have, however, long since resigned myself to the fact that the world does not revolve around Minnesota.

Then there are the folks who run France.

I am Not Making This Up

"French TV, radio programs slapped with social media restriction"
Catherine Clifford and Saskya Vandoorne, CNN (June 6, 2011)

"A decree from the early 1990s, reimplemented by French regulators, is putting an end to French television and radio announcers naming social networking sites on air except for news purposes.

"The decree banned 'clandestine advertising': the promotion of a brand outside the boundaries of recognized publicity avenues.

"The reimplementation of the ruling by France's Superior Audiovisual Council means that French programs will no longer be able to urge their viewers or listeners to follow them on specific sites, such as Twitter, as has become the norm in worldwide broadcasting.

"The controversy began when an unnamed French TV channel approached the council to ask whether, under this decree, they had the right to direct viewers to social sites.

"Christine Kelly, spokeswoman for the council explained: 'Facebook and Twitter are commercial brands like Coca-Cola or L'Oreal or any other. There are many social networking sites on many topics -- cooking, animals -- why should we mention one and not others?'

"From now on news anchors will be able to give only vague instructions as to where to find information online, such as 'follow us on social networking sites.'

"French bloggers have been up in arms on Twitter and some have even composed tongue-in-cheek ways to get round the ban. One suggested: 'find live coverage of the trial on our thread on the platform which spreads messages of 140 characters'

"French commentators have been speculating on the real roots of this regulation. Matthew Fraser, a social networking expert and author of 'Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom,' a book looking at the online social media revolution, believes the ban could be a sign of defiance against Anglo-Saxon cultural domination.

" 'In my mind,' he said, 'if it had been a French social networking site then nobody would have wanted it to be regulated, but because these sites symbolize the United States, regulation is there.'

"This is not the first time anglicized, Internet-related vocabulary has been banned in France. In 2003 the use of the word 'e-mail' was forbidden in all government literature. This was due to the Toubon law, which tries to protect the purity of the French language from anglicized words and phrases.

"This time, however, the Superior Audiovisual Council insists that the ban is in no way linked to language purity...."
(CNN) [emphasis mine]

I like freedom of speech. I'm not at all comfortable when a government wants to control what people say.

And I think that when a country's leaders think they must force citizens to maintain the country's language and culture - it's a sad situation.

Related posts:

• "Divisiveness, Cultural Chaos, and the Monkey's Paw"
  (January 30, 2011)
• "Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo"
  (July 31, 2010)
• "How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them"
  (December 7, 2009)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship"
  (March 9, 2008)

In the news:

• "French TV, radio programs slapped with social media restriction"
  Catherine Clifford and Saskya Vandoorne, CNN (June 6, 2011)

Libya, an International Coalition, the United Nations, and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've said often, a political blog. But, like it or not, politics is involved in the decision-making process of countries. Most countries, anyway.

Which is why I bring up 'political' topics sometimes.

But, again, this isn't a political blog. Not in the sense that I claim that one person or party is always right - and that everybody who disagrees is

• Stupid
• A Traitor
  
• One of those
  • Tools of the military-industrial complex
  • Commie 5th columnists
  • Shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men

Or something even more imaginative. (February 8, 2009)

Libya, Diplomacy, and a Tale of Two Presidents

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Canada
• France
• Italy
• Qatar
• The United Kingdom
  (Scoop News)

I've heard it discussed on television news as a wise and prudent diplomatic move by a knowledgeable leader.

To a limited extent, I can agree with that. Let's look at another administration.

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Albania
• Armenia
• Australia
• Azerbaijan
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• El Salvador
• Estonia
• Fiji (though UNAMI)
• Georgia
• Hungary (through NATO or UNAMI, and may never have sent troops before 'withdrawing' them in 2004)
• Iceland (through NATO, a training mission)
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Macedonia
• Moldova
• Mongolia
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Singapore
• Slovenia (through NATO, a training mission)
• South Korea
• Turkey (through NATO, a training mission)
• the Ukraine
• the United Kingdom
  (August 9, 2007)

This "unilateral" action threatened to sink America in a "quagmire." (August 9, 2007) Some of America's serious thinkers said so.

Well, that was different.

Libya, Diplomacy, Common Sense, and Business as Usual

I'm an American citizen, eligible to vote, and take civic duty seriously. Every two years I wade through the usual slogans, weird claims, and assorted flavors of hot air: and try to pick candidates I think are least-unlike what I'd like to see elected.

I didn't vote for the current American president: but I don't think he's evil incarnate, either. I even think he's made sense now and again.

Like this week, adding America's abilities to an international coalition that might prevent the Libyan colonel from killing more of his subjects.

Do I think

• The American president can do no wrong?
  • Of course not.
• The American president never does anything right?
  • Of course not
    • I'm not running for office, or working for someone who is
      • And that's another topic
• It was a good idea to work with an international coalition, when using military force against a dictator?
  • Yes
    • I thought it was a good idea when a previous administration took that approach
    • I haven't changed my mind

Why a Coalition?

Working under a United Nations Security Council resolution, with a coalition of nations - including at least one in the Middle East - makes good sense, in my opinion.

The Libyan colonel could, if America was 'going it alone' against his efforts to kill people who don't agree, claim that the evil Americans had launched a conquest of Libya. And that the military action was an unprovoked attack on Libya, the Middle East, and Islam.

Quite a few folks would, I think, buy that line.

The colonel may take that line, anyway: but it's going to be a harder sell, with the armed forces of so many countries involved.

Does this mean that I think the American president did everything right? No. That would be - unlikely, to put it mildly. Perfection and human nature are a somewhat unlikely mix - and that's almost another topic.

For starters, in an ideal situation - the president would have gotten this action going a lot sooner. Ideally.

Earlier today, I heard someone say "the perfect is the enemy of the 'it'll do.' "

A Few Predictions

I'd like to be wrong about this: but I'm pretty sure that coalition attacks on Libya will kill some civilians. Some of those dead bodies will be people who really were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or - willingly or not - deliberately set themselves up to be killed when military targets were hit.

War, as I'll say again, isn't nice. Things get broken and people get killed.

But I'm not quite nice enough to wish that the Libyan colonel's enforcers were free to kill folks in Benghazi. More folks, actually.

I think it's possible that some of the dead bodies will be folks who said that the colonel wasn't a good leader - or members of their families. It'd be a practical application of the old 'killing two birds with one stone' principle.

Excerpts from the News

"Thousands of Libyans packed into Muammar Gaddafi's heavily fortified Tripoli compound on Saturday to form a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces.

"Fireworks erupted into the night sky and people fired defiant shots into the air at the compound after allied warplanes went into action in eastern Libya to stop the Libyan leader's forces attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

"Libyans from all walks of life streamed into the Bab Al-Aziziyah compound, shouting slogans and holding portraits of Gaddafi. Loudspeakers boomed songs praising the leader...."
(Reuters Africa)

---

"The US, Britain and France have pounded Libya with air strikes and Tomahawk missiles, sparking a furious response from Muammar Gaddafi who said the Mediterranean had now become a 'battlefield.'

"United States and British forces fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence sites, a top US military officer said, two days after a UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing authorised military action.

"Libyan state media said that Western warplanes bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, causing casualties while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli...."
(The Sydney Morning Herald)

---

"The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

"Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

"U.S. Tomahawk missiles have landed in the western area around Tripoli and Misrata, the American military official said...."
(CNN)

---

"U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said U.S. forces were poised for action in Libya, but made clear Washington was determined to play a supporting role in military action there.

As French warplanes began operations over Libya to stop Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebels, Obama said military forces would act quickly to shield civilians from the fighting.

"The international community demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to all attacks against civilians," Obama said during an appearance in Brasilia with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff...."
(Edition: U.S., Reuters)

---

"...6:59 PM Spectator1: A US-led coalition has launched cruise missile and airstrikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences in what is called Operation 'Odyssey Dawn'.
"6:59 PM Spectator1: The coalition includes forces from the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Qatar."
(Scoop News)

Related posts:

• "Ivory Coast, Cote d'Ivoire: Bodies in the Street"
  (March 19, 2011)
• "Libya, an Alleged Cease-Fire, and Diplomacy"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Libya: United Nations Resolution; and Unpleasantness Ahead"
  (March 17, 2011)
• "Libya: American President's 'Childish,' But Not 'Unilateral' "
  (March 7, 2011)

News and views:

• "Libyans form human shield at Gaddafi's compound"
  Michael Georgy, Reuters Africa (March 19, 2011)
• "West pounds Libya, Gaddafi vows to fight"
  Imed Lamloum, The Sydney Morning Herald (March 20, 2011) (mem. International Dateline)
• "U.S. launches first missiles against Gadhafi forces"
  CNN (March 19, 2011)
• "Obama, Clinton stress U.S. supporting role in Libya"
  Edition: U.S., Reuters (March 19, 2011)
• "International Coalition Strikes Against Libya Begin"
  Scoop News (scoop.co.nz) (March 18(?), 2011)

Imperialist American Aggressors Occupy Haiti?

I've had the news on, from a couple different networks, off and on yesterday and today. Nothing unusual there, for me.

And, nothing unusual in what I heard.

"The US has denied its military has taken charge of Haiti amid claims by France that the Americans were "occupying" the earthquake-ravaged country.

"Alain Joyandet, the French Cooperation Minister, has called on the UN to 'clarify' the American role in the impoverished country, which was previously colonised by both countries. 'This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti,' he said...."
(Telegraph.co.uk)

It's true, by the way: Americans troops are on the ground in Haiti. Big, rough American soldiers with awful, nasty guns. 'Obviously' the work of an imperialistic warmonger aggressor.

Or, maybe, the work of a nation that doesn't particularly want big people in Haiti killing little people in Haiti, to get at supplies. Or, just for the fun of it.

I heard, this morning, about a doctor in a hospital in Haiti (sorry: that's as precise as it gets for me) say that he didn't see any need for those soldiers being in Haiti. His hospital hadn't been looted.

Normally, the Haitian government would be maintaining law and order with its usual efficiency. Since about 5:00 p.m., Haiti time, last week: a noticeable percentage of the Haitian government isn't there any more. Sure, they'll get reorganized in a while: but right now, the place is a mess.

America: Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don't

The way I see it, America has two basic options, when it comes to Haitians and the little matter of keeping bullies - armed and otherwise - from hurting people who may not be big, strong, and armed themselves.

1. Do nothing
2. Send troops in to keep that doctor alive

Option one might work: until that doctor stopped a bullet or some other person in Haiti got hurt. Then whatever happened would be the fault of heartless, uncaring America.

Option two has resulted in the usual 'Yankee imperialism' line. No surprises there. On the up side, that doctor will probably survive to complain about something else that the Americans did - or didn't do.

Why Send Big, Rough Soldiers?

America doesn't have much of a national police force. And can you imagine the fuss, if the Yankee imperialists sent FBI or CIA agents to Haiti?

The American military is under the command of the American government, in the person of the President. And - believe it or not - American soldiers really are trained for peacekeeping. Also building bridges and roads, if it comes to that.

Sure, it would be nice if everybody in Haiti were perfectly calm, collected, law-abiding people who would never dream of taking advantage of a lack of law enforcement. It'd be nice, but the last I checked: Haitians are human beings. Some of us aren't all that nice. And many Haitians have little reason to be perfectly calm and collected right now.

Related posts:

• "Haiti: About the Earthquake, Relief, and Related Topics"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (last updated January 19, 2010)
• "Americans and Generosity: Just a Thought"
  (January 15, 2010)
• "Haiti: Looting, Lawlessness, and People being Human"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 16, 2010)
• "Imperialist American Aggressors Attack Poland?"
  (October 30, 2009)

In the news:

• "Haiti earthquake: US denies 'occupying' the country"
  Telegraph.co.uk (January 19, 2010)

Indonesia, Islam, Adultery, Stoning, Burkinis, Divisiveness and the West

I've run into assertions like these quite often over the last few years. You probably have, too:

• Those Muslims make women wear burqas, and let men do anything they want.
• Islam oppresses women and has no standards for male behavior or dress.
• Muslim women are forced to dress a certain way, Muslim men aren't.

I know: There's a bit of redundancy in that list. But you get the idea.

I can see why quite a few people think that those assumptions are true. Sudan and Saudi Arabia, for example, seem to be in a race for first place at displaying Islam as a hopelessly anachronistic cluster of beliefs, run by men with - to be polite about it - weird sexual hangups.

New Law Proposed in Indonesia: A Woman Accused of Adultery Should be Stoned

I've read enough about Islam, and corresponded with enough Muslims and Muslimas, to suspect - quite strongly - that the House of Saud and the bunch running Sudan don't represent all Islam.

Men who think Islam holds men and women to different standards don't just live in and near the Middle East. Here's some political news from Indonesia:

"The law also dismisses a rape victim's claims unless she can provide four male witnesses to the assault."(CNN)

In a way, no surprises here. That's the Islam most westerners see, the version of Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and - to a greater extent - Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Just on thing. This law went through a provincial parliament in Indonesia. And it's not likely to get implemented.

The law was railroaded through the provincial parliament in Aceh, a semi-autonomous Indonesian province. The lawmakers responsible are the outgoing MPs of the "Prosperous Justice Party" - a bunch of Islamic "hardliners," as CNN put it.

And:

"...'It is very unlikely the law will be implemented,' foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said Tuesday. 'The governor has already made it clear he won't support the legislation.'..."
(CNN)

Aceh has been a problem for Indonesia: and was given a measure of independence in exchange for a measure of peace.

The governor of Aceh, Irwandi Yusuf, is a former rebel who is in an unenviable position. On the one hand, he's got the "deeply devout" (or wildly wacky, depending on your point of view) religious leaders who have influence in the province.

On the other hand, the governor has foreign donors whose investments could help pull Aceh out of the mess left by his insurgency and a 2004 tsunami.

The problem, as nearly as I can see it, is that many of the foreign donors aren't all that keen on supporting an outfit that stones rape victims.

And lets get real: if a man in Aceh forces a woman to have sex with him, and they get caught, he isn't likely to say, 'I'm a rapist.' He'll say it was consensual sex, and that she's an adulteress. Unless four men break the 'good old boy' code and fess up to what happened, the dude's problems will soon be a bloody mess on the pavement.

The law doesn't just affect women, though.

"... Women are required to wear headscarves. Men caught gambling or drinking alcohol are whipped. Muslims are mandated to pray five times a day....

"...'Imposing these draconian punishments on private, consensual conduct means the government can dictate people's intimate lives,' Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said of the new law...."
(CNN)

I'd be surprised if I was on the same page with Ms. Pearson: more about that later. But I do think that the new Aceh law, as reported, is good news for male rapists/seducers, and really bad news for women.

Bikini Babes, Hot Chicks, Muslim Women and Ogling Men

On the other hand, the imposition of Islamic culture on British swimming pools has most likely been a big disappointment to ogling men, but might not be all that bad for women, in the long run.

News from the United Kingdom:

'...British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.'

'Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – ... must comply with the 'modest' code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees. [emphasis mine]

'The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water. [emphasis mine]

'The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds....'
(telegraph.co.uk)

"I think the Labor Members of Parliament have a point: this is a 'divisive' point. Men in western countries have learned to expect the titillation of watching nubile young women bouncing in their bikinis on the beach. Depriving them of this (right?) certainly could be a 'divisive' issue.

"On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that something being done in France makes it sophisticated and/or a good idea.

"Sure: right now, after decades of bikinis, hot pants and nipple rings, it's hard to imagine that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to deprive hot-blooded men of their jollies. Or women of the opportunity to be regarded as 3D living color moving centerfolds...."
A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)

Yes, This Does Connect With the War on Terror

I think the war on terror has at least as much to do with a conflict of cultures as it does with the religious beliefs of some Muslims and the increasingly secularized hodgepodge of fashionable notions in the West.

One of the most obvious and visible aspects of a culture is what people chose to wear - or are forced to wear.

A Disclaimer: I'm One of Those People

I'm a practicing Catholic: which puts me at odds with a great deal of Western culture. I am convinced that:

• Women should be regarded as
  • People
  • Not sex objects
• Everybody should exercise the moderate self-respect we call "modesty"
• Sex
  • Is a wonderful aspect of the human condition
  • Is not the be-all and end-all of existence
• Civilization is More than Bikinis and Nipple Rings

And yeah: that makes me really counter-cultural. Which is a topic for another blog.

But They Don't Do It That Way in France!

I have long been of the opinion that Versailles is a wonderful example of architecture and landscape design; that the Louvre is a great museum, and that Charlemagne was a great leader. But I do not think that an idea is worthwhile simply because it's French.

I've discussed how the French government believes that women should be free to decide how they dress. Provided that they choose according to French standards. (Ooh! La! La!) (July 11, 2008)

Are Bikinis the Only Thing Holding Up Western Civilization?

I'd like to think that flashing flesh on the beach or in the swimming pool isn't the only thing Western civilization has left.

And, I think it's important to note that at least some flavors of Islam have a dress code that applies to men and women:

Swimmers "...must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees...."
(Telegraph.co.uk)

Men in the West have gotten used to women putting themselves on display. It's a sort of tradition.

But that doesn't make contemporary Western standards of attire a good idea. A tradition of sorts, yes. Good idea: that's debatable.

This may be a good time for people in the West to decide what they really think women are, and whether the culturally-normative floor show is really respectful and appropriate.

And, I think that an idea that "runs counter to developments in France" can still be an idea worth considering.

Related posts:

• "We Can Learn So Much From the French: More About Culture"
  (October 8, 2009)
• "Saudi Arabia Lashes a Man - Credit Where Credit is Due"
  (October 7, 2009)
• "Roman Polanski, Queen Boudicca, France and Special Rules for Special People"
  (September 28, 2009)
• "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 26, 2009)
• "Sudan, Women, Trousers, Culture and Common Sense"
  (September 7, 2009)
• "Modesty: Living in Balance"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)
• "Bikinis, Burkinis, and Modesty: The Other Guy isn't Always Wrong"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)
• "The War on Terror: Yes, Who Wins Does Matter"
  (July 30, 2009)
• "Terrorists, America, and Generalizations"
  (July 28, 2009)
• "Hijabs, Myths, and Flashing Flesh"
  (August 12, 2009)
• "House of Saud Lashes Old Woman: Another Tale from the Weird Side"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Saudi Arabia Bans Valentine's Day - and the Color Red"
  (February 10, 2009)
• What is Islam? Even Muslims Don't Seem to Agree"
  (February 6, 2009)
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "Indonesia, 'Allah Akbar,' and Muslim Tolerance"
  (August 22, 2008)
• "France and the Burqa: Idea of Freedom Gets Reality Check"
  (July 11, 2008)
• " 'Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?' "
  (February 6, 2008)
• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"
  (December 3, 2007)

In the news:

• "Indonesia expected to ditch stoning law"
  CNN (October 13, 2009)
• "Swimmers are told to wear burkinis"
  Telegraph.co.uk (August 15, 2009)

Background:

• "It’s a festering skankfest of zombies, Clancy!"
  Oddly Enough, Reuters blog (October 8, 2009)
  • Let's hope this British designer's contribution to Paris Fashion Week isn't the best Western Civilization can do.

We Can Learn So Much From the French: More About Culture

---

Update (December 6, 2009)

Roman Polanski, that award-winning and highly talented child rapist, is facing justice: European style. Looks like he's under house arrest - in a Swiss chalet.

And who says crime doesn't pay - for the right people?

Of course, there's the possibility that the Swiss government will decide to go along with an American request for extradition. Or, not.
(Arnd Wiegmann, via Reuters, used w/o permission)

• "Hey honey, watch me moon these guys!"
  Oddly Enough, Reuters blog (December 6, 2009)
• "Polanski's luxury house arrest"
  Chicago Tribune (December 5, 2009)
• ""
  Arts, Briefly, The New York Times (December 4, 2009)

---

I've made the point - often - that Islam isn't a single, huge, monolithic, homogeneous block of people. More recently, I've mentioned that the West is the same way.

Like the French government's shielding a child rapist (alleged, of course) because he's a great filmmaker. That's a very close paraphrase of a French government spokesperson's statement.

Turns out, many people living in France may not be quite so, ah, open-minded:

"France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand is facing intense pressure over a book he wrote that described paying for "young boys" in Thailand.

The book was written four years ago, before he joined the government, but is back in the headlines following his impassioned support for Roman Polanski.

Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland on child sex charges.

Mr Mitterrand, nephew of former President Francois Mitterrand, has come under attack from right and left. ..."
(BBC)

Maybe the French wouldn't have minded so much if their Culture Minister had restricted his hanky-panky to young girls? Or been a great filmmaker?

Or, maybe France has the same disconnect between the 'better sort' who run things, and the 'pool, uneducated and easily led' Janes and Joes who actually make things run.

Related post:

• "Roman Polanski, Queen Boudicca, France and Special Rules for Special People"
  (September 28, 2009)

In the news:

• "French minister in 'boy sex' row"
  BBC (October 8, 2009)

Roman Polanski, Queen Boudicca, France and Special Rules for Special People

---

Update (December 6, 2009)

Roman Polanski, that award-winning and highly talented child rapist, is facing justice: European style. Looks like he's under house arrest - in a Swiss chalet.

And who says crime doesn't pay - for the right people?

Of course, there's the possibility that the Swiss government will decide to go along with an American request for extradition. Or, not.
(Arnd Wiegmann, via Reuters, used w/o permission)

• "Hey honey, watch me moon these guys!"
  Oddly Enough, Reuters blog (December 6, 2009)
• "Polanski's luxury house arrest"
  Chicago Tribune (December 5, 2009)
• "Polanski Begins House Arrest"
  Arts, Briefly, The New York Times (December 4, 2009)

---

I've made the point that, in my view, the war on terror isn't so much about religion as it is about culture. In the west, we've gotten used to the idea of not killing our wives and daughters when we're in a snit, letting them drive cars, and even letting them have jobs.¹

Social upheavals after the 14th century's Black Death and the 18th century's revolutions helped establish that state of affairs.

I also think people like Queen Boudicca may have left as a deep impression on northern European cultures, as she did on the Romans. But that's another story.

Islam Isn't Monolithic - Neither is the West

Just as I think it's a mistake to assume that to assume that "the Islamic world" is a single, culturally united block, I think it's a mistake to assume the same about Western civilization. NATO and the Euro notwithstanding, Europe isn't exactly homogeneous, culturally: And America isn't Europe.

An example popped up in today's news.

Roman Polanski is, no reasonable question about it, a skilled - even talented - motion picture director. I respect skill and talent in people. Part of that is probably from the set of American cultural values I learned as I grew up.

Then, there's that little matter of Mr. Polanski's "1970s sexual-offense charge involving a 13-year-old girl." (CNN)

I don't approve of rape. Particularly of young teens, by men in positions of importance. That's also in part from the cultural values I picked up. What can I say? Americans, as a group, are just plain intolerant of rape.

Then, there's France.²

"...The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he 'learned with astonishment' of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said 'he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem' and has 'exceptional artistic creation and human qualities.'..."
(CNN)

That's very broad-minded of them: and a tribute to the cultural values of France. I don't think it's any accident that one of the greatest museums in the world, the Lourvre, is in France.

What upset the French government, and brought it to the defense of this exception artist and child rapist ("alleged," of course) was Italy's arrest of Roman Polanski: a shocking display of insensitivity.

Apparently Italy doesn't consider great artists to be "beyond good and evil."

I'd have a little more respect for the French position, if the argument had been one of legal jurisdiction, or a perception that Mr. Polanski wouldn't get a fair trial in America. I might not agree: but either argument could be based on principles that I can respect.

But no. France seems to regard Roman Polanski as immune by reason of his "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

Again, I don't doubt that Mr. Polanski is good at making movies. Very good.

But I don't assume that rapists are dirty, smelly people who are not of my ethnic group(s) and/or below me in economic status. And, that 'great artists' or 'the right sort' don't rape, unless the victim is also of 'the right sort:' but instead that they 'get mixed up' with the lower classes from time to time.

Yeah: the west has its cultural differences, too.

Related posts:

• "Bikinis, Burkinis, and Modesty: The Other Guy isn't Always Wrong"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)
• "The War on Terror: Yes, Who Wins Does Matter"
  (July 30, 2009)
• "Terrorists, America, and Generalizations"
  (July 28, 2009)
• What is Islam? Even Muslims Don't Seem to Agree"
  (February 6, 2009)
• "Terrorism: Not a Muslim Monopoly"
  (April 6, 2008)
• " 'They’re all Muslims' - This Does Not Help"
  (December 29, 2007)

In the news:

• "France shows support for Polanski after sex crime arrest"
  CNN (September 28, 2009)

Background:

• "Swimmers are told to wear burkinis"
  telegraph.co.uk (August 15, 2009)
• "Maylasia Marathon Part 1: Little Malaysia Girl"
  Little China Girl (July 14, 2009)
• "Architecture for a Better Muslim World"
  Spiegel Online (September 21, 2007)
• "Tourist Attractions"
  kiat.net > home > Malaysia > Kuala Lumpur > Attractions
• "The 2004 Aga Khan Architecture Awards "
  The East African, via ismaili.net (November 29, 2004)

---

¹ "Letting"?! my forebears are from Ireland and Norway, for the most part - two European enclaves which didn't "let" women do what they willed, any more than they "let" men act. To a great extent.

I'll grant that they got downright "civilized" from time to time: but nobody's perfect.

² Don't get me wrong: I have great respect for French achievements. France has been one of the great cultural hubs of Europe.

Euronews, " 'Dustbin' Airline," Cultures, and the War on Terror

Two air disasters involving an Airbus are in the news again today. Neither seems to be connected with terrorism, and - thankfully - there don't seem to be rumors about Al Qaeda, the CIA, or anyone else being to blame.

There's something interesting going on, not just in the unfolding accounts of how and why Air France Flight 447 and Yemenia Flight 626 ended, but in the way the accounts are presented.

What We Know, What We may Never Know

Air France Flight 447 apparently hit the ocean intact, according to an early report.

"... "The plane went straight down ... towards the surface of the water, very very fast," air accident investigator Alain Bouillard said.

"Based on visual study of the physical remains of the Airbus A330 that have been recovered, "we were able to see that the plane hit the surface of the water flat. Therefore everything was pushed upwards -- everthing [!] was pushed from the bottom to the top" of the plane, he said.

"The 228 people killed in the crash 'had no time to prepare,' he said.

"But Bouillard said he did not have autopsy results from the bodies recovered, and did not know why no one lived through the crash.

" 'I don't know why nobody survived,' he said. 'I don't know the intensity of the impact. Perhaps we will find out from the autopsies. Perhaps we will never know.'..." (CNN)

Yemenia Flight 626 crashed more recently, and there haven't, as far as I can tell, been any official statements, preliminary or otherwise, about what's known. Weather Graphics has a pretty good summary of what's known, what's assumed, and what's speculated: together with a rather detailed analysis of weather conditions in the area at the time of the crash.

What may become a rather lively discussion over who's to blame for what is developing:

"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has refuted Comoran Vice-President Idi Nadhoim's claims that France had failed to inform Comoros of a ban on the Yemenia Airbus A310 which crashed off the Indian Ocean archipelago on Tuesday.

"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner responded Wednesday to criticisms levelled by the Comoran vice-president and transport minister, Idi Nadhoim, that Paris had failed to inform Comoros on the record of the Yemenia Airbus A310 that crashed Tuesday.

"The plane was banned from flying to our country, everybody knew it,' said Kouchner during a visit to Senegal. 'Everybody knew it in the Comoros, everybody.'..." (France 24)

Cultural Differences, Attitudes, and the War on Terror

I've made the point before, that in my view the war on terror is at least as much a matter of conflicting cultural values, as it is of ideological or religious differences.

Technology of the late Industrial Age, coupled with a lucrative trade in petroleum, brought people in cultures which had been out of the loop for centuries - or millennia - into contact with the outside world.

Then the dawn of the Information Age brought Barbies, Mickey Mouse, and bikinis into the homes of people whose customs were ancient when Abraham moved out of Ur.

I remember the shock and disgust expressed by parents and religious leaders, when rock and roll was new in American culture: and that was a reaction to something which was developing in their own culture.

In a way, it's no wonder that some people in the Middle East have gone a little crazy. Fast-forwarding through several thousand years of change could be a bit stressful.

France and Comoros: He Said / She Said

There's nothing unusual, I think, about the dialog starting between France and Comoros, over who dropped the ball on maintenance. We saw something like that happen in America a few months ago, when the Peanut Corporation of America made the mistake of poisoning its end users. (Apathetic Lemming of the North) It's human nature to deny fault, even when the prudent course of action would be to make a full disclosure and make the best of a bad situation. My view.

"Dustbin" Airline: Prejudice or Inclusion?

What jumped out at me this morning was euronews' use of " 'dustbin' airline" in their headline.

What struck me a as a rather harsh pejorative term could indicate quite a few things, including:

• A rather traditional view of foreigners and other 'inferior races'
• Inclusion and acceptance of non-Europeans to the point where editors felt comfortable insulting their institutions

I've noticed that, for many people, there's a sort of scale of insultability. At one end are the utter outsiders: people who one isn't allowed to kill these days, but who simply aren't, well, proper. At the other, members of your own family, and close friends.

This isn't a universal rule, by any means, but I think you may find it a bit familiar:

• Utter outsiders
  • These people, and anything connected with them, may be insulted freely
  • Examples:
    • Commies
    • Capitalist pigs
    • Strip mall developers
• Regular folks
  • They should be treated with some degree of courtesy, since insulting them may hurt their feelings - and their feelings matter
  • Examples:
    • Neighbors
    • Fellow-citizens
    • Members of your car pool, economic class, whatever
• Close friends and family
  • These folks are so close to you, and you know each other so well, that it's safe to insult (some) of their possessions and qualities

Using this scale, that "dustbin" comment puts Comorans in the category of either 'utter outsiders' or 'close friends and family.'

I rather hope it's the latter. Western civilization has enough problems, without reviving attitudes that were wrong in the 19th and 20th centuries, and self-destructive in the 21st.

Related posts:

• "Air France Flight 447 Investigators Find Terror List Names: Suggestive, But Far From Proof"
  (June 10, 2009)
• "Pray for Neda: And Learn About the Real Iran"
  (June 26, 2009)
• "North Korea, American Journalists, the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (June 16, 2009)
• "Union Jack Banned at Heathrow: Sensitivity Above and Beyond the Call of Reason"
  (June 13, 2009)
• "Using a Kid to Bomb a Mosque: Non-Western Cultural Values, Just Plain Evil, or Something Else?"
  (June 12, 2009)
• "Another Minnesotan Dies in Somalia: Not Your Stereotype African"
  (June 7, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square 20th Anniversary: A Losing Battle for Traditional Information Gatekeepers"
  (June 3, 2009)
• "A Sheik Torturing a Business Associate: As American as Al Capone"
  (May 10, 2009)
• "Sounds of Silence: 2009"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "Pakistan; Nawaz Sharif; Multiculturalism; and a Skewed World View"
  (March 15, 2009)
• " 'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society"
  (February 24, 2009)
• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)

In the news:

• "Air France plane crashed intact - report"
  CNN (July 2, 2009)
• "No second survivor from Yemenia crash: minister"
  The Age (Australia) (July 2, 2009)
• "Comoros 'knew' about plane faults, says Kouchner"
  France 24 (July 2, 2009)
• "Yemenia crash survivor returns home "
  Al Jazeera (July 2, 2009)
• "EU demands assurances from Yemenia on air safety"
  thestar online (July 2, 2009)
• "'Daddy, I couldn't see anything' – Yemenia Airbus crash survivor speaks"
  guardian.co.uk (July 2, 2009)
• "Doomed Air France plane was not destroyed in flight"
  Reuters (July 2, 2009)
• "EU halted Yemenia maintenance of European jets in Feb"
  Retuers (June 30, 2009)
• "Anger at Yenin's 'dustbin' airline"
  euronews (June 30, 2009)

Background:

• "Yemenia Flight 626: A detailed meteorological analysis"
  Weather Graphics (Updated July 1, 2009)

Air France Flight 447 Investigators Find Terror List Names: Suggestive, But Far From Proof

About a dozen airliners took off at around the same time as Air France flight 447. They all were headed in about the same direction, at about the same speed, and were traveling in about the same area. (CNN)

AF 447 didn't get to its destination.

Telemetry from AF 447 indicated problems with instruments and other issues. And, Air France had been replacing Pitot tubes in its airliners, following up on a manufacturer's recommendation and a pilot's union pressure.

The Airbus A330-200 that disappeared had the old Pitot tubes, air speed sensors that, in this particular case, had a habit of icing up.

Cherry-Picking Evidence

'Obviously,' AF 447 went down because of the Pitot tubes.

Or, not so obviously. The Airbus A330-200 is a relatively complex vehicle, with a great many parts that are more or less vital to its operation. Pitot tubes are not the only piece of equipment which might malfunction.

'Obviously,' there couldn't have been a fire or explosion.

A fuel slick, seen in the general area where AF 447 disappeared, was cited as an indication that the Airbus went down without a fire or explosion. Then, it turned out the fuel slick wasn't jet fuel. (CSM)

'Obviously,' though, terrorism can't be involved:

"...Representatives from France, Brazil, and the United States have all reportedly declared that terrorism does not appear to be involved in the crash." (ToTheCenter.com)

Again, not so obviously. I'm sure that someone representing French and Brazilian interests said that there was not evidence that terrorism was involved, and said so more than once.

And, it's possible that AF 447 went down because of a combination of improperly-operating equipment and natural causes.

"...Investigators believe that automatic technical messages sent from the Air France Airbus 330 minutes before it disappeared while flying over the Atlantic Ocean indicate that its airspeed gauges weren't functioning properly. A theory the analysts are probing is that the jetliner's speed sensors may have been damaged by ice, setting off a catastrophic series of events amid potentially severe turbulence...."

"...French officials have refrained from directly criticizing their Brazilian counterparts, but on Friday suggested more caution in making statements about the investigation, reiterating that no cause could yet be ruled out. 'French authorities have been saying for several days that we should be extremely prudent,' France's Secretary of state for Transport, Dominique Bussereau, told France's RTL radio...." (WSJ) [emphasis mine]

There's quite a difference between "...Representatives from France, Brazil, and the United States have all reportedly declared that terrorism does not appear to be involved in the crash...." and the June 6, 2009, Wall Street Journal article's "...no cause could yet be ruled out...."

Terrorists on AF 447? Maybe

One bit of evidence that might have indicated that a bomb destroyed Air France flight 447 comes from pilots: "...Other pilots in the area saw an "intense flash" around the time that AF 447 disappeared...." (SeattlePI)

If the weather had been clear, that would be more suggestive of foul play. As is is, with thunderstorms around, not so much. The color of the flash might indicate whether it was from an electrical or a chemical source, but I'm no expert.

Today's headlines included "Terror Names Linked To Doomed Flight AF 447 " (Sky News) - and the gist of the article is:

"Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged...."

"...Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

"There is a possibility the name similarities are simply a 'macabre coincidence', the source added, but the revelation is still being 'taken very seriously'...." (Sky News)

I might think that finding the names of terrorists on the passenger list was a strong indication of foul play, except for two things.

1. In my ten years as a list manager for a small publishing company, I developed an appreciation for how common some names are
2. About two years ago, an eight-year-old boy was fingered as a terrorist because his name was on a no-fly list (July 20, 2007)

Which is why French investigators are looking into birth dates and family connections. I know: terrorists have used children before - but in the 2007 case, the listed terrorist was a whole lot older than eight.

Birth dates are fairly useful in helping to establish someone's identity. There are quite a few people in America, for example, who have the same name that I do. But none of them is going to have the same birth date and relatives.

Air France 447 - My Opinion

I don't think that terrorists brought down AF 447.

I don't think that terrorists didn't bring down AF 447.

I do think that officials investigating the incident don't seem to know what happened, yet.

I do think that there will be more assertions about what 'obviously' happened: and that the statements will reflect what the writers believe should have happened.

Related posts:

• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  (January 2, 2009)
• "Pilot's Laptop Missing: Yes, It's a Big Deal"
  (April 27, 2008)
• "Man Prays on Plane, Removed: Racial Profiling?"
  (April 17, 2008)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work: Protecting the Flying Public from Nipple Rings"
  (March 27, 2008)
• "Common Sense Knows No Boundaries: Neither does Bureaucratic Vindictiveness"
  (February 14, 2008)
• "Unintended Consequences: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner"
  (January 9, 2008)
• "War on Terror and Travel Technology"
  (November 23, 2007)
• "U.S. Airlines Repaired Overseas, TSA Terror Report Overdue"
  (October 16, 2007)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!"
  (September 1, 2007)
• "Raed Jarrar, Just Who Is this Guy, and Why Should We Care?"
  (August 13, 2007)
• "The No-Fly Terrorist List, National Security, and Sanity"
  (July 20, 2007)

News and views:

• "How 18th Century Technology Could Down An Airliner"
  Autopia Road to the Future, Wired (June 10, 2009)
"Uh oh: Terrorist names on doomed Air France passenger list?"
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air (June 10, 2009)
• "Attack on Pakistan hotel fuels anger with Taliban"
  Reuters (June 10, 2009)
• "At least 17 dead in Pakistani hotel blast"
  CNN (June 10, 2009)
• "Owner of bombed Pakistan hotel blames government"
  Gulfnews (June 10, 2009)
• "Black box search begins"RFI (Radio France Internationale (June 10, 2009)
• "Terror Names Linked To Doomed Flight AF 447"
  Sky News (June 10, 2009)
• "First Air France bodies brought back to land"
  euronews (June 9, 2009)
• "Brazil Uncovers 41 Bodies from Air"Alyssa DellaCamera, ToTheCenter (June 9, 2009)
• "12 similar flights deepen Air France 447 mystery"
  CNN (June 5, 2009)
• "Air France Flight 447: Other pilots saw 'intense flash' in sky"
  Aerospace News, SeattlePI blog (June 4, 2009)
• " 'Jet fuel' slicks not from Air France flight"
  global news blog, Christian Science Monitor (June 4, 2009)

New York Times Prints Ersatz Letter, or All the News That's Fit to Fake

I'm not exactly a fan of The New York Times. More accurately, I regard it as a rather insular hometown paper, representing the views and interests of the town's better sort. Nothing wrong with that. But I think it's a mistake to regard a hometown paper as America's newspaper of record, even when the town is New York City.

That said, I think that today's SNAFU with a letter (not) sent by the mayor of Paris getting published was an embarrassing mistake: the sort of thing that could happen anywhere.

Incredible but Not True: The Mayor of Paris Takes an Interest in New York State Politics!

A letter, presumably from Bertrand Delanoë, Mayor of Paris, arrived at The New York Times this morning. It was in reaction to an article in The New York Times, and expressed some very definite opinions about Caroline Kennedy's efforts to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat: providing that Clinton gets a position in the Obama administration:

"As mayor of Paris, I find Caroline Kennedy’s bid for the seat of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton both surprising and not very democratic, to say the least. What title has Ms. Kennedy to pretend to Hillary Clinton’s seat? We French can only see a dynastic move of the vanishing Kennedy clan in the very country of the Bill of Rights. It is both surprising and appalling...."

My understanding is that the letter was written in English: a pretty good idea for anyone writing to an American newspaper. The Parisian mayor, though, is French. An employee of France-Amerique, a French language monthly based in New York City, was what the Associated Press called "skeptical."

" 'When we read the letter it just sounded very surprising, the choice of words sounded very surprising,' he [Editor-in-chief Jean-Cosme Delaloye] told The Associated Press. 'When we called Paris to verify the information ... they were very surprised.' " (Associated Press)

France-Amerique broke the story on its website, and The New York Times sprang into action. Someone at the paper called Paris, and discovered that the letter was bogus. Fake. Ersatz. A forgery. Not really from the mayor.

Credit Where Credit is Due: The New York Times, an Apology, and an Admission of Error

My hat's off to The New York Times: In addition to apologizing to the Parisian mayor, the paper published an apology to its readers, and an explanation, in an "Editor's Note."

The New York Times' "Editor's Note" concludes, "This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoë's office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us.

"We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.

"We are reviewing our procedures for verifying letters to avoid such an incident in the future."

Related post:

• "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions"
  (October 21, 2008)

Forgery, news and oops:

• "NY Times published fake letter from Paris mayor"
  Associated Press (December 22, 2008)
• "Editors’ Note "
  The New York Times (December 22, 2008)
• "Kennedy, Seen From Paris"
  The New York Times (December 22, 2008)

Hitler, Appeasement, and the Munich Parallel

I'll have to review my opinion of the arrangement that Chamberlain and company made with Hitler before World War II's big kickoff.

Researching another post, I ran into "Retiring Hitler and 'Appeasement' from the National Security Debate" (Jeffrey Record, in Parameters (Summer 2008)), on the U.S. Army War College website. The part of the article I landed in, thanks to the search terms I was using, included this quote: "...when neoconservative critics of appeasement speak about how Hitler could and should have been stopped prior to 1939, they mean forcible regime change of the kind the United States launched against Saddam Hussein in 2003. But it is here that the neoconservatives and others who believe in the continuing validity of the Munich analogy enter the fantasy realm of historical counterfactualism...."

These days, wild claims about neocons fly around like redolent missiles in the monkey house. I wasn't impressed. Particularly that business about "counterfactualism."

There seemed to be interesting, and maybe useful, references in the article, so I kept skimming.

I still wasn't impressed. The author pointed out, accurately enough, that threats like Hitler's Germany aren't at all common. Hitler, Record points out, planned "...a German racial empire stretching from the English Channel to the Ural Mountains...."

Compared with what I understand to be Al Qaeda's goal, Hitler's proposed empire seems comparatively modest. I considered the possibility that the author thought that only nations could pose a threat to other nations.

Nope. Record seems to realize that Al Qaeda is a real threat, and could be "Hitlerian:"

"A potential threat of genuinely Hitlerian proportions could arise in the event that al Qaeda acquired deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. Like Hitler, al Qaeda is undeterrable and effectively unappeasable; all it lacks is Hitler’s destructive power. As a fanatical, elusive nonstate actor, it presents little in the way of decisive targets subject to effective retaliation, and its political objectives—the complete withdrawal of American power from the Muslim world and the destruction of existing Arab regimes as a precursor to the establishment of a single Islamic caliphate—are literally fantastic. Possession of weapons of mass destruction would render al Qaeda a far more dangerous threat than deterrable or weak enemy states. Though the differences between the German dictator and the Arab terrorist leader are obvious, the similarities are impressive. Hitler was a secular German state leader obsessed with race, while Osama bin Laden is an Arab nonstate actor obsessed with religion. Both are linked by bloodthirstiness, high intelligence, a totalitarian mindset, iron will, fanatical ideological motivation, political charisma, superb tactical skills, utter ruthlessness, and—above all—undeterrability. One distinction is that Hitler lacked the means to strike the American homeland, whereas bin Laden already has."

This is a far cry from the silly side of academia's usual antics, like

• Ward Churchill's "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality" - and his comparing "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as "little Eichmanns."
• Columbia's welcoming Iran's President Ahmadinejad, but pulling Minutemen founder Gilchrist's invitation to speak. Columbia banned Gilchrist because he has extremist views (he claims that people coming into this country should obey the law while doing so)

Record isn't blaming America for the War on Terror, he isn't excusing Al Qaeda, and he is, as far as I can tell, sticking to facts.

I think it's arguable that England and France wouldn't have been able to make Hitler change his mind by using military force. For starters, those countries, and the rest of Europe, had experienced hard times during the thirties, just like America.

And, if I remember my history correctly, the winning side in World War I had been so distressed by the conflict that they didn't ever want it to happen again: a reasonable desire. So they adopted the Wilsonian idea of disarmament: at best a debatable idea.

I'm not going to try to boil down an article of over 4,400 words in a blog post, but I think that Record may have a point.

However: "Retiring Hitler and 'appeasement' from the national security debate does not mean that the United States should negotiate with any and all enemies or that it should refrain from using force against all threats that are not Hitlerian in scope. The United States is a great power with occasionally threatened interests whose protection sometimes requires the threat of or actual use of force."

France and the Burqa: Idea of Freedom Gets Reality Check

Stress tests people, and ideas. When exposed to stress, some people make themselves up to look like corpses, and lie down in front of news cameras. Others find the courage to drive fanatic invaders from their homeland.

I've written before, about how I think today's world has put a great deal of stress on an ancient and fairly isolated culture.

Face to Burqa: France, Freedom and Foreigners

It looks like coming face to face with a foreign culture has stressed at least one western nation, too.

Technically, I should say "face to burqa."

The French government has decided that a woman who wears a burqa is too submissive, and can't be a French citizen.

The French government also says that individual freedom is important, and that individuals should be free to choose their own religion, and how it should be practiced.

The French ideal of freedom seems to have worked just fine, as long as everybody in France lived about the same way. Now, this outsider has shown up, and wants to be a French citizen.

Problem is, she dresses funny: and doesn't treat her husband the way that the French government thinks she should.

It's Not Just France

I'll grant, freely, that I'm making the French position look about as bad as possible here. I think that a case can be made for immigrants living up to some standards before becoming citizens of another country: being able to use the local language, understanding the laws and customs well enough to keep out of trouble, maybe even being able to hold down a job.

There are two questions here:

1. Is it okay for a country to ban the burqa? Or the babushka, for that matter?
2. Should a country say that it supports freedom of religion, but refuse citizenship to people who practice their religion the 'wrong' way?

The 'natives' of exotic lands in the mysterious orient aren't the only ones going through culture shock these days. France - and every western nation - is being forced to take a hard look at what, exactly, ideas like "freedom" mean.

In the long run, I think the exercise will be good for us. Meanwhile, it's going to be a bumpy road.

The French national dress code, and how the proper French woman is expected to act, in the news:

• "Muslim woman deemed too submissive to be French"
  Reuters (July 11, 2008)
  • "PARIS (Reuters) - France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her 'radical' practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday.
  • "The case will reignite debate about how to reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the French constitution, and other fundamental rights, which many in France feel are being challenged by the way of life of some Muslims.
  • "Le Monde newspaper said it was the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected for reasons to do with personal religious practice...."
• "Burka-wearing woman denied citizenship for being 'submissive'"
  The Scotsman (July 12, 2008)
  • "A MOROCCAN woman who wears a black burka has been denied French citizenship on the grounds she is too submissive.
  • "The Council of State ruled that the woman, who is married to a French national, speaks good French and has three children, all born in France, should be denied citizenship because her 'radical' practice of Islam is incompatible with French values such as equality of the sexes.
  • "The 32-year-old woman, named only as Faiza M, has lived in France since 2000. She wears a burka that covers her body from head to foot, leaving a narrow slit for her eyes. According to social services, she lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives including her father and brother-in-law...."
• "Opinion: France Gets it Right"
  digitaljournal.com (July 11, 2008)
  • "France's Council of State has made a choice which requires assimilation into French society to become a French citizen. They recently denied citizenship to a Muslim woman based on her radical religious practices.
  • "France got this one right, in my opinion: A woman married to a French national was denied citizenship in France despite having lived there for eight years and giving birth to three children.
  • "The reason? She is totally submissive to her husband and her male relatives in all areas. The woman in question wears a black burqa which covers her from head to toes with the exception of her eyes ( although she must not wear it 24/7 since she has three children.)..."

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

"New York Defender" - Video Game With a Lesson

We can learn so much from the French.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must state that I

• Am an American
• Never equated using French phrases in conversation as a sign of sophistication and culture
• Do not regard France as the shining center around which all the civilized world revolves
• See France as a country with a long and proud history, which is struggling with the idea that it, and Europe, are no longer the undisputed hub of the world

Now, on with this post.

"New York Defender" is an internet video game based loosely on the 9/11 attack on New York City. It reminds me of the old "Defender" video game: except this time a digitized New York City skyline is at the bottom of the screen, and instead of shooting incoming missiles, the player shoots incoming airliners.

As an action video game, it's got possibilities.

As a themed video game, it's as tasteless as the Paris fashions American designers aped in my early years. That's not just my opinion.

Matt Scheiner was on the 81st floor of Tower 1 on September 1, 2001. He made it down the stairway and out of the tower before if collapsed. "So, when the 27-year-old from Graniteville was told of an Internet videogame allowing players to shoot down airplanes as they fly toward the Twin Towers, he was disgusted and the old hurt surfaced again." ("Staten Island Real-Time News," "Staten Island 9/11 survivor disgusted by 'tasteless' Internet video game" (January 1, 2008))

"Tasteless" may not be the best way to describe "New York Defender." The game's French designer says "There are no ways to actually win. The winner becomes the last one to lose." (Tom Landrigan's "Video Games and Terrorism" for Professor Blackmon's English 304C class (Original document in Microsoft Word format.))

"New York Defender" has been around since at least 2002. A Denver Post article that year said that the French game designer gave no way to win the game. The game's reason d'etre is "to illustrate the ultimate impossibility of fighting terrorism -- a fight the Unites States is still waging in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere throughout the world." ("Staten Island Advance," "Web game inflames the pain of Sept. 11" (January 2, 2008)) ("Unites States" exists in original.)

Ah, mais oui! Such relevance!

Maybe it's because I'm a rude, crude American, utterly incapable of comprehending the multifarious aspects of the contemporary world's socio-political community, but I don't think that the war on terror is hopeless. At least, not as long as there is an alternative to French wisdom and sophistication.

I'm assuming that, based on

• History
• America's attraction for bright, innovative, and determined people from around the world
• America's ability to form global coalitions without French approval

...the War on Terror will be won: by the people who don't sentence rape victims to 200 lashes, plus jail time. And, that America will lead the winning side, saving France from disaster. Again.