Author: Andrew Sullivan

Slaughtered For Satire, Ctd

Several more readers sound off on the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo:

Your reader offers up a rather boilerplate “liberal” or “Ben Affleckian” response to a terrorist attack: the reasons the perpetrators gave for the attack are not the “real” reasons for it, but enhanced-15542-1420644588-9rather lack of education, poor treatment, alienation, etc.  While I do believe that these factors can play a role in radicalization, they do not explain the attack on Charlie Hebdo.  In fact, while claiming to be searching for “the whole story” or at least “the central one,” your reader fails to recognize the predominate and most obvious cause of the horrendous attack: religious dogma.

In fact, the reader seems to go out of his way to avoid mentioning religion at all.  He characterizes the cartoons (or other’s hypothetical opinions of the cartoons) as “racist slurs” (Islam is not a race) and the attack itself as “political violence.”  Now, Islamism, like all theocracy, is indeed partly political.  But it is also religious.  If this were political violence, why wasn’t the target political?  If the cause was poor education, strict immigration policies, and under representation in government, why not target a school or a government building?

No, this act of terror was religious violence.

The gunmen shouted “God is great” as they murdered journalists and artists.  They did so because their religious dogma states that anyone who insults or depicts the prophet Muhammad deserves death.  Islamists do not seem to mind free speech when that speech is used to disparage Christians, Jews, gays, or other infidels.  They only mind when someone breaks the rules of their religious dogma.  Any attempt to frame the whole story, or the central story, of the Charlie Hebdo attacks which does not mention religious dogma is inane, hypocritical, and self-defeating.

Another reader:

I have seen some of Charlie Hebdo‘s cartoons over the years and found some of them amusing, some of them repulsive. More than a few of them I’ve found out-and-out racist, and worse. I’ve thought they were racist against precisely people who, in French society, are the down-and-out, the outcast. It’s the kind of satire which I think can be ugly because it targets not the powerful, but the powerless. On balance, I don’t particularly care for Charlie Hebdo.

But I was reading about the people killed, and in particular the cartoonists, and I found myself weeping for a style, a tradition, a discourse: for human people murdered before they were done exploring what it means to live, to love, to laugh. I haven’t liked their cartoons, not always. But they have a style their own. A rhythm their own. A life their own. They are art in a tradition, a tradition whose contributors will now never contribute again to its growth, its development. People grow up. I grew up in the South and occasionally said or did things which were racist, and worse. I sometimes targeted the powerless, not the powerful. And I am thankful I have yet to be murdered for it, thankful that I had a chance to try again, to be again, to live again, to speak again.

To murder for free expression, even repugnant free expression, is irreligious blasphemy. It denies the person who you think is atrocious, the person who you think is abhorrent, the person who you think is blasphemous, and it denies them the opportunity for redemption. If you believe that God will stand at the end of time in judgment on all humanity, you owe your fellow human beings the chance to redeem themselves in the arc of time, in the arc of their life, to live to a ripe old age, to have a million moments, a million chances, to redeem where they have fallen short. You owe it to them. If your religion demands you kill, then you worship a weak God indeed, a God who has no business standing in judgment over anyone.

Along those lines, another reader highlights “a hadith (saying of the Prophet (p.b.u.h)) narrated by Abu Hurayrah”:

I heard the Apostle of Allah (p.b.u.h) say – “There were two men among the Banu Isra’il (the Jews) who were striving for the same goal.  One of them would commit sin and the other would strive to do his best in the world.  The man who exerted himself in worship continued to see the other in sin.  He would say to the other “refrain from it”.  One day he found him sinning and again said to him “refrain from it”.  The other responded – “Leave me alone with my Lord.  Have you been sent as a watchman over me?”.  The one who exerted himself in worship replied – “I swear by Allah, Allah will not forgive you, nor will He admit you to paradise”.

Then their souls were taken back (they died) and they met together with the Lord of the Worlds. Allah said to the man who had striven hard in worship – “Had you knowledge about Me or power over that which I had in My hand?” Allah said to the man who sinned – “go and enter paradise by My mercy.” He said about the other “Take him to hell”.

Abu Hurayrah said – “By Him in Whose hand my soul is, he (the man who exerted himself in worship) spoke a word (when he judged his partner to be hell bound) by which this world and the next world of his were destroyed.”

The Kouachi brothers judged the staff of Charlie Hebdo without knowing anything about what was truly in their hearts.  Perhaps if they understood their faith a little better, if they knew the above hadith, they would not have been moved to barbarism and murder of a magazine staff that never actually physically harmed a muslim, or prevented muslims from practicing their faith.  If Charlie Hebdo‘s publications offended them, perhaps they should have heeded their Quran:

“The true servants of the Merciful One are those who walk on the earth gently, and when the foolish ones address them, they simply say “peace be to you”” (Surah Al-Furqan; verse #63)

“Repel evil with that which is better and then the one who is hostile to you will become as a devoted friend” (Surah Fussilat; verse #34)

I am not saying the staff of Charlie Hebdo was foolish or evil, just pointing out that if the Kouachi brothers felt they were, their faith provided them with a radically different way to deal with them than the one they chose … a choice which led to the murder of twelve innocent people including a muslim (Ahmed Merabet – the cop they so casually shot in the head).

As Michel Houellebecq said in the Paris Review interview you linked to yesterday: “the most obvious conclusion is that jihadists are bad muslims”.

Malkin Award Nominee

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/553593617856868353

Update from a reader:

Erickson’s recommendation is doubly offensive (and doubly dumb) considering that he’s actually repurposing a trope of old-timey anti-semitism. As Zaid Jilani points out here, using pork products to taunt those who don’t eat them has been a staple of Jew-baiting in Europe for centuries:

In the book Anti-Semitic Stereotypes: A Paradigm of Otherness in English Popular Culture, 1660-1830, the author notes that English schoolboys would taunt Jews with a chant, “Get a bit of pork/Stick it on a fork/And give it to a Jew boy, a Jew.” In German culture, there was a popular concept of the “Judensau,” depicting Jews suckling from a pig; the bigoted imagery was so common it was even placed on churches to keep Jews away. Pope Leo VII called Jews “pigs,” and during the Inquisition, the  Spanish Jews were actually called “marrano” referring to a one-year old pig.

I wonder if Erickson realizes just what tradition he’s drawing on here. I suspect not.

Who Won’t Republish Charlie‘s Cartoons? Ctd

Dan Savage takes aim at another cowardly outlet:

I was thinking about how afraid everyone is when I heard the Associated Press had yanked all images of Andres Serrano’s 1987 work Piss Christ from their website and archives. Before we knew how many people had died in the attack yesterday—before we learned that one of the victims (the one shown on the cover of the New York Times) was a Muslim cop—right-wing news outlets, bloggers, and Twitterers were condemning the AP’s supposed hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry. Slate:

The Associated Press is among the numerous news outlets that have been self-censoring images of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that may have provoked 1420766951-pisschristasWednesday’s deadly Paris attack. In a statement, the news organization said that such censorship is standard policy: “None of the images distributed by AP showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.” The conservative Washington Examiner publication then pointed out that the AP nonetheless continued to carry an image of Andres Serrano’s 1987 “Piss Christ” photograph—which is certainly provocative, having been the subject of massive controversy in the United States, and which was actually vandalized by Catholic protesters when it was on display in 2011 in, as it happens, France.

All images of Piss Christ have since been scrubbed from AP’s website—they’re all gone, including legitimately newsworthy photos of a vandalized Piss Christ. In an attempt to explain the memoryholing of Piss Christ, the AP says they’ve “revised and reviewed our policies since 1989.” The implication: Piss Christ should’ve been removed from the AP’s website years ago and its presence until yesterday afternoon was an oversight. (Perhaps the AP will send the Washington Examiner a thank-you note for bringing this matter to their attention.) The AP’s explanation is complete and total bullshit. They didn’t pull down those images of Piss Christ because they were “deliberately provocative.” The AP pulled them down because they’re afraid.

Here’s what the AP should’ve said to Christian conservatives screaming about Piss Christ and double standards: “Yeah, we blurred out those Charlie Hebdo cartoons because we’re afraid of them. We didn’t do the same to Piss Christ because we’re not afraid of you.” [That’s] something that Christians, conservative and otherwise, should be proud of. … Here are two (Holly and Robert) boasting yesterday:

1420763045-dontrecallcharlieimage

Christian conservatives want to have it both ways: They want credit for not reacting violently when their sacred symbols, holy texts, imaginary friends, etc. are mocked while also wanting the same deference—the same kid-glove, blurred-image treatment—that violent Muslim extremists have “won” for their sacred symbols, holy texts, imaginary friends, etc. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim to be better than “they” are because you can take a joke while at the same time demanding that people stop joking about you. You can’t hold up their attempts to eradicate art (and artists) that offend them as proof that they’re hopelessly backwards while at the same time demanding the disappearance of art (and artists) that offend you.

Update from a reader:

I just read your item on the Washington Post censoring the Charlie Hedbo images as offensive. It is odd to me that they would strike them from the web, because they definitely printed the images in the print version of the paper. I wish I could show you an image, but I only know this because my husband noted it as he was throwing the dead tree version of the Post into our fireplace. Because it is cold. But here is an article on it (also still on the Post site): “Washington Post opinions section publishes controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoon“.

Ambinder’s take on the free speech question:

1. The attack ought to be connected to Islam, or religion, but not to Muslims. We cannot be afraid to criticize and even ridicule beliefs we find to be harmful and absurd. But neither is it humane nor in the interest of Europe, to indict the people who at worst have committed a thought crime and who at best can be persuaded to disregard that belief, just like practicing Christians and Jews (and even Bill Donohue, who doesn’t incite violence) have in the U.S.

2. Free speech has consequences. Saying it doesn’t is magical — it presupposes that there is some universal law which holds that good things will always happen when people are given license to speak their minds. Not always. But censoring political, symbolic, and religious speech, or trying not to offend anyone often have worse consequences. Censoring enfeebles our minds. Avoiding controversy removes the edge from humor. Protecting people from cartoons concedes sacred ground to much more harmful beliefs and practices.

Let the ink flow.

The Endgame In France

Early reports had suggested that all the hostages had escaped unscathed, which appears not to be the case.

The Plan To Make Community College Free

Obama wants the government to cover the first two years:

Suzy Khimm relays the basics:

To qualify for the program, “students must attend community college at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 GPA, and make steady progress toward completing their program,” the White House said. The administration estimates that the program would help about 9 million students, saving the average full-time student about $3,800 per year.

Leonhardt thinks it’s “worth acknowledging the potential impact of the plan — which is huge”:

Battles over health care, immigration, gun control and other issues may attract more attention. But both history and economics suggest that nothing may have a greater effect on the future of living standards than education policy. Even if a federal program doesn’t pass, the growth of state and local programs — like Chicago’s and Tennessee’s — have a large economic effect.

Reihan isn’t so sure:

I agree that education policy is very important, but unfortunately Leonhardt’s analysis tells us very little about the merits of this particular proposal.

The College Board collects data on trends in college pricing, and Texas A&M economist Jonathan Meer kindly pointed me to their recent work on net prices — that is, net tuition and fees after grant aid — for students attending public institutions, including community colleges. It turns out that in 2011–12, “net tuition and fees at public two–year colleges ranged from $0 for students in the lower half of the income distribution to $2,051 for the highest-income group.” That is, net tuition and fees were $0 for students from households earning $60,000 or less while it was $2,051 for students from households earning over $106,000.

While I don’t doubt that many households in the $106,000-plus range will welcome not having to pay for their children’s community college education, I’m hard-pressed to see why this initiative will have a “huge” impact, given that we’re presumably most concerned about improving community college access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Tim Worstall focuses on “the problem that perhaps some education is in fact just signalling”:

To give an example: back 40 years, just before my university going days, in my native UK some 10% of the population actually went to one. The US attendance rate was very much higher (it expanded well before the UK’s rate did). And in the US at that time it was usual that you must have a BA (or BSc) to get anywhere at all in a professional job of any kind. While an MA (or MSc) was considered to be the minimum to really mark you out as being in the top set academically. At that same time in the UK the simple BA still marked you out as being in that top set (and entry into most professions, including lawyer, accountant and so on, was still possible without a degree at all in anything). As UK university admittance has expanded we’re now much closer to that US model. A mere BA, when 30-40% of the age cohort has one, doesn’t mark you out as anything special. So, that top set go on to do a masters now. And there’s not much evidence that anyone knows any more than they did, or that productivity has increased as a result of the extra years of education. We seem just to be embroiled in a signalling race to no very good purpose.

Margaret Hartmann takes note that the “program would have to be approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, which has rejected three Obama proposals aimed at expanding community-college programs”:

And the GOP has already noted that it’s unclear how this program would be funded. The White House said the federal government would cover 75 percent of the cost, and participating states would make up the rest. A source told Bloomberg News that the program would cost $5 billion, and experts suggested it could be more like tens of billions of dollars. “With no details or information on the cost, this seems more like a talking point than a plan,” said Cory Fritz, House Speaker John Boehner’s press secretary.

Ed Morrissey sees the proposal as purely political:

This doesn’t have a prayer of getting passed in this Congress, and he knows it. It’s merely a construct to Show Obama Cares About You, while at the same time gives the media another Republicans Are Just Flint-Hearted Meanies narrative to push.

Sargent admits that Obama’s plan will “will run into a wall of GOP opposition.” But he thinks it raises another question:

How far can Obama go unilaterally to address the deep problems afflicting working and middle class Americans, such as stalled mobility and declining wages? Obama appears to be getting serious about testing the limits of his office on this front. But there is one area where unilateral action could perhaps have more of an impact on wages than any other: The coming battle over overtime pay.

More Hostages In France

And it appears that the situation in Dammartin-En-Goele may be intensifying:

Nico Hines explains the newest crisis in Paris, which conflicting reports indicate may have led to two more deaths:

Twenty miles south [of where the Kouachi brothers have been cornered], in the east of the city, new-french-suspects-edit at least one gunman is believed to have taken six hostages at a Jewish store. Police suspect that the third gunman is the same man who shot and killed a policewoman on Thursday morning before escaping in a bullet-proof vest.

Parisian police have released a photograph of the suspect, Amedy Coulibaly, 32, who was a member of the same local terror network as the Kouachi brothers. They believe a 26-year-old woman was involved in the attack on the policewoman, it is not known if Hayat Boumeddiene is also helping her former partner stage the attack on the supermarket.

Hines also sums up the news, out last night, that the older Kouachi brother was possibly trained by the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda:

A senior U.S. intelligence official told The New York Times that Saïd Kouachi, the older brother, spent several months in Yemen in 2011, where he received small-arms and marksmanship training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, one of the most feared al Qaeda affiliates.

Joshua Keating comments:

If AQAP was involved, even indirectly, in Wednesday’s attack, it would be the group’s biggest success outside the Middle East in quite a while. And coming at a time when international attention has shifted to al-Qaida’s hostile erstwhile allies ISIS—with that group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,directly challenging Zawahiri’s leadership of the international jihadist movement—it’s a sign that al-Qaida is still far from contained.

You can watch a livestream of crisis coverage here:

The Greatest Threats To Mankind

Lost Years

Charles Kenny urges us to focus on fighting disease:

The WHO data suggest that on the whole, all forms of violence are a minor cause of death—accounting for just 1.2 percent of all deaths worldwide in 2000 and 1.1 percent of all deaths in 2012. Kidney diseases, liver cancer, suicide, and unintentional falls each killed more people than violence against others in 2012. Heart disease and stroke each killed more than 10 times as many.

… The past 12 years suggests how rapidly we can make progress if we focus on the biggest causes of tragically premature deaths worldwide—first among which are infectious diseases. Measles alone killed 499,000 children under the age of five in 2000. That dropped by four-fifths, to just 101,000 children, in 2012. This success story is underappreciated. A Web search for news stories suggests 80 times the coverage of terrorism and terror than of measles. And doubtless that’s one factor why the U.S. has spent about $1.6 trillion on the global war on terror from 2001 to 2014 compared with less than one-thousandth that amount on rolling out vaccines worldwide through the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunizations.

With the above chart, Dylan Matthews illustrates “the leading cause of lost years of life by country”:

It’s worth stressing that “cause of lost years of life” and “cause of death” aren’t identical. For example, deaths from preterm births may cause more lost years of life in a country than deaths from heart disease even if heart disease is the leading cause of death. Deaths from preterm births amount to many decades of lost life, whereas heart disease tends to develop much later on.

The Poor Aren’t Big On Voting

It’s a basic fact of American politics:

It so happens that the gap between voters and non-voters breaks down strongly along class lines. In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted. This “class bias,” is so strong that in the three elections (2008, 2010 and 2012) I examined, there was only one instance of a poorer income bracket turning out at a higher rate than the bracket above them. (In the 2012 election, those making less than $10,000 were slightly more likely to vote than those making between $10,000 and $14,999.) On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it.

This class bias is a persistent feature of American voting: A study of 40 years of state-level data finds no instance in which there was not a class bias in the electorate favoring the rich—in other words, no instance in which poorer people in general turned out in higher rates than the rich. That being said, class bias has increased since 1988, just as wide gaps have opened up between the opinions of non-voters and those of voters.

Beware Of Nazi Cows

They’re mean bastards:

This particular breed dates back to the 1920s, when German zoologists and brothers Heinz and Lutz Heck, recruited by the Nazis, began a program to resurrect extinct wild species by cross-breeding various domestic descendants — an effort typically referred to as “back breeding.” Among their success stories was the half-ton Heck cattle, a reasonable facsimile of the hearty and Herculean auroch cattle that dated back some 2 million years prior and has roamed en masse all over Germany centuries prior.

The back-breeding program reflected the dual Nazi obsession with eugenics and nostalgia; the wild ancestry of the auroch reflected a time of “biological unity” before civilization softened and “uglified” man and beast alike. And in fact, the program’s research patron, one Hermann Goring, sought to preserve biological unity not only by resurrecting extinct species, but by restoring them to their original habitats; thus his plan was to return the aurochs to the primeval Białowieża forest.

Is anyone really surprised that the cows turned out to be murderously dangerous?

To wit, English farmer Derek Gow, the only owner of Heck cattle in his country, was forced to slaughter half of his herd this week because they were getting far too aggressive:

“I’m not sure how appealing Third Reich sausages would be,” he joked. “But they are very tasty.”

Update from a reader:

Please PLEASE tell me you saw Aasif Mandvi’s bit about “Nazi Cows”. You cannot mention this story without mentioning this bit. It’s classic TDS.

Closing In On The Kouachis

https://twitter.com/nffc82/status/553476183124606977