The House of David

"all your cities lie in dust"

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Second-guess


I'm not going to tell Lucas how he should've designed Episodes II-III because I'm not as good a plot designer as he is. I will say, though, that given his choices of plot design, he could have designed at least II differently. The biggest tweak I'd have made to the I-III arc is scheduling.

Lucas meant Episode I as an extended trailer for II-III (a defensible choice). As such, its job is to introduce everyone and to get Palpatine into the Chancellorship. Episode II's job is to lead into Episode III. Neither I nor II succeeded as standalone movies in the way of III or IV. (Leaving V and VI aside, here.)

Episode I's overall plan was a fine one: create a crisis which the good guys can solve, pleasing the audience, while the real action is going on in the Senate. The problem with it was that were was too much running around from site N to site T to site C. Only site N was necessary. Also, Anakin doesn't need character development in this movie. It could be - and should be - Obi-Wan's story.

The whole of I could have been designed during the 1980s. Lucas would have learnt CGI in the early 1990s and grabbed a 22-year-old Ewan McGregor in late 1993. The movie would have featured prosthetic Twi'leks as its amphibian race rather than CGI Gungans. Coruscant could have managed without quite so much CGI, in the way V's Cloud City managed before the Special Editions. Anakin would have been a 9-year-old swoop gang member enlisted to break the pilots out of camp, with no connexion to Tatooine. Tatooine would have stayed off the script entirely.

Then Lucas could have applied his Jedi CGI tricks on special editions of Episodes I, IV, V, and VI over the next decade while he plotted Episodes II and III. In the SEs: I'd've kept Han shooting first and quietly destroyed the Jabba scene in IV; saving that money for McDiarmid in V and for the Rancor in VI (untouched in the real-world special editions and corrected in the DVD). Episodes II and III would finish by 2005 as before, although I'm still not sure what I'd do with II. Again, I wouldn't tell him how to do II because I'm stumped myself.

An early-1990s standalone Episode I with minimal CGI and high focus would have been a brave and interesting move. Assuming it had been as good as the III-V trilogy, that is...


posted by Zimri on 01:45 | link |

Now that it's over


I've now seen Episode III twice - opening day on Microsoft's dime and last night on mine own.

I'm one of the people whose formative memories are of Star Wars, but I'll spare you much of that. I did note over on Ace's site: Some critics say that there aren't any good SW movies, and others that the episode we call "A New Hope" should have stayed at "Star Wars" and never built upon. I wasn't here for the 1977 Star Wars and I missed the Christmas special. My first viewing was its 1979 redaction, already renamed "A New Hope", and I saw The Empire Strikes Back not long after. So my Star Wars experience is of the series and not of that first movie alone. Therefore I hold the "Star Wars sola" criticisms of Episode III as meritless.

If we accept The Empire Strikes Back's conceit that there is a human behind Vader's mask, then we've accepted that "the original Star Wars" is an episode in a series and not its first episode. Also, Episode ANH-minus-one in this series has to detail Anakin's fall.

On these terms, I further assert Episode III as a rousing success. Which it was. I could watch this more than once; more importantly, I could do this without the shame I felt rewatching, say, Episodes VI and I.

I'm not too worried about the logical and chronological lapses. Owen and Baru do seem to age more than 18 years between III and IV, but don't forget that they're Caucasian humans on a desert planet with two frickin' suns (many of us, myself included, can barely survive even one of those) - even Luke at 18 looks like Mark Hammill at 26, while Leia looks like Carrie Fisher at 19. As for why the Death Star took 18 years to complete the first time and 3-4 years to get operational the second, sure to feature in an upcoming Kevin Smith diatribe; I have to point out that the first time, the Empire still had to get around Bail Organa's filibusters in the Senate and to invent its technologies from scratch; whereas the second time, the Empire had more nominal control, more experience, and more urgency (remember Vader's comment on new ways to motivate them?). They also made sure to get the power supply and primary weapon online before the shell was completed.

It is groovy to watch the stage set for Episode IV, but that's just a shout-out to the fans and distracting to the rest of us. The story itself is a great one. Anakin starts out a headstrong but loyal follower of the Jedi order, and then watches the Jedi Council compromise its high ground in its intrigue with Palpatine. The Jedi are selfless at heart but their leaders increasingly fail to show this by their actions. And selflessness isn't what Anakin wants; he wants the Force for himself, so he can force his ideals upon others.

Lucas's plot makes three major points germane to world events:

First, the Jedi demand selfless obedience from their members. And they do turn out to be right, if unsympathetic in the process; if Anakin had sent Padme back to Naboo with a farewell kiss, none of this would have happened. (That is, Padme still would have given up the ghost, but Anakin wouldn't have cared enough to become Vader.) There are blogs out there who liken this to the Catholic Church's stance for celibacy in its priests, or at least for secrecy and rigid compartmentalisation.

Second, Lucas doesn't trust research into somatic-cell nuclear transfer. And you know what - he's right. We're trusting corporations to make our clones "Three Laws Safe". This line of research has military applications, and a world or galaxy at war won't even make its robots "Three Laws Safe".

Third, this is how parliamentary republics give way to tyranny (clones and droids aside) - to thunderous applause. That, and said tyrants lie and murder on their way up there. Tyranny is bad and republics need to watch out for tyrants.

Note that these three are not assumptions which the movie characters have made, given their conversations. Characters give expository speeches that follow Michael Moore's talking points, but they're not following the ball any more than is Moore. Padme claims that the war is going on because of a failure of diplomacy - but the relentless inertia of the plot tells us instead that the Separatists have made such bargains with evil that they would be immune to diplomacy even if someone tried it. Obi-Wan offers relativism against Vader's misguided dualism; but later Vader turns that against Obi-Wan by stating that from his own perspective the Jedi are evil. It's not the existential evils of war that brought Palpatine to power. It's Palpatine's own moral evil - and everyone's wilful blindness - that do that.

To sum up, I now consider the "Star Wars Trilogy" to run from III-IV-V. The series has an epilogue tacked onto the end to get Han out of stasis, and a few other episodes here and there (Stover's Shatterpoint book, the Jedi Apprentice childrens' novellae, the start of Episode II, The Paradise Snare Han Solo novel, etc).


posted by Zimri on 00:50 | link |

Monday, May 23, 2005

Nuremberg shadows


Sully disagrees with the suggestion that Qur'an desecration, or at least Qur'an opposition, is our way out of this mess. He thinks that winning that way will be pyrrhic (which he misspelled), alluding to the Epirote general who beat the Roman Republic but at the cost of his army.

He then printed an email on that topic, saying that if we hold our values against those of the Jihad in public, then our values will win. An example would be the Nuremberg trials, in which Nazism was discredited. (Read the whole thing.)

What Sully hasn't noted yet is that whatever Qur'ans were desecrated - and there were few enough of those - this was not done by approval of Rumsfeld (as most of us expected). He also fails to note that Newsweek really does desecrate holy symbols as a matter of course - if the symbols are holy to American patriots. It just happens that they do this behind our backs to America's allies for their own profit. But all this is by the way.

The point is that we should be opposing Islam, but we don't dare. And as a corollary this is why Bush has chosen the way of Guantanamo over the way of Nuremberg.

Nazis could be tried against the standards of European morality, even of German morality as of 1850 or so. Showing the Germans the misdeeds of the Nazis served to shame the Germans.

Islamists cannot be tried against the standards of the West, because Islamists don't accept those standards. From Allah's perspective, America and Europe are full of unbelievers fit only to pay poll tax (jizya).

Islam could be tried against secular standards. Or, Islam could be tried against the standards of the Torah and Gospel. Against the former, Bush is a Christian who doesn't believe in secular standards either; and against the latter, it would end in a match over whose holy texts are more corrupted and therefore the match would end up with the secularists anyway.

Islamists can be tried against Islamic standards. But Islamists will have hadith, Qur'an, and the example (sira) of the Prophet behind them. If the Prophet went out with a sword and subjugated his enemies, why cannot Osama Bin Laden? The arguments will degenerate into quibbles over methods and over targets. Well, maybe not American office workers; but certainly Israeli soldiers - or potential Israeli soldiers - or American supporters of Israel - or George Bush - or a convention of Bush voters. And maybe American office workers if they are contributing to the American war effort, or its economy.

There is no way out as long as people take the Qur'an seriously.

A Nuremberg for Islamists would have to hold up Islamist beliefs to ridicule - and ultimately Islamic beliefs as mainstream Muslims portray them. (The mutazils would not be offended but mutazils are less than 10% of Islam.) And since Christianity's theology is even more incoherent than Islam's, with a holy book that has been being debunked for centuries rather than for decades; no Christian nation will be able to do this, and certainly not Bush's nation.


posted by Zimri on 23:45 | link |

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Drainage


My post yesterday about holy-book disposal systems was a cop-out.

I didn't know where I was going with the topic, so I just let the words pour out. As a scholar, or at any rate a wannabe, there really is a debate in Islam (and Judaism) on how to dispose of holy texts; which has its origin in the days when writing material was expensive and when copying was done by hand. But there's a part of me that is darkly amused by those Muslims (and not Jews, note) who view the destruction of Qur'ans as worthy of a riot, while the murder of unbelieving civilians and the destruction of their holy texts are worthy of celebration.

There is cognitive dissonance among non-Muslim proponents of this war into which Bush has taken us. On the one hand, we'd be cool with Muslims if they'd be cool with us. On the other hand, we recognise that the Muslims' claim, that their Arabic-speaking tyrant of a God is worthy of worship, is false.

People of the former persuasion would like if the Qur'an had never been desecrated (Instapundit), and by extension would like to keep this secret even if it proved true (Barber, and me on a previous day). But then there're people who think the problem is on the other side, with the believers in surat al-Anfal and so forth; in which case it's their job to teach themselves to disbelieve in that nonsense. If they get mad enough to bomb something over here, that changes nothing; they already want to kill us and then to drag all the world into a vast caliphate of falsehood.

A Nazi might convert to a Republican, or a Communist to a Democrat; but either one has at least dropped his founding texts and retained only what he needs to prosper in a democracy (although of course I would retain my suspicions against both). Accepting reformed Nazis and Communists is entirely different from accepting "moderate" Nazis and Communists. Moderate evil is just an evil plotting its way. It's better if they quit being evil... or quit breathing.

What hasn't been done effectively so far is to make clear that the latter choice is, in fact, their only choice. We have been very. Very. Patient. But our government hasn't done a thing to discredit the rogue suras in the Qur'an. This sends the message to Islamic moderates that the rogue suras are just fine.

So I find myself agreeing with Sullivan, again. Let's have that debate. Let's decide what to say and what not to say to Islamic prisoners.

Start with this: Your holy book is wrong. And killing off unbelievers won't change that.


posted by Zimri on 19:45 | link |

Clown academy


Jim Davila writes:

SOME BOZO? Why do e-mail messages from the Society of Biblical Literature to its membership now consistently contain the name "Some Bozo" in the sender field? I have e-mailed them about this and received no reply. I think someone needs to update a default setting.

I disagree with him on that last bit.


posted by Zimri on 19:00 | link |

Monday, May 16, 2005

A disposal problem


Last weekend, I wore out one of my two translations of the Qur'an.

This was the Ahmed Ali version published in the 1990s. It is a poetic rendition with few footnotes. It was also the first Qur'an I ever read, back in college while I was also reading Burton's "1001 Nights". It had been with me for a decade.

The cause of its demise was the binding. It was paperback and could not handle the heavy use to which my research has put it. It fell asunder, right down the sura of Maryam (#19).

I do hope no-one suspects foul play. I posted last year that surat al-Anfal was best inscribed on pork parchment and hung around Saddam's stretched-out neck. I see no reason to change my opinion on that particular sura. As for sura 19, I'm of the opinion that it was a forgery, postdating 'Abd al-Malik's accession in the 680s CE; I would link to the page that had my reasoning for this, but I felt the need to take it down.

But I swear to you that this "desecration" was an accident. Sura 19 does not offend me. In fact it is one of my favourite chapters in the book, with kind words toward, e.g. the virgin Mary and the baby Jesus. That's probably why the binding broke in that particular spot.

The trick now is how I am supposed to dispose of the two halves. Flushing it is obviously out of the question. I don't want to burn it; it'd make me feel like those yokels torching the American flag and besides, I quite like some of it. Throwing it out with the credit card offers, beer cans, and microwave dinner boxes seems disrespectful too. And there's no point in keeping it in a geniza; as holy books go it's not like it's up there with the Torah or the Silmarillion.

Maybe I'll sneak it onto a bus terminal in the middle of the night.


posted by Zimri on 22:45 | link |

Monday, May 09, 2005

The Jarudiyya


A certain Jane, blogging on her site Armies of Liberation, has recently shone a light onto the Yemeni corner of the Jihad, heretofore ignored by the US since the Cole bombing in 1997. Yemen is divided between the self-styled "normative" sort of Muslim - i.e. Shafi'i-inspired Sunnis, who are radicalising to Wahhabism - and a faction of the other sort who are usually first to die when the former sort take charge.

Yemen's minority Muslims, as far as I can tell, are a remnant from the early days of Shi'ism: the Jarudiyya sect of Zaydis. I figured I may as well lay out what I know of Jarudism, which isn't much, so feel free to email me with corrections and clarifications.

We tend to think of Shi'ism in terms of Sufism and Iraqi / Iranian Shi'ism, or at the least Ismailism, for whom there was an orderly procession of Imams with a lineage reaching back to 'Ali. 'Ali was the honorary "brother" of Muhammad, Aaron to the Prophet's Moses, and caliph of the East from 37-41 AH. These Shi'a share mystical and gnostic undertones, to varying extent. They also appeal in theory or in practice to a living or occulted Imam of 'Ali's line.

But to be "Shi'a" literally means only to adhere to the "party" of Muhammad's family. One needn't be Ismaili or a follower of, say, Ayatollah Sistani. Before the latter-day Shi'a dynasties had crystallised, Shi'ism typically meant little more than "organised Arab rival to the Umayyads".

One early branch opted for the sons of Muhammad b. Hanifiyya, said to have been a son of 'Ali; when he died in 81 AH his followers formed a messianic movement called the "Kaysanites". Another branch soon afterward opted for the sons of al-'Abbas, an uncle of the Prophet; this branch allied with Iranian Kaysanites and other Shi'a to drive the Umayyads out of the Near East and to found the 'Abbasid dynasty. Even the Umayyads claimed kinship with the Prophet, through their shared (pagan) ancestor 'Abd Manaf. During the first century AH, there were rival "people of the House" all claiming to be Muhammad's kin, and all claiming to be "Shi'a" more or less.

In the second, "Marwanid" era of Umayyad rule, one such Shi'a line was that of Husayn who was martyred in Kerbala (61 AH). (Again, note that this was not then the strongest Shi'a nor even strongest 'Alid movement; the proto-Kaysanites under al-Mukhtar were far more powerful and successful. The 60s AH Syrian Christian historian John b. Penkaye said a lot about Mukhtar and nothing about Husayn.) Husayn's descendents survived by keeping their heads down. Husayn's son was another 'Ali, nicknamed "Zayn al-'Abidin" (d. 94 AH); and his son was in turn Abu Ja'far Muhammad, "al-Baqir" (d. 116 AH).

Al-Baqir had a brother, named Zayd. Where al-Baqir wished to continue to leave the Umayyads alone (although he delivered many anti-Umayyad traditions, of which more below), Zayd felt that the Umayyads were a corruption in the land that needed shaking off. Later Shi'a claimed that Zayd argued with al-Baqir, although this is unlikely to be historical. At any rate Zayd and a friend, Abu'l-Jarud Ziyad b. al-Mundhir, rebelled against the Umayyads in Kufa. Zayd further received the support of Islamic legal specialists, most notably Sunni Imam Abu Hanifa, 700 - 767 CE (it is notable that just as the Shi'a were more "Sunni" by contrast with today, so proto-Sunnis like Abu Hanifa opposed Umayyad leadership with Shi'a rivals). However in 740 CE the Umayyads put down this revolt at the cost of Zayd's life.

Abu'l-Jarud lived on, and founded the Jarudiyya movement. He apparently continued to rank himself a "Zaydi" by contrast with other Shi'a, who followed al-Baqir and his son Ja'far instead. But Abu'l-Jarud still transmitted a number of al-Baqir's traditions. These can be found in many early Islamic collections, and also in Shi'a tafasir (Qur'anic commentaries), e.g. of al-Qummi and al-Tabarsi.

In Jarudi thought, Husayn's descendents deserve the Imamate but his line need not. For example (or so I must presume) al-Baqir was certainly wise, honest, and worthy of trust; but he was also docile, and so unworthy of the political deference due his brother.

The Zaydis, like Sunnis and unlike other surviving Shi'a groups, do not believe that their Imams are infallible. Zaydi law further shares with the Hanafi branch of Sunnism a high respect for al-Baqir and adherence to the legal precepts of Kufa as of the late Umayyad era. Some non-Jarudi Zaydis go so far as to accept the caliphate of 'Umar, on the grounds that 'Ali had voluntarily abdicated - implicitly separating the duties of faith (Imam 'Ali) and command (Amir 'Umar). As a result, there are those who consider Yemeni Zaydism a "fifth school" of Sunnism; although that particular site is vague as to whether the Zaydis say this of themselves.

The Zaydi support for rebellion against tyranny seems violent on its face; but keep in mind that the American system of elections is a means for rebellion as well - and kept nonviolent only by threat of the Second Amendment. If the Zaydis "domesticated" this ethic by means of a constitutional system, this would allow for a more democratic form of politics than is traditional to more monarchical forms of Shi'ism such as, e.g., the 'Abbasids (if you count them) and Fatimids.

The Zaydis ended up in Yemen and there ran an Imamate, a sort of caliphate, until a revolution upended their rule in the 1960s. Apparently the Zaydis are now considered "un-Islamic" and slated for destruction.

This would be a shame for those who prefer their Islam pluralistic. It would be tragic for historians; because the Zaydis probably have an extensive and ancient literature, mostly independent of other Shi'a and Sunni movements, and I doubt it's all been published yet.

UPDATE 5/16: reciprocal link from Jane (thanks!). This post is revised to keep current with better information received since then.


posted by Zimri on 22:30 | link |

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Not a centrist


When it comes down to it, there's a real question why I should bother commenting on the UK at all.

I am not remotely in the center - excuse me, "centre" - of that nation's politics. I'm "fairly punitive and isolationist" (3.2) and "very free-market and pro-war" (4.8).

This means I agree with over half of BNP voters on the former axis, and that I'm "significantly to the right" of 94.8% of BNP voters on the latter. (The BNP is commonly considered the white nationalist fringe.) Otherwise I hardly agree with anyone.

I make no apologies for this. If you agree with the income tax, you've already accepted your lot as a serf. That reduces political debate to a choice of master. If over nine out of ten Britons are happy being slaves, that's their choice. But I suggest that free Britons move over here instead - it's only going to get worse in the coming years.

From the political survey; hat tip Alarming News and Ace.


posted by Zimri on 22:45 | link |

Blair's last year


Tony Blair won his party a majority in one election, held onto his gains in a second, and held onto his majority in the third. But he didn't do so well in that last one, and this has improved the standing of his rivals.

Those Labour MPs who are not currently part of his government in a meaningful capacity are calling for him to make way.

This is another factor for American neocons to keep in mind. Not only are the Liberal Democrats in greater numbers, but Labour is no longer solidly pro-Blair.


posted by Zimri on 11:55 | link |

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Go Rockets!


All RIGHT!! Way to go Choke City! WOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

76-116 - truly a historic performance. Now we all know what a wise investment was that Toyota Center.

Forty points. Brah. Voe.


posted by Zimri on 23:42 | link |

How not to be gay in Spokane


Spokane's mayor Jim West frequently supports anti-gay legislation. For example, he "initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; [and] supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies" and as mayor, "threatened to veto a measure extending benefits to domestic partners of city employees". (He also voted to define marriage as one man, one woman; but I do not consider this "anti-gay" in isolation.)

Spokane is the major city in the hinterlands of Washington State. That region is decidedly different from Seattle in outlook. What flies in Spokane does not fly in Seattle.

Recently, Jim West got caught arranging trysts in a chatroom with a reporter whom he thought was an 18 year old male. Note that this guy claimed he was 17 when West started chatting him up. Also note that West promised to have the city hire him as an intern.

Because as everyone knows, an internship is the first step on a journey to public service. One should only hire an intern in whom one can have total confidence, trust, and domination. (It also helps if the candidate intern can suck like a lubricated Hoover.)

I bet Jeff Goldstein ghostwrote the following himself, on behalf of State Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown: "The public's trust is eroded when what elected officials advocate is different from how they conduct their own life." IT'S ABOUT THE HYPOCRISY! (Insert riposte about Washingtonians' trust in elected officials who do not investigate electoral fraud in their party's favour, here.) RedState comments on this line of argument too. But I submit that there is no hypocrisy here, at least not in Jim West's worldview.

So in light of West's actions as mayor and of his actions, uh, in other capacities, I've compiled the following guide on how not to be gay in Spokane.

  • By definition, marriage cannot be instituted for gay couples. Further, no other domestic arrangement can be defined between them, even by another name. Same-sex contact should be limited to the sanctity of an AOL "Boyz2Men" chatroom.
  • It is dangerous for teenagers to have sex with one another. They need the guiding hand, and other extremities, of powerful older men.
  • Consensual homosexual acts are a sin for both parties. But you're not really gay if you can make the other guy your bitch.
  • Hooray for the Boy Scouts!

Washingtonians could doubtless think of others...


posted by Zimri on 09:15 | link |

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Cinco de Mayo


As Lair puts it, Mexicans celebrate because they won The Battle Of Puebla. Americans celebrate because the French lost." I celebrate it because that's when I moved into the literal House of David. Either way: w00t!


posted by Zimri on 20:47 | link |

Election liveblogging


Yes yes we all know that Blair lost almost 50 seats. But readers of this site need to know - to whom?!

After much searching, I found via Reuters UK: the Tories!

Yay!

I am happy that British voters continue to see Kennedy and his ilk for what they are. May they continue to do so.

UPDATE 11:05 PM - The earlier comments reflected exit polls and not the actual result. Lib Dems are so far projected to gain ten seats, up from the exit-poll prediction of two; all Labour's. Sedgemore's switch, presumably, makes this eleven. The Tories still seem to be doing the best of the three.

11:12 PM - 585 / 646 seats declared: Tories up 27. Whigs up 12. I'm less wrong (and less pleased) than I was three hours ago. I changed the title of this post.

11:15 PM - Westmorland & Lonsdale LD gain from CON: what the hell is this? Voters there are idiots. That's like going from Republican to Ralph Nader. I hope they come to their senses next time around.

11:17 PM - via Reynolds: Iain Murray reports that Galloway is projected to take over from Oona King. Galloway was on Saddam's payroll; King is a Jew who supported Blair. So that's the Lib Dems' thirteenth gain, de facto. Bah.

midnight - Tories up 30, Whigs up 12 + Sedgemore + Galloway.

12:05 AM - Tories up 31. I notice that while I was out, in Devon West & Torridge the Tories pulled a Liberal seat away ;^) There are only 40 seats left to be decided. The Libs need two of these to get back to where they were in 1929. (That is, as you know, 1. why I'm blogging and 2. why I'm live-blogging.) I'm betting they get them.

12:17 AM - Whigs hold two seats in Cornwall. The Liberals are at 59 seats.

12:58 AM - Libs have to wait to hit that 60; they just lost their seat in Ludlow. To the Tories. That's got to smart.

1:04 AM - Tories up 33, thanks to a pickup in Croydon Central.


posted by Zimri on 20:25 | link |

Lib-Dem jihad?


There's a breathless article in NRO today from Apostolou. He claims, "the left-of-center Liberal Democrats, have sought to open up divisions between Muslim and non-Muslims in British society". The important word is "the", which implies that this is Kennedy's programme and not the acts of rogue elements.

When Labourites like Galloway and, in this article, Yasmin Qureshi play footsie with the Jihad, Labour can convincingly say that they are not following Labour policy. Labour's leader Tony Blair is our strongest supporter, and Labour further booted Galloway (but not yet Qureshi) out of the party. I accept that these are fringe elements.

It is more difficult for the Lib Dems to say the same. When their candidates run on an anti-US platform, they are in agreement with Kennedy and not in opposition. So candidates like Teather and Rowen, while much more passive in their support for the Jihad than are Galloway and Qureshi, can't be shut down like the latter two - as long as they remain passive.

First, one cannot accuse the Lib Dems of pandering to radical Islam, if their aims were already in agreement.

Also, the divisions which the Libs are trying to open up aren't between the Muslim and the unbeliever. There are insufficient votes in that, as too many native Brits are in sympathy with the former.

Kennedy's Muslim policy is decentralised. There is no talk about immigration or crime, beyond throwing money in their general direction; and he proposes to support the universities, currently pro-Islamist. Divisions between the Gentile and the Jew also show promise. Not too many Brits are in sympathy with the latter. But all this will have to be kept on the D.L. - in selected races, and where plausible deniability can be invoked.


posted by Zimri on 11:50 | link |

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Remembrance Day


Laurence Simon has a must-read.


posted by Zimri on 22:35 | link |

Fantasy instrumental CD


ASV recently had a post on favorite instrumentals. I hadn't heard, or heard of, any of hers.

So I thought I'd list my "favourites" (since most of these are English and Scottish new-wave).

  • Depeche Mode: St. Jarna
  • Depeche Mode: Kaleid
  • Nine Inch Nails: A Warm Place
  • Nine Inch Nails: The Persistence of Loss
  • New Order: Elegia
  • New Order: Don't Do It
  • The Smiths: Oscillate Wildly
  • Electronic: Lean To The Inside
  • Pale Saints: Reflections From A Watery World
  • Teenage Fanclub: Is This Music?

I admit some may be hard to find, but if you do find them... bliss. Sheer bliss.


posted by Zimri on 22:30 | link |

Was the conquest of Palestine an Arab-Jewish alliance?


For

  • Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, the first (albeit second-hand) source from the region (Caesarea, prior to its fall 640 CE), records the Jews overjoyed at the uprising of the new Arab Prophet.
  • Christians increased their anti-"Jewish" polemics (like Anastasius of Sinai). No-one was converting to Judaism, but there was a risk of conversion to something closer to Judaism than to Christianity. Closer than it is now.
  • Maximus Confessor in 640 CE called the Saracens a "Judaic people".
  • Contemporary chroniclers recorded attempts to rebuild the Temple and not yet al-Aqsa (Pseudo-Sebeos).
  • Later chroniclers recorded that when 'Umar built the first mosques in Jerusalem he asked the Jews for religious advice. Which they gave. (Theophilos of Edessa, according to Hoyland pp. 640-1).
  • By tradition (well, according to Muir) it was a Jew who betrayed Caesarea to Mu'awiya and 'Umar in 640 AD.
  • The "Constitution of Medina" - really a collection of treaties - counts the Jewish tribes alongside the Arab tribes.

Against

  • Thomas the Presbyter, writing 640 CE, notes massacres of Jews in Palestine (634 CE).
  • John of Nikiu, writing 690 CE, records the Jews of Manûf fleeing the invasion in Egypt (630s-40s; note that the chapter is lost but its summary remains in the table of contents).


Solutions?

  • The alliance was over as of 634 CE;
  • The Arabs committing the massacres were pagan Arabs not yet with the program;
  • Thomas the Presbyter was wrong, and John of Nikiu's text is too corrupt;
  • Allah did it so I should quit asking;
  • Aliens did it and the MIB are coming over tonight to erase this blog.

I actually have no idea how to solve this problem.


posted by Zimri on 21:23 | link |

Liberal hopes


The Independent was the paper I used to read. it was always left-of-centre but generally hewed between the Conservatives and Labour. It was the Liberal rag, in short.

It still is - but now it's faaar Left. Where Kennedy went, that paper followed.

Right now their correspondent Marie Woolf is relaying the Liberal prediction (and mine) that they will get their best results since 1923, and their hope (clear to everyone) that "Labour voters back them tactically".

This won't be the election of a Liberal slate. If they do as well as the Independent hopes and as I fear, this will be the start of a Labour collapse. Or, rather, historians will start to recognise the last few years as such.


posted by Zimri on 00:20 | link |

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

How not to review a CD


I have two side comments, for a couple of would-be reviewers who do not know what they are talking about. Excuse the negativity, but this concerns New Order. New Order, people.

I'm firstly interested in knowing what brand of narcotics it was that led the All Music Guide to say "that the band never strayed into [cold heartlessness] during the '80s". It must have been some awesome shit to make them forget how often New Order gave us chills back then. They started out as Joy Division for cripe's sake; and followed it up with "Blue Monday". "Elegia" was a wordless paean to hopelessness (or did the reviewer never see "Pretty in Pink"...?). The whole album Technique was frozen. This reviewer must have begun and ended with the "Greatest Hits" and the band's 1990s output - when they took 5 years off, released a bubblegum CD, and broke up. Or else he was high. Either way he's not qualified to review the band.

Moving to the most-recent-but-one CD: I'm not sure who these wankers on Amazon are who've been getting off by calling Get Ready the band's "weakest". First off, that's not what I heard anyone saying when that CD came out late in 2001. Even now I can see that it has some of the band's best songs on it, although it does wear a bit in the centre. If Lowlife and Technique seem more consistent, that's because they had only eight and nine songs on them, respectively. So, to all you Get Ready haters: bite me!

And that's all I've got to say on that score.


posted by Zimri on 23:40 | link |

Just wondering


What's the oxygen content on the Wookiee homeworld?


posted by Zimri on 22:30 | link |

Sirens' call


I went into the record store to pick up (and chicken out of) NIN's With Teeth - and what do I see but a new New Order CD: Waiting For The Sirens' Call.

I've heard the preview clips, but unfortunately nothing more. I agree with All Music Guide's reviewer that some of these songs comprise some of the frostiest stuff New Order has ever put to music.

The non-frosty songs are all right. They remind me of Technique; more tunes and less rock than Get Ready. I'll certainly buy it, alongside With Teeth, when their price drops some.


posted by Zimri on 21:30 | link |

The muffin man


When I got my phone four years ago, and I received my first message on it, my girlfriend asked me: "who's Martha?" Later I heard further feedback that some woman called "Muffin" pwn3d my answering service.

I managed to clear Muffin out of the answering service, but not out of all the other crannies of my phone system. Ever since then my brothers have taken to calling me "Muffin" too. (Bah!)

Last Saturday, a friend of Muffin called asking for her. I was so pleased to finally clear up the mystery - that it was, in fact, "Muffin" and not "Martha".

I have her number, though, in case any other friends of Muffin call. I'll be able to refer them, now.


posted by Zimri on 20:45 | link |

Kingdom of Chaos


So I'm reading the summary of Kingdom of Heaven (called a "synopsis", mistakenly). I heard that CAIR is for it, and that extremer-than-CAIR Muslims are against it. Director Ridley Scott was apparently under some pressure while designing this thing. As your ever-loyal blog host, I figured I'd compare that summary with other material available on the WWW.

The film is set in 1186, on the eve of the Third Crusade. But that Crusade hadn't started yet. When I talk about "the Crusade" below, I'm referring to the remnants of the Second Crusade.

Here is such background as I have found - should I decide to watch the movie:

Ridley Scott retains the leper king Baldwin IV on the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a year after his real-world death in March 1185. His son Baldwin V managed to hang on 'til August 1186 but then he died too. Baldwin IV's sister Sibylla then became Queen of Jerusalem - and so her husband, Guy of Lusignan (half of the dual villains of KoH), became king. Ridley's protagonist should have been the Baldwins' regent, Raymond of Tripoli; but that sounds too much like his enemy's name "Reynald", it makes people think of Muammar Qaddafi, and Baldwin IV makes for more pathetic cinema. Pushing Baldwin IV's 1174-85 reign to 1186 is the most egregious change to the plot. Maybe a forgivable one though.

KoH's nemesis, if not exactly villain, is the Sunni commander Saladin. Saladin was at first by no means a hero to all Islam. He acted as villain even to some Muslims - Ismaili Shi'a - for his role in knocking off their caliphate from its perch in Egypt, 1171 in our Era. But the Kingdom of Jerusalem, then under Amalric, and the Byzantine Empire had been running a side-Crusade against Fatimid Egypt over the previous two decades. Admittedly the Fatimids had started the whole mess under the Caliph Hakîm; but by the late 1100s only the Druze still bothered defending that man, and the Druze were well on the way to becoming the heresy they remain to this day. So Amalric's Egyptian adventure was pointless and only served to unite Islam against the Crusade. Hell, it united Egyptian Christians against the Crusade. So Saladin became an Egyptian and pan-Islamic hero by default. At any rate by 1186 Saladin had become the undisputed amir of the believers (whatever that 'Abbasid puppet in Baghdad might have claimed). He was just as brutal to the captured Crusaders in 1187 as he was to the Ismailis in the 1170s. I would watch a movie about Saladin's character arc from Kurdish thug to magnanimous amir, and such an arc might still have been possible in this movie's timeframe; but this movie insisted on making Saladin a saint from start to finish.

KoH's second villain, Reynald de Châtillon, was a Muslim-hater in history just as in the movie. He'd been ambushed back in '60, and held in a rotten Aleppo prison for fourteen years after that. But meanwhile the regent atabeg of Aleppo, the eunuch Sa'd al-Din Gumushtigin, had remained loyal to the Ismailis and so faced trouble from Saladin. In response he called upon both the Assassins and the Crusade. In 1175, Saladin survived the former but retreated before the latter. Gumushtigin then released Reynald. Perhaps he thought that this would strengthen his allies. But what it did instead was provide the anti-Raymond, anti-Islamic faction with a living martyr and standard-bearer. Reynald then married into land which included the castle Kerak. Reynald spent a lot of time in the '80s raiding Muslims in violation of Jerusalem's treaties. No character arc here; and in his case there shouldn't be.

Moving on to the vaunted toleration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem: I see none of that prior to 1174. Faced with a strong majoritarian Islam under Saladin on one side, and a precarious heterodox caliphate on the other which also hosted a near-majority of Christians, the tolerant (and smart) move would be to side with the Ismailis and Christians. But Amalric instead attacked the Ismailis and massacred the Christians. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was no multicultural Paradise as of 1174 CE.

The Knights Hospitaller had indeed been founded to uphold the ideals of healing as described in KoH. But they too were deep into the attack against Egypt. It took a decree from Pope Alexander III (d. 1181) to pull them back into running hospitals. So they weren't exactly champions of diversity either prior to 1174.

After 1174, the reformed Hospitallers helped install Raymond, and not Guy or Reynald, as regent for the young Baldwin IV. At this point the stage for KoH is set - nominal rulers trying to hold a peace against factions within and without.

I can't speak for Jerusalem's policies at home but the kingdom certainly improved its diplomacy abroad. However, the kingdom was so riven by faction that this meant little to its unhappy citizens. Baldwin IV and Raymond did manage to support certain Ismailis in 1175 (too late, and the wrong Ismailis); and they did sign that treaty with Saladin in 1180. On the other hand Reynald broke this treaty multiple times. And when it came down to it, Baldwin / Raymond supported Reynald against Saladin.

And here follows a silly decision on Ridley's part: imagining that King Baldwin - IV or V - had the power and will to remove Guy (and Reynald). According to this review, in the movie Orlando Bloom steps up to stay Baldwin's hand. In history, of course, neither Baldwin was in any position to blow his nose without his Regent's approval, and said Regent was in too much of a bind to grant said permission. Also, it's not like Orlando would have been able to make a difference; and as the reviewer points out it was a dumb move on Orlando's part in the movie's context. By breaking the treaty Reynald at least had merited a swift beheading for treason, code of chivalry or no; and without Reynald and his mighty fortress, Guy wouldn't have lasted long.

This other review points out that the movie doesn't think much of workaday believers nor of the orthodox Church hierarchy. When it comes down to it, I suppose I don't either; but in a movie about the frickin' Crusades I don't expect to see quite so much self-flagellation on this score. Beautiful Atrocities documents how corresponding anti-Cross acts by the mediaeval Muslims (who had a well documented hatred for the symbol, btw) got excised by the PC police.

In 4 July 1187, the Crusaders under both Raymond and Reynald met Saladin at Hattin. The rest of the story is more straightforward: Saladin kills both leaders (and a bunch of captives, as mentioned, which Ridley ignores), Saladin mops up the Crusade except at Tyre, Saladin invests Jerusalem. I tend to agree with Ridley that both sides learnt chivalry at that point; Saladin could afford it, and Jerusalem's knights could only hope for a noble end.

As for the Third Crusade itself, with all that Richard the Lion Heart etc stuff - Pope Gregory VIII declared it after the previous Crusade had already lost almost everything.

So from a cursory analysis, Ridley seems to have applied rather a lot of "spin", to the extent of distortion.

As Joshua Clayborn pointed out, the fundamental problem with the movie isn't its (slight) changes to history, but its message to us. To Ridley, Jerusalem isn't worth holding by Christians; nor, by extension, by Jews. If we give up the Holy Land to the PLO and Hamas, and the rest of the Near East to Osama bin Laden - well, it will at least live on in our hearts, and maybe then the Jihad will let us alone (if we ask really nicely).

This is a one-sided movie about a serious time. The best we can hope for is that it might spark interest in the Crusades among Americans - and not only in CAIR's side of it. Certainly I didn't know nearly as much until today...

(Aside to ignorant or corrupt reviewers, as to their tommyrot that the Christians picked the first fight - tell that to the Egyptian Copts; tell that to Bishop Sophronius; tell that to the Lebanese.)


posted by Zimri on 20:00 | link |

Night Watch


Tell me that this doesn't look cool. Go on, just try it.

The movie in question, Night Watch, is going to make The Matrix look like The Matrix's sequels. If it lives up to its trailer, that is.

It's further nice to know, that even if SW3 sucks like a hairline fracture in the International Space Station's hull, and even if I'm boycotting HP4, I'll have something. (Well, that and Serenity, but I already know that one's going to rock. You can't take teh sky from me.)

Hope they keep it in Russian, with subtitles. I'd like that.

UPDATE 5/5: Instapundit has this: "I was just thinking that I had an original thought about the return of science fiction to a Lovecraftian vibe when I realized that it was already explained by the essay appended to Stross's book, in which Stross compares the Cold War spy thriller to Lovecraft's work. We're in another shadow war at the moment, so perhaps that explains what's starting to look like a trend."

Going through Night Watch's plot background, it struck me yesterday that this was another example of analogising the local zeitgeist by means of the horrorgenre. In Night Watch's case this would be contemporary Russia.

  • From Slavic / Byzantine lore: Long ago there was a battle between Russia and her barbaric enemies, which ended with Russia's survival.
  • From the Cold War: The two sides reached a truce, which allowed for a "war of assassins" mostly carried out by secret agents.
  • From the headlines: The secret agents on the evil side are making their move on Russia's people.

posted by Zimri on 00:40 | link |

Monday, May 02, 2005

Obi-Wan Kerryobi


I was on my first major hiatus when SW2 came out in 2002, and I didn't rate that movie high enough to poke my head out of it. But SW3, like SW1 (and SW5 and SW6), is an Event, even if it hasn't come out yet. So, you know, I'll end up watching it; and I'll probably blog on it too.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers; but my fear of Death-Star sized Lucasturds got the better of me. And I came across this tag-nut that Lucas has yet to yank out of the script's hairy anus:

Anakin: If you are not with me, you are against me.
Obi-Wan: Only Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin. The truth is never black and white.

Please tell me that this will be purged from the final cut. Please?

UPDATE: Actually, Lucas can leave it there. The thing to do is to read it alongside - where else - Vader's weblog.

Qui-Gon wouldn't have been such a vacillating wimp, and he certainly wouldn't have held up vacillation as some kind of virtue. That Obi-Wan was and did, and is set to admit to it all during SW3, just shows that he was a creature of the Jedi Council. And it illustrates how the Council way of the Force fails when dealing with those who believe in the "triumph of the will".

If the truth is never black and white, then how can Obi-Wan prove Anakin / Vader wrong? The answer is - only by force. So Obi-Wan put Anakin to the sword, telling himself that he was only killing the dark side of Anakin, called "Vader".

Obi-Wan was inexperienced when he took Anakin as his charge, but that's not the real problem. The real problem - and Qui-Gon's mistake - is that Obi-Wan was the wrong tutor.

The Republic had become a parliamentary mess as of SW1. It needed a strong hand to bind it back to sanity. Unfortunately Sidious saw this and took advantage of it; but it could have been Anakin who took charge, under Qui-Gon's guidance and not the Emperor's.


posted by Zimri on 23:30 | link |

Alma mater in the news


According to this article, a Massachusetts father David Parker just spent the night in jail for protesting a "diversity" package passed out in school. But check out the name of the school: Estabrook.

Holy shit! That's the school I went to. I wonder if they still have the records from 1979-1982...

Also - I met one of the teachers there just two years ago! Last week of February 2003, I took advantage of a business trip in Boston and popped over to Lexington. I went to the Episcopalian church over there and took communion with her and some (very few) others. Although, she taught 5th grade and I only went there from K to 2nd.

Small damn world.

As for why so few in that church: well, Protestant Christianity isn't strong in Massachusetts, and the Church of England in particular is in bad odour. (Even the teacher was an immigrant from the South.) You may think the South is reeking of history; we kids heard a lot about the Revolution in Estabrook.

Unfortunately I didn't have a blog back then (it'd have been funny if I did), and I was blogging about the @#$*in' Dome of the Rock when I came back in 2003, and so I never did bother relating anything personal about Massachusetts until now. I didn't really hold with personal blogging until recently (I'm normally a shy person).

Man, I bet the parents and teachers at Estabrook don't want any of this hassle...

If I'd brought that stuff home, my parents wouldn't have done anything about it. But that much is understandable. We were resident aliens "fresh off the boat" (or aeroplane) from the UK and we didn't make waves. In first grade, I couldn't get out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and I couldn't get out of drawing pictures of the American flag. I did occasionally object over some of the patriotic activities, but I just got teased for it. Our family didn't even go to church when we were there; here in Houston, in a state which rebelled against a very non-Episcopalian country, we managed a couple of times, at Christmastime anyway.

David and Tonia Parker are brave, brave people.

(Hat tip to Michelle Malkin. I'd seen the article referenced at the NRO Corner but the "Estabrook" reference, if they printed it, skipped by me.)

UPDATE: Through Michelle's trackbacks, a dissenting view. I explain why I sympathise with the Parkers in the comments to that post.


posted by Zimri on 19:30 | link |

National Melanoma Month


In my case, it's shaping up to be "National five-inch-long scar that hurts like a hot date with Vlad Tepes Month", but that didn't fit into the headline. At any rate thank you, Michelle Malkin, for helping to call attention to this scourge.


posted by Zimri on 18:50 | link |

Labour-Con pact?


Back in the '70s, Callaghan ruled the UK under a pact with the Liberals. This was known as the "Lib-Lab Pact".

Recently Labourites are on record ruling out a Lib-Lab Pact in the future, should Labour get stuck with a mere plurality. That leaves an alliance with the Tories.

As a pro-Blair Gladstonian, I'd jump with joy to see this.

I recommend: vote for the Tories where you can, and Labour where the Tories are weak.


posted by Zimri on 17:53 | link |

The Royal Court Theatre, and the Royal Court


Another interesting point about Frum's article is that the play "I Am Rachel Corrie" is running at the Royal Court Theatre. The point about it being a "royal" theatre, is that it exists in a country ostensibly under the sovereignty of a royal family.

The Queen or at least her Parliament has the authority to speak out against the Theatre's choice of production. Not necessarily to stop it; but at least to say that they disapprove of the play and to request that the title "royal" be dropped from its venue.

...Or, maybe, to add a qualifier. There are plenty of other royal courts in the world that would approve of this Theatre's production.


posted by Zimri on 17:33 | link |

No more Rickman movies for me


There are a number of actors whom I like, but who also turn out to be atrocious in real life. I then have to decide whether or not I can continue to patronise their work.

Right now I'm trying to decide this about Alan Rickman.

Rickman starred in two movies back in '99 that I loved: Dogma and Galaxy Quest. I ignored whatever public pronouncements he made at the time.

Lately, he's been selling out the Royal Court Theatre with a play he wrote that idolises Rachel Corrie the terrorist.

His latest movies are Hitchhiker's Guide and, soon, Goblet of Fire. However, here I've read both books; so I don't, technically, need to see Rickman's performance.

And so I won't.

(PS. What must JK Rowling think about Rickman's "day job" as jihadist shill?)


posted by Zimri on 17:30 | link |

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Pound of flesh


I'm bored with the Liberals already so I'm just going to quit with all that. Instead I think I'll detail my activities last weekend...

I got the melanoma completely removed last Friday. Here is what I remember:

I spent the previous evening crashing with my parents. (Once I'd found out the melanoma was "in situ" it was safe to tell them.) I wasn't able to eat or drink after midnight, which proved a chore the next morning, because being that nervous dries out my mouth. So I cheated a little, and rinsed my mouth out with the tap whenever I got thirsty.

I woke up around 4:45 AM, and we drove to the hospital soon after. We checked in, and we didn't have too long to wait before I got called into a pre-op ward. My section had a fold-out wheeled cot in it, and could be curtained off from the rest of the ward.

I changed into a hospital gown, which I expected; and hospital stockings, which surprised me. Each stocking had an opening just beneath the big toe. I pulled my toe through it, figuring it was for freeing the toe up to be tagged when the surgery went bad. But later a nurse came in, and told me to pull it back in.

The nurse swabbed the back of my left hand with some fluid that smelled like cheap vodka, and then shot it up full of novocaine. She bound up my left arm and once the veins were bulging she then put an IV tube into my left hand behind the middle finger, presumably so I wouldn't use it during the procedure. I thought I was noticing a difference in the surroundings after that. But then I realised I was just imagining things. The IV was only dripping salt water.

An anaesthesiologist then came in, although not the one I'd seen the week before, and told me what was going to happen. He replaced the salt IV with some kind of happy juice, although I will swear it had even less effect than the salt.

Later I got wheeled away from the ward and into a white operating chamber with only one exit. I was asked to flip to my belly. They wanted me to point out the melanoma, which I fumbled around at for awhile (although I didn't have the presence of mind to call attention to that it was mostly a sampling scar by then). Then they pumped the IV full of an even happier juice. When they did that I noticed my left arm HURTING, like I'd spent the whole day lifting weights on it. I told them this and they said it was normal.

I don't remember anything after that.

Next I knew, I was on my back again and I was being wheeled to the recovery ward. I was discussing my family ancestry with the nurse, who was African-American, and earnestly pointing out that with mDNA you can find out if your maternal ancestors are from the Gold Coast or Kenya. (Possibly I was still a bit f0cked up from the happy juice.)

Some of that earlier period is a bit blurry. I may have been put on oxygen but I cannot be sure. They put some kind of blue booties on my feet, which looked ridiculous. Later my mom came back in and told me that she'd consulted with the doctor already.

I figured I was getting over the whole thing pretty well. The nurse brought in some juice and wanted to be sure I went to the bathroom safely before she could let me out. Once my IV'd got unhooked from the salt water, I was able to do this (yay!). I was standing around for a while feeling grumpy while she dealt with other patients. She took out the IV tube from my left hand (double-yay!). Then I sat down again.

Oh boy, and then I nearly went Schiavo on everyone. When I was 14-24 years old, I used to get fainting spells. It'd feel like the blood was draining from my head, that my head was also getting squeezed, that my vision has greying out, and that I couldn't breathe. What happened in that ward felt 10 times worse - I even got cold sweats. I'm told that my lips went white and that my blood pressure shot right down. I had to sit in that ward for another three hours while they waited for everything to clear up.

So I spent the whole weekend with Mom & Dad, bless them. My sleeping patterns have been weird. I napped in the PM, had dinner, went to bed, and woke up sweating from nightmares around 4 AM. At this point the pain would get so intense that I had to hit the Vicodin. Otherwise I'd be fine.

The scar is diagonal relative to my spine, and runs about five inches in length (I measured this with a ruler). Parts of the outside stitches are supposed to fall out by themselves around Friday or so. Till then it hurts to bend over, to sit down, to lie down, to stand up, and to walk.


posted by Zimri on 15:55 | link |

On this site




Afield



Friends



Table 9

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of David Ross; All Rights Reserved