william.scherk

Here's a data point that could be of use to those who wonder about Egyptian public opinion. Questions on Muslim Brotherhood, possible presidents, the peace treaty with Israel, reaction to Obama vis a vis Egypt, support for Islamic State, etcetera. Phone 
Survey 
of 
Cairo 
and 
Alexandria -- February
 5‐8,
2011

Interesting unconfirmed report from the Guardian live blog (taken from CNN interview).

Google Translate on their Arabic Website is all I can manage, though I sometimes dip into their live broadcast feed to see if turban heads are yammering, and if the newsreaders are all hijabbed-up. Egyptian TV and Press is amazing. There is a parallel system. One in the real world, the other in a strange authoritarian bubble world where every word is directed/checked by the state/NDP and approved/commanded by the state/NDP/Interior Ministry. Even this last week, the official press cannot move beyond NDP policy. Of course, the 'free media' expects to be dragged off by the Mukhabarat into the world of Suleiman's goons if they move beyond the margins. The official media is run by NDP administrators anyway. I am amazed at the breadth of the freer side of the media there. The actually paper press is wildly exuberant (besides its editors and reporters being dragged off to the torture chambers from time to time). Added: Re 'hijabbed-up,' it looks like the choice of hijab is a personal decision of the presenters, and some of the hijabbed ladies get quite foxy outfits together. None of the female presenters I have seen dress as slutty as the FoxNewsPlayboyBunnies, but close enough to probably enrage traditionalists in some communities. Even Al-Arabiya has whorish-by-Hamas-standards newsreaders. I think, on balance, Al Jazeera is the best thing to happen in the Middle East in a long long time, in terms of opening up opinion and eyes and the scope of discussion.

AJ is one of the few news agencies I hold in regard. Riz Khan and the Listening Post are excellent programs. What have been your observations of AJ Arabic vs AJ English? One has an international audience of English speakers, the other has a different staff, different emphasis, and invites different folks to opine. Much unmediated religion on AJA, close to zero on AJE. Hijab presenters on AJA, close to none on AJE. You? Your perspective?

Appointed VP Suleiman, head of Intelligence, speaks on state TV. Shorter version: "Let's join hands and march forward. Youth peace blah blah blah love of homeland. I call on youth. Go home. Go to work. Let's join hands. Do not listen to Satellite TV which serves sedition. We have started work, relying on god and the armed forces. Go home now, children. Clock is ticking. Blah blah blah. We will work in the spirit of the team. Maintain security. God says in the holy scripture 'you work and god will see your deeds.' Bye now." Crowd reaction: "Are you insane? You are the torturer-in-chief. Pack your bags."

From the Guardian's live update page: -- Egyptian state TV has switched its coverage to long-view shots of the crowds. I wonder if the state TV crews are watching the CCTV.

Is it up to the Egyptian army now? I have no idea. I think Mubarak is enclosed in a bubble and has no comprehension of what Egypt will tolerate. As you will have seen, his words electrified the crowd -- into revulsion. The army is a part of the police state. How can they act now? No one knows. We can only watch and wait and hope that Pharoah can figure out that he just threw gas on the fire. Tomorrow there may be four million people on the street. If Pharaoh cannot figure it out . . .

AlJazeera different layout Shorter speech: "I am not going anywhere. Blah blah blah. I am not going anywhere. I have decided, I I I me me me, my government, I have directed, I decree, I me my mine not going." Crowd reaction: "Get out! Get out! Get out you stupid old patronizing fuck! Get out! Get out!" President: "I hear you, oh youth. I me my decree stay blah blah" Crowd reaction: "He shall leave! Get out!" What a sad, empty bag of bullshit Pharoah delivered.

Al Jazeera live, as the crowd in Liberation Square awaits Mubarak's speech. Expect an on-the-spot translation once he appears (or wait a few days for Glenn Beck to suggest what it means). Youtube en direct

From Fox News.

One can make a case against teaching foreign languages in schools. One can also make a case against government schools, compulsion, mandatory coursework, state curriculum standards, and so on. One can make a strong, forceful case against any of these things. One can come down on the the Objectivish, libertarian side, and reject anything that smacks of coercion, indoctrination, what have you. Putting all those things aside, there are other issues that are worth considering, to my mind. What is the case for having more Westerners who can speak, read, write, translate and interpret Arabic? I don't know. It could be that Beck is right; it could be that Bush/Rice, who established the program that ran into obstacles in Texas are wrong about the importance of an understanding of Arabic today, tomorrow, and in the near future. I don't know. One of the things I have been doing since the revolution in Tunisia is going beyond Western media reports to look at sites and documents that are in Arabic (and French). In the case of Egypt I was interested to assess the difference between state media and independent media, between US media and Egyptian media, between Al Jazeera Arabic and AJ English, between BBC Arabic and BBC English. Many items appear in the official and semi-independent press, TV sites, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, editorials, official statements, Government press releases, internal documents, Muslim Brotherhood statements, interviews, fatwas, debates . . . and on and on. I am handicapped, having no Arabic at all, and so rely upon Google Translate to get beyond the first and second layers of information. Here are just a few questions I try to answer: what is the difference between the English face of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arabic? what is the difference between what CNN commentators say about a given event, and what Egyptian media of all kinds have to say? Similarly, if a given Western source has a round-table discussion between an Egyptian, an American, and other native commentator, who are they? I look up their names, affiliations, where they have lived, and whether or not they have fluency in the language of the folks they are talking about. If a member of the student groups mentions Article 77, what is Article 77. If the name Bahey EI-Din Hassan comes up, for example, I wonder first who he is, what faction he represents, what has been said of him in US/Western media and Middle Eastern media, has he been in prison, is he affiliated with the socialists, secularists, labour, the NDP, Wafd, NAC, April 6 and so on. I look to see if he writes in Egyptian media, and so on. It's a slog. Beyond that, I have no influence in how America today and tomorrow interprets events in the Middle East, in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, PT, Syria, Iraq. Yemen, UAE, Northern Sudan and so on. I have no influence on OL members. I am on my own in trying to make sense of that world and the many currents that run through it. I don't suggest that I have any tools beyond those of Michael, Richard, Bob or anyone else reading this thread. I just wanted to share that I myself find a lack of Arabic to be an impediment to objective assessments.

Brant was talking about 'research,' Mark, not 'journalistic pap.' The only thing we ever got from Herbert Levine were stories told and retold and re-embroidered. That particular 'statement' traces back to a retired Harvard prof of physics, Richard Wilson. Levine himself was long dead by 2001, and the prof never spoke to anyone but Milloy, a notable hack, and another hack, John Berlau. The lines suggesting Herbert spoke often "about the Trade Towers in the 1970s" is not born up by anything -- not even the report of Wilson, who recalled the item quoted from circa 1991. Levine was not an expert in insulation of steel building columns, but an inventor and businessman who made one of the first 'spray-on' asbestos mixes, back in 1948. Most of that paragraph is what you would expect from a nut like Robinson, invention and embroidery. Beyond that, the clue that Wilson misremembers is that the orignal asbestos insulation was applied only to the 38th floor. Picking through the embroidery of conspiracy kooks and hacks merely turns up a lot of lint. We were looking for the "research" reported by Brant, not more Rashomon whoopee. Time to call in Jesse Ventura!

Sounds good. Practical, too. Make sure you clean up after yourself, and be home in time for dinner. We are having a tired old analogy fried in its own grease. Your favourite.

Yup, you are right. Sorry to be such a bitch, Adam. I just hate these memes that roar and then multiply without fact-checking. I see the earliest dateline on any story today comes from Rush Limbaugh. Hundreds of cut and pastes later, thousands of "bring on the burkas" comments later, the corrections are slipped in without "Yo, we fucked up" on the original news source. Meanwhile, on RushLimbaugh.com, has there been a correction? Not a single mention that the story was inaccurate. The same bullshit is still there.

Can you please give a link to this original story that you quoted and marked up? Don't worry about that link, Adam. I tracked down the original story at Cbsdfw.com, and it has been 'updated.' It looks like the original story was worded the same way as your excerpt, and roared round the internet raising hackles all the way. Then, some honcho or honchos checked the reporters work and found out that there was no mandatory nature whatsoever. The original story has been tidied up and all the words like 'requirement' and 'mandatory' have been removed. It seems that the locality is in one of those Texas neighbourhoods with a large population of native Arabic speakers. Funny how the original shitty reporting is simply 'updated,' with no apologies for mistakes in the original story. The genie is out of the bottle and has whipped up the frenzy of ignorance that the original story reflected. Slophound journalism at its best. Next time, please check the original source, huh?

Can you please give a link to this original story that you quoted and marked up?

The first story is the best. Rumour and hysterical overreaction to the Mandatory Imposition Of A Foreign Terrorist Language! Eeek, a terror language. Funny how one Objectivish current deplores some/all/most Islamic thought, and fears the Menace, and may even squeal in terror that the Evul Bruthahood has two faces (or nine, like Hydra), speaking a nice fake moderate line in their English books and websites . . . but what are they saying in their native Evul Arabic? We are not getting the Real Story because of communist media filters! So, when they cast about for a good, white, Christian Texan to help interpret all the Evul Bruthahood Menacing Arabic Calls For Beheadings and Caliphate . . . they can thank the panicked parents of Dumbfuck County for reducing the chances of knowing the enemy. Me, I use Chrome and the built-in an add-on Google Terrortalk Translater, so I can read the Menace in all its raw evul Arabicosity.

The story that I linked to and excerpted from highlights the concerns you mentioned, and names names of scientists, engineers and others who were concerned at the time. It's a decent place to start looking for the research you claim to have read, don't you think? No. It's stuff you get slapped in the face with doing a Google search. Some of those names--one or two--might have worked for further work. Well, which ones? Dr. Yogesh Jaluria, Dr. R. Brady Williamson, Guy F. Tozzoli, Robert Berhinig, James Verhalen, Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, Allen Morrison, Dr. Arthur Langer, Dr. Philip J. Landrigan? If not them, who? How does someone interested begin to find the support for your own confident statements of fact? What makes you able to judge the competence and conclusions of anyone else? What makes your conclusions solid and everything else conjecture? Brant, you made a loose cite of the New York Times on one hand, saying that "a qualified engineer remarked in a letter to The New York Times, that any serious fire in one of the Towers would result in the building collapsing," but then on the other hand, another story from the New York Times is "pap." We can examine the one, but not the other. What makes you an authority on the WTC?

Liberty has a very good search facility. I should have used it while doing Mr McCrabpant's homework -- as I was very much interested in seeing how a liberty/libertarian-oriented 'zine would come down as gloating over WTC destruction, in seeing what kind of American 'freedom' writer could possibly think 'America deserved it.' Having to read backwards and forwards in the PDF issues is the price you pay to check a premise. Here's a link to a search older print issues at Liberty with key word 'terror.' Brant, was your "research" on the asbestos issue derived from the work of Steven Milloy, by chance?

The story that I linked to and excerpted from highlights the concerns you mentioned, and names names of scientists, engineers and others who were concerned at the time. It's a decent place to start looking for the research you claim to have read, don't you think?

It was years ago. The sources were pretty good but secondary. I cannot take this further for you as I've not the time. It should not be difficult to research NYC asbestos ban. You can start here. Remember Rashomon.

Here is a link to the first Liberty issue that followed the terror attacks of 2001. November 2001 "Terror" Issue -- Coming to Grips with Terror -- The Logic of Horror -- The World and Us -- America vs the Middle East -- Time to Fight -- Invading Afghanistan -- Hitting Home Here is a link to the second Liberty issue that followed the terror attacks of 2001. December 2001 "Terror" Issue -- A Constitutional Response -- Feeding the Hand that Feeds You -- No Time for Fantasy -- Rage Now! -- At Home with Terror Yes, you did say January 2002. And I went to look at the 2002 issue you sort of cited (I added the emphasis above). Right. Clicking the link at the top of the thread is not rocket science; looking for the kind of awful gloating articles you claim appeared is not rocket science. My ignorance of Liberty publishing schedules led me straight to the January 2002 issue -- which you directed us to -- and I didn't find what you claimed to have found, so I looked carefully through preceding and succeeding editions to see what articles had appeared that fit the bill you fixed on Liberty. I don't think I will post the links for next few months. If you want to demonstrate the kind of gloating, blaming, 'America deserved it' reports you claim to remember, I will leave that to you. I expect, if your memory is correct, finding evidence to support all your claims should be a snap. It's not rocket science, after all.

No need to be surprised, since you cannot tell who has and who has not sought out information on this man, nor can you tell when. But if you find some information on Qadri that helps make sense of the several strands of Islam discussion at OL, I hope you put out that information for others to consider. I was initially surprised that Qadri has left the Muslim world (he is Pakistani by birth) some years ago, and resides in Toronto. He has some nice things to say about Canada that warm the heart of smug northerners, yet I wonder why he does not continue his struggle for justice and rule of (Shariah) law in his home country. Pakistan is presently torn by a struggle between the last remnants of secular thought and the forces of a harsh Sunni authoritarianism. He is no longer a jurist in Pakistan, nor a parliamentarian. He seems to need the protection of the Canadian context. Why? Why is this man in the West, and not in the heartland of struggle? It seems to me he has given up on Pakistan, and chooses to live under the protection of 'the infidel.' I do very much respect that he writes what he does in his fatwa (though I reject his god-based philosophy completely), but that he has chosen to make his home in Canada says something very important that I hope our Muslim Oler understands. Why does he live in Toronto and not Lahore or Cairo or Tunis or Jeddah or Tangier or Beirut or Kabul? [From a year-old CBC story]

As is customary, Ted Keer's ignorance is the main thing on display here. A Rashomon moment. Memory can be most faulty at times, even with especially emotional events and their aftermath, as Elizabeth Loftus has shown with her groundbreaking research. Here are links to the first and second Liberty issues that followed the terror attacks of 2001. What does the evidence show? Did any writer gloat? Was the majority of commentary gloating and blaming? Which writers suggested that America deserved it?

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover