Thursday, September 28, 2006

Allen

I suppose it is Beltway bias at work, but National Review Online has rather more coverage of the Webb / Allen Tunisian macaque poo-fight in Virginia's Senate race than I normally like to scrape off my monitor. I will say that Allen has screwed up, and badly. At the same time I was taken very aback by Peggy Fox's bringing up Allen's [Jewish] genealogy.

Not so much at the "hey look! a passing Jew!" angle; no-one cares about that nowadays. My problem with this is that when someone brings up Jewish heritage in a context of anti-African racism, then that spreads about the meme of "Jews don't like black people". (Protests led by Al Sharpton currently TBA.)

I used to live in Algeria; and although I was very young at the time, my parents have told me enough. I can tell you that in a North African context, this particular anti-Jewish canard is wholly false. North Africans were and are at least as racist against Europeans as they are against sub-Saharan Africans; the Algerians enslaved both in their time. At a religious level North Africans treated their Jews as dhimmi; which depending upon the mood of the local Bey, King, or Sultan would have been even more degrading. As for the local Jews themselves, Jews as a whole know well that if it weren't for the Ethiopians then there wouldn't even be any Jews (try Googling on "Sennacherib" and "Aubin").

Allen's Jewish mother says that she did not use "macaca" as a racial slur in her home, and given the cultural context I believe her. I suspect that if Allen had been brought up as a North African Jew then he would have been less free with the term. Allen was born in California and likely picked up the insult from his mom in a non-racial context.

If you want to call Allen a racist, it seems that he's got a paper trail for it, or so I gather from other sources. But it wasn't his Judaism which led to whatever racism he feels. The Webb campaign and its shills in the press, for trying to link the two, ought to be ashamed.

posted by Zimri on 18:32 | link |

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

For whom does the artist create?

In 1996 or so I picked up a free weekly Houston newsletter, which quoted an artist who had worn a T-shirt quoting Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 1937:
"For the artist does not create for the artist, but just like everyone else he creates for the people."

The fellow in the T-shirt reported that a number of passers-by had complimented his shirt - some of them, not getting the point of it: "you know, I don't agree with all That Guy did, but some things he said..."

Besides, I'd been meaning to write on the National Endowment for the Arts for over a decade. That's what the controversy was really about, back in the Serrano - Mapplethorpe early 1990s when the academic Left was at its apogée. I've touched on it before, here, but I've never really said anything until now.

Hitler felt that all Aryans must bow to the Germans, and that all Germans must bow to him. Those artists who were not with the program deserved to be "purged". But Hitler did base his stance upon a central truth: that the artist who makes his work public, by doing so, has ceased to "create for the artist". The public artist has created for an audience, and this audience will react to it.

Art affects the emotions, and as such those who wish to exploit emotions will seek art of use to this. The artist's patron, insofar as he "supports the arts", cannot support all nonproductive forms of self-expression as "art" and therefore must make choices.

A collector may buy the art, and display it for his museum's guests; or else a newspaper or website may buy rights to the art, and print or post it for the public. But private-sector art is derided as "commercial" both by traditionalists and by Leftists.

Any "National Endowment for the Arts" must accept the role of the Führer's enforcer, whether it intends to or not. When the state patronises "the arts", it is patronising the current government's chosen subset of all that could be "art". Which arts the government chooses make up the message which the government relays to the rest of us.

So, what forms of art should the nation support? Or, if the NEA is to support "culture", then what culture should we have?

As a federal body, the NEA's mission, as a "National" endowment, should be to preserve the Constitution through propaganda. This would put it under the Executive branch. (This does not stop individual States from funding their own Endowments.)

Operas with a moral message could work, but nothing anti-American like "Madame Butterfly". We can have Russian symphonies which speak to us all or are designed to teach children the basics, and we might even have an anti-Napoleonic "1812"; but no "Marche Slave". Passion plays and other Christian entertainments are out because they support one religious sect over others (obviously) - so most Bach would be off limits. And since our nation isn't a racial one, we're not funding any Wagner.

(One may argue that this program I've outlined is austere and fascist, and in an American sense one would be right. But you dance with what brung you.)

The President and his Cabinet should demand from Congress full control over the NEA. Failing that, Congress should simply defund the NEA.

posted by Zimri on 20:23 | link |

Katrina rage

Something's been nagging at me for the past year. Soon after Katrina happened, I read many angry messages from African Americans, some of which were emailed to me, about how Bush doesn't care about Black people and how his administration deliberately left New Orleans to drown.

Were these people really upset?

The tone of some of these messages hints that those authors, at least, were exultant. Events had proven that they were right all along! The diversity of the 2000 Republican Convention, repeated speeches about "soft bigotry of low expectations", the pushing of "No Child Left Behind", refusal to support any rollback of affirmative action (by contrast with brother Jeb), hiring Rice and even Powell - all of this was enough to give a good sista some "cognitive dissonance". But now... now there was proof. Photogenic proof. Their hatred for Rethuglicans burned like a holy flame in their breasts, and the purest righteousness flowed through them as it did. At last!

I've always thought that Katrina's devastation was tragic (in the Greek sense), but at least it made some people feel better. Yay!

posted by Zimri on 19:22 | link |

Tactical outrage

Bashir Goth of Somalia wrote that Muslims within their own communities, if dissident from the community consensus, must self-censor or be punished. Among the many responses to that article, is Mohamed Hussein's: "Coming Washington Post there are taboos and nothing can be said about certain people while Islam is a free for all!" And to explain,

The Washington Post has warns those commenting that " ...... User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site." This is censorship too! Bashir can insult Muslims but the Washington Post will censor any "profanity or personal attacks" against him. There is always censorship. Anti-Semitic comments I am sure would be censored but Anti-Islamic comments are freedom of expression according to the Washington Post. If that is not hypocracy and dishonest then I don't know what is!

I can, perhaps, enlighten Mr Hussein on what is dishonesty.

Equating criticisms, even insulting ones, against Islamic culture with personal attacks upon one individual is dishonest. Equating a criticism on an Islamic culture or statement of faith, with criticisms of the "Semitic" race (which would include Arabs) is dishonest.

As for his inflammatory claim that we're not accepting Muslims as human: Bashir Goth does, in fact, accept Muslims as human. But that wasn't his point; he wants to know if Islam accepts Muslims as human beings. It is simply more dishonesty from Mr Hussein, to confuse the two.

Hussein's outrage was purely tactical. His mission was to twist the words of a critic, and then to trumpet the distortion loudly to a mob too ignorant to see through it.

I see, now, how the Pope's words sparked so much "outrage". It wasn't real outrage. The agitators want to show their strength and to cow the rest of us.

posted by Zimri on 18:51 | link |

Rumsfeld criticism

The Politburo Diktat has printed out some retired generals' criticisms of our Secretary of Defense. This info from Michael at Ace's, whose commenters have more.

Some commenters have already noted that some of the generals' complaints involve improving our image among our allies and the Muslim world. I'm not at all concerned with "allies" like Russia and France, and I think that what Muslims believe is patent falsehood at its core. So I tend to flip riiiiight past cavils like those.

Other commenters have noted that these generals waited until their pensions kicked in before quitting and making their complaints public. Nothing like a stand on principle, eh. I hope the book deals are lucrative!

But it's easy enough to snipe at what others think. This is, after all, my blog. So what do I think?

My thought is that Rumsfeld was right to concentrate on a per-soldier smarter Army. However he should also have ensured that the Army was big enough and equipped enough. To that end, Congress and the President should have boosted its budget and fixed our educational system here at home. To pay for it - well, if you've read this blog, you'll know my prescription for that (means-testing entitlements, no new entitlements, slashing subsidies and tariffs, boosting domestic energy output etc).

The problem is not so much our Defense Department, but our government's missed opportunities and continued refusals to force sacrifices upon this complacent population.

And convincing Muslims worldwide to eject the suras "Anfal" and "Tawbah" from the Qur'an will, in fact, take sacrifices.

posted by Zimri on 18:29 | link |

Monday, September 25, 2006

Sexual clientage, and why we don't have it in America

From the Classical Values blog, I've learnt that the Maya did that Greek thing, whereby high-ranking males took on low-ranking but upwardly-mobile males as lovers and, in response, would see to their clients' interests.

I would call this a private-sector compensation system for affirmative action.

(With this post I expect to be annoying egalitarians, feminists, multiculturalists, and gay-rights activists all at once. It's the perfect topic for this blog!)

All societies have a social hierarchy, which I call "rank" (and not "status").

A society can dream up a religious justification for this, like Hindu caste; but since such a religion would be - objectively - a blatant falsehood, such justification rarely lasts for long. Caste based on IQ, such as that in Brave New World, would presumably work better; as lower castes would be, literally, bred too stupid to figure out the scam. But in most societies today, no-one by nature knows their place. In modern and most ancient societies, rank was and is not a guarantee. There is, therefore, social mobility between ranks.

Where social mobility is possible, low-rankers, especially young and ambitious males, prefer not to reside at the bottom. High-rankers, also, prefer not to end up there. This leads to nepotism (literally, "nephew-ism"), by which high-ranking families ensure that their kin stay in the higher ranks.

Under democratic forms of government, which assume egalitarianism, society agrees upon a written or unwritten code of ethics by which people from lower ranks may improve their lot.

In ancient days, governments tended to be oligarchic, and the organs of state existed to protect the lives and property of the wealthy few. These wealthy few protected their rank by private-sector means. Sexual clientage - and not coersion - was one means for co-opting certain members of the masses.

This is how I would justify clientage to myself and my peers, if I were to engage in such a practice:

• Homosexual clientage opens opportunities for young men otherwise available only for the relatives of the noble caste. (Heterosexual clientage, or concubinage, generally meant that a family was getting aid and/or that a semi-legitimate "fitz" of the noble would get adopted into his household.) For society as a whole, this allows for the requisite social mobility.
  
• The higher-ranking men who provide this access feel that they are getting something back for their abandonment of traditional nepotism. Affirmative action plans, where uncompensated, give rise to resentment. "Compensation" here doesn't mean "or else we will see it as just to rob you" (and "because it is justice" is just a slick form of such extortion); if the higher ranks feel threatened enough, they may expel their caste minorities and replace them with nonprotected aliens.
  

However, sexual clientage, even voluntary, bears a number of problems:

• This is just a sexual form of nepotism. For both the noble's sexual client and the noble's nephew, at no point is anyone asking after the young man's actual qualifications for the job.
  
• Even when both sides are adult and when society encourages it, it was still exploitation - and low-ranking radicals will see it as such. That's actually WHY Maya society was encouraging it, to demonstrate to the public their direction of power.
  
• Nor would such a society be particularly gay-friendly. Between equal-status adults, in such a society, committed homosexual relationships remain taboo. Committed homosexuality removes high-ranking males from the marriage pool, thus costing social mobility for poor families "cursed" with daughters.
  
• When the society's castes are racially distinct, a sexual clientage system would still fail to provide mobility. The ranking classes would remain too physically visible.
  
• It may be that too few members of the high-ranking caste find males or females of lower castes physically attractive - rendering the whole system moot. The reason could be racial aversion, or habit, or simple chance.
  

Our society holds itself to be (imported from Chinese mandarinism) meritocratic. A meritocracy considers both nepotism and clientage to be corruption. For the sake of civic peace we attempt, by leveraging the resources of the public: to find out how many of the lower-ranking people need to be co-opted, and then trying to co-opt them. We've chosen (because we are also egalitarians, an idea we imported from the French Enlightenment) a system of uncompensated affirmative action, imposed upon all sides by a mixture of social sanctions (mostly upon the rich) and of police force (mostly upon the poor).

Our system is, by design, impersonal. It does however seem to be stable, which is all a society requires.

posted by Zimri on 18:15 | link |

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Western-Muslim dialogue

I find most "calls to dialogue between East and West" to be fatuous. Dialogue can only be accepted from a religious believer if the believer agrees that all of his faith claims are open to negotiation.

The aim in dialogue should be to come to an agreement. Agreement must follow laws of logic and of the natural world.

There can be dialogue between village A and village B over the local water rights. There can't be dialogue over whether village A ought to follow village B's rites of service to the weather god. The first is open to logic; the second is not.

Former Iranian president Khatami recently came here to blather about how Western science is "logocentrism" which bears colonialism at its root. This is an attempt to dismiss logic as only one possible way to ascertain facts among many. Khatami told one lie to open the way to many more lies. There is no point in dialogue with a liar like Khatami.

As for practical matters: the Christian who assents that there can be negotiations beyond the immediately tactical, will find a willing ear in his Islamic counterpart. The faithful Muslim will agree that the Christian can do as he likes as long as he accepts the dhimmah pact acknowledging Islam's temporal primacy. Liberal Christians are dhimmi already, and therefore defeated; they negotiate only over the amount of jizya, and there will never be enough.

The Muslim must accept that the inimitability of the Qur'an, the Qur'an's date(s) of authorship, the people to whom the Qur'an was revealed, the claims the Qur'an makes, and the nature and mission of the Islamic prophet(s) are all open to discussion - if need be, to rejection.

A Christian might be qualified to perform this dialogue from his end, but he would have his own faith claims to set upon the table. For one, he might have to accept that Jesus the Messiah was not a "son of God" but "only" a prophet. This would mean ejecting the Johannine and Pauline writings from the canon. Are there Christians simultaneously brave enough to do this, yet secure enough in their disbelief in Islam to challenge Muslims to act similarly?

Muslims and Westerners understand each other well enough: they each think the other side is wrong. The point to remember is that, in this dispute, the Muslims are objectively wrong. "Calls for understanding" made to Westerners are just Leftist attempts to weaken the West. This call should be made solely to Muslims, for them to abandon their ignorance.

posted by Zimri on 21:46 | link |

The Children of Húrin

JRR Tolkien's Narn i Hin Húrin is being published in the UK next spring.

I have read versions of this tale in "Unfinished Tales" (UT); but as the title of that book suggests, these tales were not finished. Tolkien's son and publisher, CJ Tolkien, then published other versions of this story in his 12-volume "History of Middle-Earth".

(The article mistakenly labeled Húrin an elf, which he's not. The background to the tragedy is that he and his family were Men born to Elvish rule; and then the Morgoth defeated Húrin's overlords, took Húrin prisoner, and threw his people into a World of Midnight so to speak.)

As I remember the UT version, it was complete at beginning and end, but it lacked a middle. The beginning and end paralleled one another, such that Túrin started out with a younger sister, who died; and then at the end Túrin's other sister died and so, too, did Túrin. There were other attempts at parallelism, for instance the appearance of a golden dragon-themed helmet at the beginning which Túrin used against a dragon at the end; but this attempt was inconsistently applied in the manuscripts.

I'm interested in knowing if the parallel structure will be retained, and if so which parallels will make it into the story. I'm also interested in how CJT will manage the Túrin - Finduilas love affair, which would require some reference over to Beren - Lúthien before them.

posted by Zimri on 17:39 | link |

The Saxons were here all along

My father's ancestry is West Midlands. The west country is where the locals passed down stories of King Arthur's resistance against the predations of the eastern "Saxons".

The towns of our patch of the West Midlands seem more German than Welsh. Bloxwich has a German name. Wednesbury is named after the mighty German god Wedin (Odin, Wotan), a pre-Christian touch which impresses me with antiquity. The names of Wolverhampton and of Walsall (Wall's Hall?) are more recent in their Englishness. But "Cannock" sounds Celtic to my ear and it seems to refer to the land rather than to a town.

In west-country myth: all Britannia reverted to the natives after the Romans left, these natives were Celts like the Welsh and Gauls, and then the Germans invaded. Until 535 CE the Celts kept the Germans out of Rheged, the Severn valley, and the Cornwall peninsula. But then something happened which shifted power to the Germans (David Keys's Catastrophe blames plague and famine). The Germans in Mercia gobbled up the Severn, those in Northumbria took over Rheged, those in Wessex subjected Cornwall to vassalage, and Wales proper was reduced to tribal irrelevance until (under the Normans) it too was subjected. Since then we have English in England and we have Welsh in Wales. In between we have also Welsh in Salop, and there are increasingly successful attempts to restore a form of Welsh-ness to Cornwall.

Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes are now saying that those of us who descend from "Oisin" - including my border-Scot maternal grandfather - initially came from Spain and so were Iberian. (The Basques, at that time, were Aquitanian: to the Iberians' north across the Pyrenees.) As of Caesar's conquest, the language was "Celtic" to the west and "Belgic" around London. I've never had a problem with this.

I was taught at Shrewsbury, itself no stranger to Welshness, that the "Belgae" back then were north-dialect Gauls. Oppenheimer dissents, that by "Belgic" we should read proto-Flemish rather than Gaulish: that the southeast was already Germannic as of the 40s BC. The Belgae had by then beaten the Celtic Catevellauni and pushed them north of the Thames and, of course, west. Further north of the Catevellauni, the region was likewise already Norse Germannic, although perhaps not in language.

The Romans imposed a veneer of Latin upon these polyglot tribes. However, once the Romans left, the eastern tribes still remembered that they were German - which explains the legends of Vortigern inviting over Saxons to help with his struggles against his rivals. And they all quickly dropped Latin as the foreign import it was.

posted by Zimri on 15:20 | link |

1998 flashback

Errgh. Once again Bill Clinton has been waving his well-lubed weenie at us. This time he claims that his administration had done just dandy about Osama bin Laden.

As I remember, I was one of those who agreed that Clinton's aggression against Saddam and Osama in 1998 was politically motivated. I also agreed that this was the right thing to do anyway. If it took a few slurps from Monica Lewinsky to get the job done, I was for granting Monica a permanent position under Clinton's desk - er, cabinet.

So if Clinton is trying to tell us that he'd been distracted from his foreign policy, I'm calling 'bullshit'. When Clinton failed to follow up on his actions, he showed to us that he had been distracted into a foreign policy.

As for the impeachment - as all us wingnuts are prone to say, Clinton didn't have to perjure himself or to get his above-desk Cabinet in on his lies. If he had got an impeachment, we'd have got a President Gore; and this incumbent, had he carried on a muscular foreign policy in 1999-2000, would have crushed Dubya into McGovern levels of electoral support in 2000. As for 9/11 - who says there would have even been a 9/11? Although I will grant that the corporate scandals and the Sarbanes-Oxley response would have happened anyway.

Back to Mr Clinton: Clinton was feckless, he was selfish, and he did screw up his task and his legacy. I say unto him, now go away or I will taunt you a second time.

posted by Zimri on 15:05 | link |

How to fabricate a true hadith

I've just thought of another scenario, re the Sa'id versus Nawf hadith-off. Suppose some slave of the antichrist, son of a bitch had said -

'Abd al-Dajjal b. Kalbah related: Sa'id b. Jubayr told me that Nawf al-Bikali, nephew of Ka'b, told us that Ka'b al-Ahbar said: "The companion of al-Khidr was not Moses the Prophet of the Sons of Israel but Moses bin Manasseh." With us were Ibn 'Utaybah, Abu Ishaq, and Ibn Dinar.

I would call the above unethical, because it misrepresents Sa'id's intent, up to ignoring Sa'id's rebuttal which was common to everyone. Yet none of it is false; and with reference to Sa'id's defense, it treats Sa'id exactly how Sa'id had treated Nawf.

This sort of macaque business happened all the time among hadith reporters.

posted by Zimri on 14:53 | link |

Anti-hadith: a thought experiment

I should like to know what is wrong with this hadith:

Al-Kufi related to me: We heard from Nawf al-Bikali, nephew of Ka'b, that Ka'b al-Ahbar said: "The companion of al-Khidr was not Moses the Prophet of the Sons of Israel but Moses bin Manasseh." Sa'id b. Jubayr then told us that he would consult with Ibn 'Abbas. He [Sa'id] returned to us and said, "Ibn 'Abbas has called Nawf a liar. He reports to me and to those around me from Ubayy b. Ka'b that the Prophet, pbuh, said..."

Nothing in the above contradicts any accounts of Sa'id bin Jubayr concerning Ibn 'Abbas which we have. What I have composed is a projected report from a random Kufan on what both he and Sa'id have heard from Nawf. Following that is an impartial report of what the Kufan had observed from Sa'id's reaction.

Now, consider the next generation: for instance, a now-fictional visitor to Kufa from some Eastern backwater.

Al-Khokandi related from Al-Kufi from Nawf al-Bikali, that Ka'b al-Ahbar said: "The companion of al-Khidr was not Moses the Prophet of the Sons of Israel but Moses bin Manasseh." Al-Kûfî added: Sa'id b. Jubayr called Nawf a liar.

One more generation: in which it is revealed that the above is a quote from a fictional compiler of hadith with an eye to evaluating sources whom I shall call "Abu Warraq", but this time transmitted to a compiler of Abu Warraq's teachings into a book whom I shall call "al-Warraq".

Abu Warraq related to me [al-Warraq]: Al-Khokandi related from Al-Kufi from Nawf al-Bikali, that Ka'b al-Ahbar said: "The companion of al-Khidr was not Moses the Prophet of the Sons of Israel but Moses bin Manasseh." Al-Kûfî added: Sa'id b. Jubayr called Nawf a liar.

Abu Warraq told me: Al-Khokandi was honest and his traditions sound. The same tradition comes to me from 'Amr b. Dinar, Abu Ishaq, and Ibn 'Utaybah. Nawf has transmitted other traditions which many scholars have accepted as sound.

And Abu Warraq told me: Ibn Jubayr did not disprove Nawf, but did abuse his honour and contradict his tradition. No other account has reached me of what Ibn 'Abbas said concerning this.

Again, nothing in the above contradicts anyone. But the spin of it is that no-one has objected to this tradition except Sa'id; and then Abu Warraq doubts what Sa'id, uh, said.

In this alternate universe, nothing has changed on what Sa'id reported. All that has changed was that skeptics of Sa'id's account transmitted what he said, and then put down their thoughts into writing.

I wonder what Islam would have looked like if these accounts (with perhaps Ibn 'Utaybah's neutral account) had survived, and if the rival accounts by Sa'id's partisans had perished.

posted by Zimri on 12:51 | link |

On Nawf al-Bikali

As mentioned below, Sa'id and Nawf argued over the role of Torah in Islam. Sa'id was of the party of Ibn 'Abbas, preferring the Qur'an over the Torah; Nawf of the party of Ka'b al-Ahbar, preferring to maintain the Torah's integrity. This division maintains itself to this day: where Shi'a shaykhs like Chirri have adopted Ibn 'Abbas (and his attitude against Torah), and claim rival Sunnis to be following Ka'b "the international Jew".

Sa'id figured that there was a lie in that rival tradition. He didn't call Ka'b the liar, and so said that of Nawf.

On the extreme Sunni (Hanbali) side, Ibn Kathir in his commentary noted numerous occasions in which Nawf infuses his reading of Qur'an with Torah and with Injil. For sura 2, Ibn Kathir comments that Ibn Jarir al-Tabari had noted that Nawf used to read other Prophetic books, and Nawf thither transmits a prophecy (also transmitted from Abu'l-Darda; incorporating tropes from, e.g., Matthew 7:15 and Proverbs 5:3-4). For Sura 19 Ibn Kathir cited Ibn Abi Hatim for another Nawf tradition (on Jesus); and Ibn Kathir cited further from Nawf on Sura 12. This backs up that Nawf was equally loyal to all holy books for their own sake.

I went looking for Nawf / 'Ali traditions. And I found one - in the sermon Nahj al-Balagha 181. This reverend compilation, second only to Qur'an among many Shi'a, claimed that Nawf had transmitted this sermon from the Shi'a founder 'Ali.

The Internet yields up other 'Alid traditions from Nawf. Al-Amali 16 by Shaykh al-Mufid claims, "Abul Hasan Ali b. Khalid al-Maraghi reported to me from al-Husian b. Muhammad al-Bazzaz, who reported from Abu Abdillah Ja'far b. Abdillah al-Alawy al-Muhammadi, who reported from Yahya b. Hashim al-Ghassani, from Abu Asim al-Nabeel, from Sufyan, from Abu Ishaq, from Alaqamah b. Qais, from Nawf al-Bikali"; although I would be interested in knowing what Alaqamah had actually said. Abu Nu'aym apparently also cited Nawf / 'Ali traditions.

Lastly, 'Abd Allah b. al-Mubarak's book on Jihad transmitted a prayer by Nawf (#135).

So, for all that Chirri would accept Sa'id's opinion about the Nawf < Ka'b tradition being a lie - redirecting the accusation against Nawf's source Ka'b - it turns out that the Ka'b family was, by tradition, pro-'Ali. So pro-'Ali, in fact, that the family contributed to the Nahj al-Balagha. Nawf was also, for all his (anachronistic) heterodoxy, not considered a liar in his own time - except by Sa'id b. Jubayr.

posted by Zimri on 11:17 | link |

Saturday, September 23, 2006

A proto-hadith

I've been trying to read The Sectarian Milieu by John Wansbrough. This is a sequel of sorts to his essays in Qur'anic Studies, which were if anything even harder to read. He suggests, and in certain cases even proves, that the sects which have declared themselves "Islamic" took some centuries to agree amongst themselves what should be the criteria, or "canon", of what "Islam" meant.

It follows that those accounts of how Islam developed which mediaeval Muslims accepted are, themselves, dependent on the sects of "Islam" to which those mediaeval Muslims belonged. Thus, the Ta'rikh of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari is not a true history; but an explanation of how al-Tabari's sect developed from Muhammad's age (as previously defined by, principally, Ibn Ishaq), and of how that vision of Muhammad's sect in turn developed from the logic of "Abrahamic" prophetology (again, mostly Jewish / Samaritan understandings filtered through Ibn Ishaq and through Tabari's copy of the Qur'an). Tabari's vast text is, therefore, salvation history. The same follows for Tabari's primary source, the teachings of Ibn Ishaq which his students collected into a Muwatta'-style "Mubtada'"; although Ibn Ishaq's and Tabari's sectarian interests were (I assume) different.

The hadith, then, has four dimensions. One generation might have disputed over a point of religious law. A few generations later, in one region an unrelated controversy might hinge upon a subclause of one of the agreed conclusions; in another, more polarised region, the main controversy might instead be a debate over whether a traditionist who had chosen the losing side in that previous dispute was, by more contemporary terms, a Muslim at all. The form of the tradition in that first region will then differ from that in the second: perhaps the first will be more legalistic and the second more personal. The task for historians of that original dispute, then, is to triangulate, from the later traditions, a plausible form of the original.

This directly affects Sa'id b. Jubayr's hadith, listed below. I contend that some of Sa'id's students transmitted the hadith accurately: al-Hakam b. 'Utaybah, Ibn Ishaq, and finally Tabari seem to have done justice to it, and Abu Ishaq summarised it well enough to verify that. But even as early as Abu Ishaq, before the Banu Marwan had yet exited Syria, Sa'id's concern had become moot. Everyone agreed with Sa'id against his opponent Nawf, by now. The concern of Abu Ishaq's generation was more pietistic: how, if the revelation's interpretation was so obvious and even Prophetic, could a relative of a Prophet's Companion ever disagree with it? Abu Ishaq figured that by quietly dropping some of Nawf's evidence (such as, the not-yet-disputed claim that he'd got it from Ka'b), people would simply leave Ka'b alone. 'Amr b. Dinar went further: he had Ibn 'Abbas abuse Nawf by the Satanic title "enemy of God". By the time the canonical collectors got their hands on the tradition, starting with Ibn Abi Shaybah's preference for Abu Ishaq over al-Hakam b. 'Utaybah, the more anti-Nawf traditions were viewed as more pro-Muhammad, and so these were protected while the more accurate accounts went into near-oblivion.

But only near oblivion. Sa'id b. Jubayr's hadith did not die entirely. And what it shows is fascinating: in the early Marwani period, ahadith (in the sense of discrete traditions) were already being debated in all seriousness, although (unprofessionally) subject to dismissal as "lies" without argument. Sa'id's opponents could relate 'an Nawf 'an Ka'b, to which even Sa'id could not object; but then Sa'id would counter-relate 'an Ibn 'Abbas that Nawf's sourcing was a "lie" and then, 'an Ka'b's son Ubayy 'an the Prophet, Sa'id would provide an alternative. Sa'id won and Nawf lost; but if Sa'id had been silent - or if someone had called Sa'id the liar - then Nawf could have won.

Moreover, the disagreement between Sa'id and Nawf was over the independence of the Islamic canon. Both Sa'id and Nawf as of the 90s AH if not earlier agreed that sura 18 was "truth", and in a text common to both disputants; so there is little solace for Nevo - Koren "revisionists" here. But even after accepting this sura and (for sake of argument) all the others, Nawf still wanted the Torah to be integrated with Islam; and since sura 18 added a story on Moses which was nowhere in the Torah, Nawf (and perhaps Ka'b) wanted the sura to refer to some other Moses. But Sa'id (and perhaps Ibn 'Abbas and Ubayy) insisted, and I think accurately, that sura 18 said "Moses" and meant its audience to think of Moses the Prophet.

A few asides: I get the impression that Ibn Ishaq and even Tabari would rather have sided with Nawf. Between them Ibn Ishaq and Tabari preserved the version most supportive of Nawf's thesis. Elsewhere, if Newby's compilation is to be trusted, they produced bodies of salvation-history which aligned closely with the accounts of the Torah and of its Jewish midrash, wherever the Qur'an permitted them. Ibn Ishaq's best-known-today editor, however, was not Tabari but Ibn Hisham: who dismissed almost the whole of Ibn Ishaq's accounts of earlier prophets. I get the impression that Ibn Hisham was a partisan of Sa'id and that he would rather have done entirely without the embarrassment of Torah.

That Nawf's insurgency over the role of Torah in Islam survived to the Marwani period is telling, and strong evidence for this part of Wansbrough's thesis.

posted by Zimri on 13:25 | link |

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Anti-scholarship: why Dr Michael Adams does not deserve a promotion

Glenn Reynolds links twice to a "scandal over academic freedom". (He doesn't say what scandal it is, apparently because he wants you to conceive the opinion before you click the links. It's a similar stunt to his constant references to "civil rights", which generally link to firearm issues. "All part of his charm" I suppose.)

Professor Reynolds is talking about Dr Mike Adams, part time instructor and full time whiner. UNC-Wilmington has denied to Adams promotion to full professor.

Pro Dr Adams: the man has been teaching a long time, the kids love him, and he has produced some scholarship. So his fans tell us, anyway; on that last, I'm mostly into religious history and general science, and so I haven't read his stuff.

What I can attest to, is that he has produced anti-scholarship. To explain: I propose that when your activities inside or outside your class are intended to hamper objective scholarship elsewhere in your school, then that should count as anti-scholarship. I further propose that if your anti-scholarship score rivals your scholarship score, then you don't deserve a reward and you don't get a cookie.

By his status as PhD and teacher, Dr Adams has achieved a rank among the general populace as an intelligent and charismatic figure; and while moonlighting as the aforementioned published whiner, he has used this rank to encourage students around the country - which would include his own school - to subvert such forms of scholarship as disagree with him.

Yes, as David French puts it, Dr Adams is "a controversial and outspoken dissenter from the status quo". But so are the "Loose Change" guys and the Holocaust revisionists. David French also tu quoque's the hell out of those of the latter who lurk in university: "the academy leaps to the defense of scholars who compare World Trade Center victims to genocidal Nazis or persecute Jews in class, or accuses the Bush administration of slaughtering its own citizens on 9/11". Hey man, I'm with you on all that; they produce anti-scholarship too! This is too easily flipped around: if "why not him, if them"; then "if not them, then why him".

Dr Adams first came to my attention 23 February 2004. A few weeks prior, Dr Adams was asking his readers to read up on Josh MacDowell and Phillip Johnson, both proven frauds; and, in the case of the latter, to take his theories to class and "make their biology professors very nervous".

Back then, I saw this as an incitement to disrupt a professor's job for the express purpose of making that professor "very nervous". I could not define this other than by the label "terrorism". Since then he has not recanted any of these exhortations. This was, and remains, anti-scholarship of the worst sort.

So yeah. Dr Adams does not deserve a promotion. Hell, he doesn't even deserve a classroom! That university has been far too patient with his unethical, disruptive antics. They should throw him out on the street.

(Besides, Dr Adams has been making beaucoup bucks and getting lots of attention by doing what he loves doing best: tweaking his betters, and then playing the martyr when they call him on it. It's not like he'll be hurting.)

posted by Zimri on 20:19 | link |

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Abistan

[Again, this essay was written late in 2003. I'm continuing on my quest to dump my archives here.]

Racism works, because its victims adopt its premises. We might call this the 'Abbâsid Effect.

Alexander the Great spread Hellenism throughout the Near East. Upon his death, the Greeks found themselves a minority in vast unknown territories. But eventually much of this area Hellenised. By 200 BC, the centres of Hellenism were Antioch and Alexandria.

The Roman Republic and the immediate following Caesars spread Roman law and peace through the Mediterranean. These first Latinos faced opposition not only in the provinces but from Oscan-speakers in the Social War (90 BCE). But Italy, and then the West, Latinised. Latin dialects are today the national tongues from Romania to Portugal.

The amirs 'Umar and 'Uthman spread Arab supremacism dressed up as Judaeo-Ishmaelite theology throughout the same areas which Alexander took. The Arabs then found themselves the new "minority in vast unknown territories". The political capital of Islam wasn't Arab Medina for long: it was Syriac Damascus, then Mesopotamian Baghdad. The flower of mediaeval Islam were Arabised Aramaeans and Central Asians as much as Arabs. But now they had a common religious tongue and, over most of this area, a common national language.

In each case there was a master ethnos, if not race, which adopted an ideology of its own superiority, and then forced this ideology upon others - such that the subject peoples, to survive, then adopted this ideology for themselves and even joined the race.

Consider Harris's Fatherland taken a few centuries later. The first generations would naturally burn their records to hide their disputes and their crimes, but that's just the first step. What if Hitler had succeeded in spreading his doctrines throughout the Eurasian steppe? And suppose there had been a disaster (such as nuclear war) which cut off communications between this empire and the rest of the world?

The Übermenschen could, perhaps, inbreed like the Ptolemids (Ptolemies!). But given that the Nazis were obsessed with their gene pool, and given that the Nazis weren't much into nepotism, I don't see this lasting long.

More likely is that Nazi scientists would have uncovered Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial heredity, and (from the latter) would have identified the "seven daughters of Eve". Nazi linguists would have cobbled together a master Indo-European tongue. The last of the seven mitochondrial tribes, the "Jasmines", would have followed the Jews into exile to the Near East while the Slavs converted; in fact, thanks to Strauss and (sadly) Solzhenitsyn, Slavic and German anti-Semites are already coming together. By the year 2200 an "Abbasid Nazism" of Nazised Slavs would be rising up in Hitler's name around the Urals.

My point is that, no matter how wicked the doctrine, it will find followers; and after centuries of distance and disinformation, a pure form of this doctrine will become a dominant paradigm wholly resistant to question.

posted by Zimri on 21:49 | link |

'Irâq and Arrakis

According to my records, I'd started most of the following meditation Wednesday, October 22, 2003, 5:17:12 PM. I couldn't figure out how to finish it, then. But I've just watched the thing yet again, and the topic is not one for pat conclusions. Besides it is probably even more topical now.

At the close of Frank Herbert's sci-fi epic Dune, Muad-Dib wins nominal control of the Empire without a fight.

The Empire had developed into a feudal society, with protected monopolies on shipping (the Spacing Guild) and on religion (the Bene Gesserit). House Corrino owned the meanest soldiers in the Galaxy (the Sardaukar) and was additionally supported by the monopolies. The Guild and Bene Gesserit depended upon an energy resource called "the spice" (badly-named "melange" in the books), a "crop" that could only be extracted from the desert planet Arrakis. None of the sides trusted one another, so the various parties agreed that Arrakis should go to one of the feudal Houses. Which House got the booty, would depend on whichever House was most trusted by mutual consent at the time. At Dune's beginning, House Harkonnen had held the planet but under its prince Rabban had botched the job; then Atreides got it, and got the spice flowing again; and then Harkonnen took it back again because Atreides had done too well and was threatening the balance of power.

Muad-Dib, the protagonist of the epic, had the attributes of the Chosen One of the Bene Gesserit - but had come onto the scene too early to be of use to them. He went into the desert where - again thanks to the Bene Gesserit - the people were expecting said Chosen One from offworld (the guide "Mahdi"). But it was outside Bene Gesserit supervision that Muad-Dib became this Mahdi.

So.

Here is how Muad-Dib took over the galaxy.

First, Muad-Dib ensured control of Arrakis's desert (this part did require a fight); second, he took the Emperor of the galaxy hostage; and last, he planted a bomb at the root of the planet's - and galaxy's - energy resources. That created a new monopoly on production which put the Guild under Muad-Dib's effective control. Since he was a religious leader, that sidelined the Bene Gesserit as well. And his own troops - the Fremen of Arrakis - were stronger than the Sardaukar. Later books note that not all the galaxy was willing to submit to this new ultimate caliphate, but Muad-Dib's opponents had nothing else to unite them and so were easy targets.

One preliminary observation: Muad-Dib was a saint compared to the Harkonnen, he united and empowered the Fremen, and he brought down a corrupt Empire; but his actions slaughtered millions upon millions of innocents and installed an absolute tyranny. Only by accepting Fate and/or historical determinism can one accept Muad-Dib as one of history's "good guys". To paraphrase the 630s AD Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati: this prophet comes with a sword, and brings with it nothing new but human bloodshed.

The analogues to today's situation are obvious.

• Is the West likewise a creaky system ready for a reshuffle? Camille Paglia wonders.
  
• How 'bout them Straits of Hormuz? Are we cool with Iran getting nukes?
  
• Should the Mahdi arise, is it a more righteous duty for us to support or to resist?
  

posted by Zimri on 21:30 | link |

Our Hugo Chavez

Thailand has just undergone a coup. While the Prime Minister was away, the nation's army and king took over.

As I posted in Ace's comments, I do concede that the deposed PM was corrupt and ineffectual. But he was also:

• popular outside Bangkok, particularly in the rural Buddhist north (or, as I like to call it, "South Laos"),
  
• a free marketeer,
  
• anti-"insurgent", in Thai's Muslim southern provinces,
  
• pro-America.
  

To the above, Ace further writes:

If you want more, check out Bangkok Pundit, blogging from the eye of the storm.

Reading Bangkok Pundit, this wasn't about "corruption," either. It's about the fact that the military doesn't like the current elected government, which was likely to be re-elected in November or so. They call this situation -- with a party they don't like retaining power -- a "political gridlock" and a "lack of democracy."

The military coup'ists also seem to be going on and on about protecting the king from usurpations by the elected government.

Also, they toss in "fragmented" social order for good measure. Three vague reasons for a coup do not add up to one decent reason.

I must add that the cartoonist Stephane Peray, often profiled in Cagle's index at Slate.com, HATES America and likely speaks for the Bangkok "anti-globalisation" elite. Also, I note that the usurping General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin is a Muslim. Call me guilty of religious profiling, but I'm not up for trusting armed Thai Muslims who act against the constitutional order.

Normally I'm a foe of Hugo Chavez style populists. But if we must have a Chavez, then why not a Chavez who is generally free-market and also on America's side?

My first worry is that the army will fall to those of Peray's ilk. We would then a Bolshevik Revolution, complete with civil war, which might even cede the south to our ideological foe Malaysia.

Sinistar wrote in response:

I don't think you have to be too worried about Thailand going against the US. They've got a small islamic population in the south(which is very aggressive, so they know the terror problem), and they are aligning themselves with us because they fear China, as does most of the Pac Rim (we're even improving relations with Vietnam of all places) they're westernizing to counter the opening of the China Market, and its going to be rocky like this. Thats why my father is there, helping develop the textile industry.

That amounts to a hope that Thai's coup plotters want to continue opposing, and not to join up with, China. Southern China happens to be the homeland of the Thai, and retains many ancestral Thai speakers.

I have no answers. I just hope that our State Department does not screw this up.

posted by Zimri on 18:50 | link |

Monday, September 18, 2006

To which Moses did sura 18 refer?

Another new project.

In this one: Sa'id b. Jubayr, Ibn Abbas's student; and Nawf, Ka'b al-Ahbar's nephew, face off on the nature of sura 18's Moses. The date: some time prior to 94 AH, so (probably) during the Marwani period. 'Abd al-Malik, al-Walid I, and Sulayman are the caliphs involved here.

If I may extrapolate, it seems there were two camps in Islamic exegesis at this time. In Mecca, there was a Qur'anic fundamentalist faction associated with Ibn 'Abbas. Elsewhere, there was an Israelising faction associated with Ka'b al-Ahbar and with some support among Jewish converts to Islam.

Ibn 'Abbas was, incidentally, the guy who propounded the idea of mut'a temporary marriage, since abandoned among Sunnis. So he's not one of my favourite Companions. But Ibn 'Abbas's famed "legal opinion" still holds strong among Shi'a.

We see reflections of Ibn 'Abbas's exegetical opinions, today, in the anti-Semitic rantings of Shi'a "Shaykh" Chirri. Chirri, proud hater of Jews, wants Sunnis to know that Ka'b was an international Jew who often chose to quote the Old Testament in his addresses to the caliph 'Umar. While the conspiracy theories are likely bunk (Chirri derives from Ka'b's attempt to warn 'Umar of the plot against him, a "Bush KNEW!!" proof of membership in that conspiracy, somehow), Chirri does make a better case for Ka'b's crypto-Judaism than, say, Sayf b. 'Umar had made for that of the Shi'a Imams.

Sa'id b. Jubayr, in turn, may or may not have been telling the truth about what he heard from Ibn 'Abbas. Ibn Jubayr is arguing an indefensible point about the "Moses" in sura 18, which I'd hold against him.

posted by Zimri on 21:37 | link |

William Jennings Bryan for President!

From Donald Sensing and Glenn Reynolds comes this story: a Senatorial candidate is using churches to run for Federal office.

Several secularist organisations, including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, have as their mission that Americans who run for Federal office should not pander to the irrationalities of their constituents. It is okay for a candidate to be Christian in private, and to let that fact be known publicly; but it is not okay for him to use religious symbols so as to give the illusion that the Most High endorses his candidacy.

So, Sensing and Reynolds ask: where's AU's director, Barry Lynn? Is he cool with the idea that religious obscurantism in politics is fine and dandy, if it's a Leftist doing it?

If so, then I demand of Lynn that he quit plugging the Scopes Monkey Trial and quit quoting Mencken and Twain; because it is clear that his organisation has been giving the prosecutors unfair treatment for these many decades.

Cross of gold, indeed.

posted by Zimri on 12:38 | link |

Sunday, September 17, 2006

What was betrayed about Jesus, and who betrayed it?

A certain New Testament scholar by name of Bart Ehrman has been opining on the Gospel of Judas ("GJud"). Ehrman has been and usually still is one of my role models in this field, but (bless him) he is not one to shy away from the spotlight. (I must disclose that I thought very, very little of the Gospel of Judas's hype.)

Anyway, Ehrman's book is divided. What he has to say about GJud, since the topic bores me, also bores me. This much is there just to fill out to book-length an essay which, in fact, does not rely upon GJud. Ehrman wants to investigate Judas as historical traitor: to start with, what did Judas betray?

Click here for my new essay, on Judas's Motive.

posted by Zimri on 20:23 | link |

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Rep. John Culberson: a pig who will not even squeal

I've voted for my Texas district's (#7's, now) House Representative, John Culberson repeatedly: in 2000, 2002 (when I split my ballot), and 2004. I chose him over Wareing in his primary, and I helped petition the State not to move his district's lines away from my home. Culberson is not a fan of illegal immigration, and he voted for Bush's tax cuts. I don't like what I've been reading from his opponent Henley's volunteer corps. And there isn't even a Libertarian in this race.

But I am now beginning to wish that the State had gerrymandered Culberson away from me.

Culberson casts a reliable vote for a theocracy-corrupted Pledge of Allegiance and against a sane and "NORML" drug policy. I don't like it, but that much is about what we must expect of a Repub.

It is in the sty of our nation's spending priorities where Culberson is spreading his worst muck. Culberson voted for Bush's huge Medicare prescription drug boondoggle. To replace the tainted Tom DeLay's position as Majority Leader, he supported DeLay's crony Blunt against Shadegg and even Boehner. He voted against each one of Jeff Flake's Coburn-inspired 19 anti-pork amendments. Most recently he "bravely ran away away" from the roll call vote on the earmark reform (h/t Insta).

My mom is voting against Culberson, and so's my dad. Mom in particular thinks that Culberson is getting fat and complacent. I find it impossible to convince them to "vote for the crook". Hell, I'm finding it hard to vote for him myself. As for the rest of us, the polls last month had him at 51%.

We in district 7 require a representative of thrift and character. We do not want a special-interest porkmeister who lacks even the courage to admit as much.

The hour is growing late.

UPDATE: Thanks Andy Roth, for linking this comment.

posted by Zimri on 17:29 | link |

Houston unseriousness watch, I

This will be the first entry in what I hope will not be a long-running feature of this blog, showcasing examples of negligence by Houston's duly elected officials in the face of crime and terrorism.

Today, I present to you Muhammad Al-Asi, former head of the Islamic Center in D.C. Al-Asi came to town this month to present, in Charles Johnson's words, "a paper titled “Islamophobia: Its Causes and Cures” at the second annual conference of the Muslim Congress". Houston paid no mind to this fellow, despite his long history of Islamist agitation. Most recently, al-Asi has been spotted on Iranian TV delivering speculations as to the "American administration"'s plotting of the 9/11 attacks. (Hat tip, LGF.)

One the plus side, al-Asi disagrees with Osama Bin Laden. But in so doing, he aligned himself with Hizbu'llah and others who think that Osama is a tool of the Zionists. More to the point, al-Asi aligned himself with a foreign government who uses these theories to sap the Americans' resolve, before the Iranians' upcoming strike.

Houston's leaders need to scrutinise Islamists who come into town, and they need to stand up against them. Governor Mitt Romney has stood against them in Massachusetts; why can not (at least!) Mayor Bill White do it in Houston?

posted by Zimri on 17:05 | link |

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Indirect kook mail

Last month I got mail which was sane-ish on its surface, but which led me into a kook site. This loon, for some reason, actually wants people to read his nonsense. So I'm not going to protect his identity.

I'd been sitting on this site for about a month, while I waited for my muse to return. But I felt bad for depriving everyone of such high-octane crazy. So without further ado:

X-Apparently-To: zimriel@sbcglobal.net via 68.142.198.249; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:55:07 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [209.191.86.225]
Authentication-Results: mta126.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com
from=jesussorcerer.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 207.115.57.81 (EHLO ylpvm50.prodigy.net) (207.115.57.81)
by mta126.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:55:07 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [209.191.86.225]
Received: from web514.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web514.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.86.225])
by ylpvm50.prodigy.net (8.13.6 inb/8.12.10) with SMTP id k7F6t8MQ020409
for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:55:08 -0400
Received: (qmail 93743 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Aug 2006 06:55:06 -0000
Message-ID: <20060815065506.93741.qmail@web514.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [70.112.142.4] by web514.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:55:06 PDT
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Conner
Subject: Jesus the Sorcerer (book/site)
To: zimriel@sbcglobal.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-75854209-1155624906=:91984"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

...

Dear Mr. Rose,

 

Jesus the Sorcerer, Exorcist and Prophet of the Apocalypse (Mandrake, UK) is the most comprehensive summary to date of the evidence for magical practice and mystery cult in the career of Jesus and the primitive church. The book also revisits the Secret Gospel of Mark controversy as an example of how Christians ancient and modern may have suppressed unwanted details of Jesus' life.

 

The book cover, contents page, links and related essays can now be viewed at jesussorcerer.com.

 

Best regards,

 

Robert Conner

Note that this paragon of exhaustive inquiry couldn't even get my name right.

I went to jesussorcerer.com and ran down the checklist. Huge k3wl Papyrus font - check; ugly brown background - check; big all-caps hyperlink rendered red upon said background and so illegible - check. The main page of Conner's web-accessible content is here, where the links have turned blue, and don't ask me why. Normally I wouldn't complain, given how hideous most of my own pages are; but then I'm not flogging a book.

One page featured therein is The Baylor Hoax. For background, back in the 1950s a scholar called Morton Smith went into the Mar Saba monastery and returned from there, under VERY suspicious circumstances, with a previously-unknown copy of a letter of Clement of Alexandria which, in turn, quoted from previously-unknown outtakes of the Gospel of Mark. Conner's article begins:

Baylor University Press has recently published The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark, a fundamentalist apologetic by lawyer Stephen Carlson. Several criticisms have already been leveled against the questionable scholarship presented in Carlson's Hoax

Note the lack of links in this. If Carlson has argued from fundamentalism, then it is Conner's task to prove that he has. If Carlson is a fundamentalist himself, such could be deduced from his blog "Hypotyposeis". But Carlson's blog has a high reputation among biblical scholars, such as Goodacre and Davila. I don't think that Carlson is a fundamentalist - and even if he were, this would not bear upon Carlson's argument against Smith. Continuing with Conner:

and I am delighted to add a few more, but first a word is in order about Baylor Uni-versity and its mission.

Waco, Texas hosted a mini-apocalypse in 1993 when the Branch Davidian cult, an end-of-the-world splinter group of the Seventh Day Adventists that was given to illegal gun collect-ing, engaged in a fiery shootout with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It is for that reason that many folks in central Texas still refer to the town as "Wacko," and not, as might at first be assumed, because it is also the home of Baylor, the world's largest Baptist-affiliated university.

Baylor's claim to fame rests mostly on its reputation as a gay-bashing institution. The school attracted wide attention when it kicked a former alumnus off an advisory committee after his homosexuality became known, apparently without offering to return his $65,000 contribu-tion, and as is common with Baptist schools, the administration bullies students who reveal their homosexual orientation or advocate for gay rights. Most recently Baylor caused eyes to roll when they removed paper coffee cups that displayed a quote from gay author Armistead Maupin. The university's student handbook specifically forbids homosexual con-duct.

The school's motto, "On the path of faith and understanding," evidently refers to an under-standing of the world narrowly limited by the school's evangelical character. As would be expected, Baylor has a divinity school, and as would be expected it is staffed almost entirely by graduates of other Baptist schools, in many cases by professors who have received much of their education at Baylor itself. I supply this background information lest the un-suspecting reader assume that Baylor University Press represents a source of reasoned inquiry: the intellectual universe of Baylor University is basically one of the outer planets of the Bible Belt and closely reflects regional prejudices and hostility to contrary opinion.

The above was pure ad hominem against Carlson's school. Even if Carlson had gone to Bob Jones or a Pakistani madrassa, this would have no bearing on Carlson's arguments. (Very classy of him to bring up the Branch Davidian tragedy, by the way.) And this is the mainstay of Conner's argument. At the end, Conner will dismiss Carlson as a hater of homosexuals, or else as a cynical shill for the haters' school.

Later on, Conner refuses to engage with the evidence of the "lost letter"'s handwriting, beyond trying to explain away its tremulous character as that of an ancient monk rather than of a forger. But the burden was upon Morton Smith to note the tremor, which he neglected to do. Conner must not only explain on Smith's behalf why the tremor is there, but must explain why Smith did not notice it. It is simplest to assume that the tremor is there because a forger had failed to curtail it, and that this forger was Smith.

If I were to treat Robert Conner the way he has treated Stephen Carlson, I would call Conner an unethical hack and a conspiracy theorist. But maybe he's just a nutcase. Either way, that is one author whose works I'm relieved to report that I don't have to read.

posted by Zimri on 17:30 | link |

Monday, September 11, 2006

The secret agent

Secret Agent M. started in high school. He was not then a secret agent, of course. That would come later.

M. had run into some trouble in school, but it was nothing fatal and he did manage to shape up eventually. His GPA was at the end enough for him to apply to several universities. One such university accepted his application. He chose as a freshman to dabble in various nonscientific fields of interest, which he supplemented with a foreign language. He got through his freshman year as passably as anyone.

But M. knew that in his second, "sophomore" year, he would have to think to the future. That meant taking more serious courses. M. had no idea what courses to take, or even whether taking more courses was worthwhile. He had the charisma and energy of youth, and after all his first year was decent; so others were inclined to entrust to him some leeway.

For M., such leeway proved his undoing. He succumbed to his demons, and became friendless; he further lost a number of those sorts of opportunity which look good on a résumé.

M. clawed his way back, took some of those opportunities the following year, and finished his studies a year or few after that. Now M. has a university degree.

But - and this is where M.'s story departs from mine - his degree didn't include majors in any defined field of study, such as "Mathematics" or "Russian" or even "History". This degree contained only one major, and this major featured the damning word "Studies". And M.'s GPA wasn't so hot, even in that. But M. did know a few intelligent people who had that sort of major. And he remembers what they valued and believed in.

M., right now, seeks to make up in ardour what he had failed to achieve in academics, and what he delays achieving in what we call "the real world". Later, though... well, what is ardour without action?

posted by Zimri on 16:57 | link |

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Houston's government is not serious

I was one of the 1700 westsiders who showed up at the Grace Presbyterian, to listen to our elected officials, the night of 30 August.

The session opened with a prayer. Then the West Houston Security Coalition introduced Mayor Bill White.

The Mayor started with a joke. He then complimented Houston's churches, synagogues, and mosques. He claimed that safety was his highest priority. Hooray cops. He then went on about how Chief of Police Harold Hurtt was a "cop's cop", with experience (ed.: from Phoenix). Police staffing problems were a hangover from the previous bad mayor (Houston Barnacle's puff piece here). Hizzoner then made some crowd-pleasing noises: Houston is tough on crime, to the point of jailing pot smokers. We have a housing program for people who commit crimes in Houston; "it's called JAIL". Former mayor Lee Brown was underqualified. We expect the Louisiana evacuees to work for a living. He repeated, "you know what I'm saying?", Hillary-style. We're getting more cops... eventually... when we can afford it. We still have to pay for debt service, and then the libraries etc.

Then the questions from the audience came in. The Mayor proposed to cut off each comment after a minute. All speakers felt that they had to provide a personal background, how long they'd lived here and what they'd endured. The Mayor sometimes tried to cut off the speeches; the speakers and crowd overruled him.

• First was Bingham, local legend, owner of the car wash across the street and around the corner from my house wherein some thugs had shot to death a 64 year old Mexican in front of his wife. He said that White and Hurtt were "late to the party". (ed: The city had until March to predict that crime would rise after winter 2005-6. The city only noticed in July, and did nothing. This meeting was a full year after Katrina.)
  
• Several people asked about when the feds, state, and city would stop delivering checks to the evacuees. The Mayor said: it's going to be phased out, expected March 2007. (It's been being "phased out until March" since 2005.) This got a round of boos.
  
  • A subset of these were, unfortunately, racists who recommended sending the evacuees "home". They tended to be elderly residents who had been here for decades. A subset of the audience applauded them.
• Some noted that property values have fallen. Many commented on how high property taxes were. (ed: I do see many for-sale signs around Briar Forest and Lakeside, so one problem will end up solving the other.)
  
• An apartment complex owner (there were two of these) said he'd had to shelter refugees from Sudan and then from New Orleans. He paid $900k on new security, and the crooks still committed crimes. Then he got a nuisance letter from the city. "How many people have YOU [Mayor] sheltered".
  
• One person bitched, irrelevantly, about the big stadia we'd built.
  
• Another fellow pointed out that the window in his car had been broken. He had to explain to his daughters what had happened. Then he drove down Kirkwood and saw five cop cars waiting for speeders. Does the city care more about criminals or speeders? The Mayor mumbled about how people who have been killed by speeders would have a different opinion.
  

I'd have handled that MUCH differently: No jokes for the crowd. No pandering. I'd make it clear to the audience that I would tolerate no racism, and no calls for expulsion. If the evacuee handouts had to keep coming: I'd confess as much up front (and not wait for the Q&A), I'd explain who was getting the handouts, I'd detail what I was up against with the local government, and I'd divulge what actions I'd personally taken. I'd close with a pledge to quit my job as Mayor if the city council and/or kingmakers made it impossible for me to keep my other promises.

My impression of the Mayor, his Chief, and by extension Houston's leaders as a whole was that they are not serious. Safety isn't their priority; what they want is to stay in charge. As far as west Houston is concerned, they want to "stay the course" (as Kos might put it). They'll put more cops cruising the streets - to pull over speeders and people running lights at which they don't wish to get carjacked. They'll also do a few drug busts. This will fool a few visitors from other parts of Houston that the city's getting our area under control. It won't fool us (to whit: HPD's chase policy, misleadingly titled here), but they may not care.

Fish gotta swim, Dems gotta pander. It's not worthwhile even to complain about that. Although, I will say that Mayor Bill White is the most negligent mayor I have endured since I arrived here in 1982.

I'm more concerned with the opposition. New York has found people who care enough about crime that they do something about it. But Houston is not, as far as I know, blessed with a Giuliani or even a Bloomberg; the best the Republicans have been able to offer to us in the past two elections is that empty suit Orlando Sanchez.

I don't want any law abiding citizens "shipped off" anywhere. I just want the city to get serious. For starters, I want the FEMA / city handouts to cease.

posted by Zimri on 18:54 | link |

Thoughts on, and beyond, Aristotle's Poetics

I recently bought three books based on Aristotle's Poetics. One was Preston Epps's translation of its surviving text. Another was Richard Janko's proposal for its lost section on comedy, which The Name of the Rose (independently) had made famous. The last was a collection of essays on the Poetics.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Nick Lowe averred that Aristotle had said about as much as could be said about how to design the plot of a drama. Janko, though, posited that Aristotle had not said all that could be said about that of a comedy; and used that to prove where certain mediaeval manuscripts's references were, in fact, Aristotelian and so ignorant of the later developments of, e.g., Menander and Plautus. This is, pace Name of the Rose, a potential reason that this second section was not so well preserved as the first. So perhaps there might be more to say about Aristotle's first book, as well.

Aristotle's bias in terms of plot was toward the character-driven sort. This is because he demanded internal consistency, and so his favourite stories existed in a Laplacian world where there was "no need of the hypothesis" of a world-moving God. Stephen White thought that Aristotle had showcased Sophocles's Oedipus Rex and Euripides's Iphigenia at Tauris (which Epps's index bears out).

Lowe would say that Aristotle's rival was the novel whose action was driven by a plot, extraneous to the human characters.

Such a plot could be driven by a character above the other characters, but then the "poet", to use Aristotle's term, would have to take into account that super-character's desires as well. Sophocles had gods available to propel the plot's beginning. In a Sophocles play, the gods' sole agenda was to punish sins against the Natural Law of men. From Euripides (who was, unlike Sophocles, heterosexual), I remember that the forces in Bacchae and Medea punished transgressions against the natural lawlessness of women. Aristotle accepted both agendae as proper to dueling and aloof divinities.

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings also tried this with the Ring from the preceding The Hobbit. The Ring wanted to be delivered from its prison and then to return to its maker, and acted accordingly. At the same time, a divine Providence bided its opportunity to reward the world for Bilbo's and Frodo's mercy toward Gollum. Providence won out.

But a poet may reject the humanism of a Sophocles, a Aristotle, or even a Tolkien. For such a poet, there can be only one legitimate character: God. God acts at His whim, and there is no room for anyone else but to submit - which is what the poet's characters will do. One such work is Left Behind. This is further critiqued here.

Aristotle the Greek knew of sibyls, oracles, and works of apocalyptic; but he did not treat them as poetics. He further had no notion of fiction based upon an existent apocalyptic narrative. If he had, he would have had to add a third section to the Poetics. Like Sophocles, the fundamentalist poet would expect his characters to follow God's law, and would punish them for violating it; but this law would be in the form of a script, which would seem arbitrary to outsiders. The critic would have to judge the overall work on how well it followed the source material, and how the characters react (because they cannot act) when pushed into this sequence of events. If the work were intended for outsiders, it would have to explain why this sequence of events was explicable in terms of the outsiders' cultural assumptions, where they violated laws of the natural world.

posted by Zimri on 17:29 | link |

Gym update!!1!

Since absolutely no-one was asking, and since I've actually made some progress (yay!) here is the run down:

Forward push, 135 lb; seated row, also 135; chest squeeze or whatever it is called, 120; pulldown, 165 (heavier than me!); abs, 140; side twist, 130. There is a "push down" thingy which, I think, is 165 now. I am still operating on level 8 for 15 minutes on the bike. I'd given up on the upward push due to my shoulders hurting so badly for so long; but they are better now, and I think I can start on that weight again this week.

I weigh in at 158 lb, as best I can tell. This is 15 lb over where I was last year. As before, I have been trying to bulk up my chest; but most of the new mass seems to be in my upper arms, which no-one can see unless I'm wearing a tank top (which I only do at the gym). Plus I've retained a small "muffin top"; which I'm assuming is due to age (damn it!), my abs filling out and pushing the fat to the side, and water retention.

I'm told that I look good in the dark though. :^P

posted by Zimri on 17:16 | link |

Chosen people: a status, not a rank

I'd been mulling over my head the Israelites' claim to be the people whom God has chosen. The late John Strugnell, chief of the Dead Sea Scroll scholars, argued in an interview that the Jewish expression of this claim is "racist".

Strugnell had confused two sociological terms: status and rank. Status, respective to others, is a position within a mutually agreed constitution. Rank, again respective to others, is simply preference: "A is better than B". The Jews' claim to being "chosen" is a claim of status, subject to God's constitution for the world (the Torah). It is not a rank.

Some Jews do see themselves as high-ranking and so are racist, but most don't and aren't. I would say that Joseph Lieberman has proven by his actions that he believes in equality for all races under American law. At the same time he affirms that God has chosen his nation over all others. Pace Strugnell, these aren't contradictions.

I propose an understanding by which a group of people might be able to hold both views: "God has chosen my ancestors" / "all men are created equal".

Central to Jewish treatment of outside nations is the notion of "Noachide law". The Torah holds that today's humanity descends from Noah whose ark docked in the Armenian mountain country of Urartu. God then commanded Noah and his "Noachide" children: that they must follow God (alone), multiply, hold dominion over other animals, do good, and avoid evil. In the Priestly conception, which Baruch Spinoza has separated from the rest of the Bible: the sons of Noah should also recognise that their Creator had rested on the Seventh Day which the English call Saturday; and they should avoid unclean animal flesh (as Moses would later define it).

God's decision to select a Chosen people came later. This status has never conferred any favouritism upon the nation of Israel just for existing. There would be blessings for Jews who followed God's law, but there would also be blessings for non-Jewish "nations" ("gentiles", or goyim) if they treated the Jews well and (as fellow Noachides) didn't sin otherwise. In "the world to come", whether this be on Earth or in Heaven: righteous Jews and righteous gentiles both have "a share"; bad Jews and bad gentiles both don't. All Jews get out of the deal is a feeling of purpose, which all people get when they know what to do and how to do it; and even that's not a feeling which God provides directly.

Whether or not the Biblical account is true, the Jews have from it a means by which they may coexist with other Peoples of the Book who accept it. Chief among these self-described Noachides, today, are the Christians. However, higher-critics and Muslims who deny the holy nature of the Sabbath, eat unclean meat, and/or doubt the universality of the Flood may also count as "righteous" in Jewish eyes if they respect both the Jews' God and the rights of observant Jews to live as they choose.

The Jews' purpose in this world isn't just to sit around being Jewish. Through a prophet who possibly named himself after the first Prophet Isaiah, after the return from Babylon, God set the Jews upon a new mission: to be "a light to the nations" - gentiles included. This "second Isaiah" further called out the Persian king Cyrus as a "messiah" whom God had anointed as his regent on Earth.

It is best, I think, to understand observant Jews as analogous to a Christian monastic order. An order is populated by men and/or women whom God has chosen, although I vaguely remember that they prefer the term "called". They obey laws which they don't expect outsiders to follow. They admit that they have no guarantee of a share in the next world should they fail in their duty. They admit that outsiders will have a share if they believe in the monks' God; respect the monks' lives, freedom, and property; and do good amongst themselves. Again, all monks get out of it is the feeling of purpose. By this analogy, even the Jews' heredity - meaning, exclusivity in marriage - should have no more bearing than celibate monks' own exclusivity by not marrying at all.

Strugnell's argument, to give it more respect than it likely deserves, does point to a dark side of the Bible's teachings. A Jew thinking of himself as a natural elite might show favouritism to fellow Jews against others. If infused with ideals of social justice, another Jew might sign up to the "reform" programs of a Cyrus. Especially if the Jew has rejected certain "outdated superstitious details" of his faith, he might even commit crimes on his Cyrus's behalf. This is what Trotsky and other secular Jews did on behalf of Lenin. Such abuses of power are a temptation which, the Gospels assert, the Satan presented to the Jew Jesus; although Jesus then rejected these blandishments. I expect that there are similar stories in Rabbinic literature.

I have argued against the Torah's claims, against enshrining the Torah's laws into this nation's laws, and even against this or that Jewish person if s/he deserves it. If a Jew - or anyone - sees himself or herself as a ranking person, then that one - whatever he professes - needs to learn humility. As a counterpoint, if someone doesn't accept the Torah, then he's free to say that Jewish status is meaningless to him.

But by that same meaninglessness, he shouldn't bother arguing against this status; and as a fellow human being, he shouldn't insult random Jews as racists. I'm not going to argue against the Jews' status within their own accepted literature. The Torah says what it says, the status it has conferred upon Jews is internally consistent, and this status doesn't affect me. This just doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother you, either.

posted by Zimri on 17:15 | link |

Choosing one's electorate

The Democrats in Houston have enjoyed a windfall.

For a start, the Party has stumbled upon a vast new criminal / welfare class. Secondarily, à la D.C., most of this class is of such a "socio-economic background" that, should one outside this background complain about the ne'er-do-wells' actions, just the act of complaint will inflame racial resentment among what a CAIR type would call "the vast majority of moderates". The Katrina evacuees and our native Black leftists are already rallying together, on the thugs' behalf. It is not, after all, really crime if it happens to someone else.

The inner-610 "anti-racist" set, who aren't suffering from police understaffing, can vote together with the thugs' enablers. We in west Houston will inherit their political élite.

posted by Zimri on 16:29 | link |

Terms of debate (case study: Bolivia)

Right wingers (libertarian ones anyway) support the rights of Atlas, to shrug if necessary. Left wingers support the right of the majority to stay on Atlas's shoulder. My bias is to the right. I am however willing to entertain the left wing point of view, if it is argued from facts.

One case study is the secessionist movement in eastern Bolivia. There are left wing and right wing ways of looking at it. Mora y Leon of Publius Pundit describes the imbloglio in the right wing way, supporting the secessionists. A left wing way would support the central government.

Leftists have framed the Bolivian question as, what is a nation: everyone who lives in a given region, or a band sharing common interests? One extreme leftist in my acquaintance has stated this question, "is it the majority of the people [in an internationally recognised region], or a playground for the landed aristocracy / white elite". Perhaps that argument would apply for western Bolivia, historically, as its own region. (Left and right wings, I think, agree against the serfdom of the majority; from which it follows that that the landed elite either must train their peasants to compete in the global economy, or else must cede their status - and presence - with people who have the peasants' interests at heart.)

But over the whole of today's Bolivia, the eastern section has its own land - and quite a lot of it, too. This "aristocracy" consists of the majority of the people of that land, plus the people of its cities. If there are "elites" from the west in the east, they're the ones who have already gotten out.

If someone fails to frame the question correctly, that one must be trained to do so. If that one prefers the language of grievance despite the evidence against it, then I for one will treat that one the way I would treat a Biblical or Qur'anic fundamentalist - that is, as a madman.

I don't have the time or patience for debate with a madman; and I have little enough time or patience even for a conversation with one.

posted by Zimri on 14:09 | link |

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Memoria

My grandma, daughter of the aforementioned Mayer and Rose Slowes, died this evening at 6 PM.

I feel that I don't have enough memories of her: because until 2002 she lived on another continent, and after 2002 when she moved here she was in such poor health that we had trouble keeping up conversations. But I must do what I can.

Grandma was born in Chicago in March 1921. Her family moved back to British Palestine sometime in the 1930s. She met my grandfather, dashing and heroic fighter in North Africa, in the early 1940s. My great grandfather, who had a problem with the goyim unfortunately, went "Fiddler On The Roof" on her and disowned her. (Sad to say, there are narrow minds of every religion and in every ethnicity.)

After the war, she went with her husband to the British occupation of Germany, where she gave birth to her two children: first my mother in 1946, then my uncle. They stayed in Germany until the 1950s, and moved to Bahrayn and then - in the 1960s - to Barbados. They saw my mother go off to Oxford and my uncle to the army in Northern Ireland. In 1970 they moved to a third-floor apartment in Carcavelos, Portugal; where her husband ran a marble quarry. They visited us; we visited them. One of my first memories is of a dream I had while sleeping in their guest room.

My grandma was healthy until 1990, as far as we knew, but her high blood pressure gave her a stroke then. In 2003 she and her husband moved to Houston.

She abandoned the formal expressions of her faith, a Reform-ish Judaism; but helped her husband bring up my mother in a monotheistic (but secular) understanding of conservative, Methodist Christianity. She never said a bad word about the Jewish religion, and pointed out to me the Hebrew inscribed at the famous unfinished 1755 cathedral in Lisbon.

She was fiercely loyal to my grandfather and to my mother all the days of her life. While she was healthy, she was an avid reader of books and retained a wicked sense of humour. And she was a stunning beauty. She loved to watch the Portuguese winemaking process; to shop at the Cintra market; to visit the quiet warm beach at Carcavelos and the wild cold beach at Guincho.

posted by Zimri on 21:07 | link |

Beer hall putsch

My ex(?) girlfriend met with me today. We went to the genealogy library, where I read from the 1920 Cook County census that my great grandmother, neé Rose Ellmann, was born in 1899 and had married Mayer (later, Michael) Slovess by 1920. Then we went to the local Shoah museum (at her request; this isn't a case of "trying to show a girl a good time" :P).

She told me a story.

There is a bar up in Conroe, an exurb north of Houston. Its theme is Irish. I've been there a few times. Its clientele consists, for the most part, of "rednecks": descendents of Ulster Irish, border Scots, and sundry Teutonic and Amerindian folk who interbred with them over the years.

A young fellow showed up at the bar a few months ago. He was looking for a girlfriend of his; apparently he had, or expected to have, some other friends with him. He was from out of town, although we don't know even from which state (my guess: Michigan - but again, who knows).

Anyway, this fellow had various Nazi insignia on his person. And he sat with my then-not-controversially-ex girlfriend and set to a shpiel about how Hitler was "right" and how the Holocaust was bogus, and cetera and cetera.

So he asked this lady - so, what were her views?

She clocked him on the head with her fist. Then her friend "beat him up". The bartender brought out a shotgun and ordered him out of his bar, and in the parking lot some of the locals roughed him up some more.

Despite what you might read on the Internet, or in a chatroom - Americans do remember what they did and what they saw in Europe 1944-45, and they don't put up with that bullshit here.

I love America.

posted by Zimri on 20:45 | link |

On this site

• Home
• J/X
• Islam
• E-mail

- Archives - 04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009

Afield

• Secular Right
• Mencius Moldbug
• The Unreligious Right
• Gene Expression
• Climate Audit
• Tim Blair
• Transterrestrial Musings
• ZombieTime
• Jammie Wearing Fool(s)
• Ace of Spades HQ
• My Pet Jawa
• Daimnation
• Classical Values
• Spleenville HQ
• This Blog Is Full Of Crap
• Yourish
• Xanthippa's Chamberpot

Friends

• Coffee Shop

Table 9