HuffPo Arabic pushes anti-Semitism and demonization of gays

January 16, 2017 • 12:00 pm

It’s not clear that, with the HuffPo, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. In November, the Arabic edition of the site, which appears even more in love with Islam than is the American version, published a blog post (in Arabic here), that was a nasty, anti-Semitic accusation of a Jew poisoning Mohammed. This was noticed by the Anti-Defamation League, which reports this:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today voiced disappointment over the failure by editors at HuffPost Arabi to remove a blatantly anti-Semitic blog after it was first brought to their attention several weeks ago. The Arabic-language blog promotes a conspiracy theory blaming Jews for the death of the Prophet Mohammed.

“It is troubling that an anti-Semitic screed cleared The Huffington Post’s editorial review process and that our concerns so far have been ignored,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “We call on The Huffington Post to immediately remove this offensive entry and to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place so that the Arabic site is free of anti-Semitism and incitement against Jews.” [JAC: As you see above, the post hasn’t been removed.]

The blog, initially titled “’Arsenic’ The poison, which a Jewish woman put in the food of the Prophet, peace be upon him,’” has been live on The Huffington Post’s Arabic language web site since it was first published on Nov. 29. It claims that a Jewish woman used arsenic to poison the Prophet Mohammed and includes other offensive anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

After the ADL complained, the title was changed to “Did the Prophet Die From Being Poisoned With Arsenic?”, but the content of the post wasn’t changed.

In another issue, Mediaite reports that after singer George Michael died, the Arabic PuffHo headline noted that he was “addicted to drugs with homosexual tendencies.” This did not go unnoticed by Arabic-speaking readers, nor the different headline in the English notice of Michael’s death.

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-3-37-18-pm

 

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-3-37-33-pm

I’m not sure what’s going on here, and it’s entirely possible that the editorship of this site is non-overlapping, but still, HuffPo is a brand, and when this stuff is called to their attention, maybe they should do something about it. HuffPo, it seems, is engaging in the same sort of anti-Semitic nonsense that’s promulgated by the private and state media of Middle Eastern countries.

h/t: Tom

A Young Turk tries to show that suicide bombings have nothing (nothing!) to do with Islam

December 20, 2016 • 1:30 pm

I was going to post the third part of my piece on sexual dimorphism in human traits (other parts here and here), explaining why that physical dimorphism suggests that current behavioral differences between the sexes also reflect evolution in our ancestors (and why those who oppose a sexual-selection explanation are ideologically motivated)—but I have a few more papers to read. Look for it (if you’re interested) tomorrow.

In the meantime, let’s consider the Illiberal Leftist lucubrations of Mr. Hasan Piker, identified on Puffho as “an entertainment and political journalist known for his explainer videos on The Young Turks that provide detailed analysis on the top news stories of the day. Aside from covering pop culture news on TYT’s entertainment channel, Pop Trigger, Hasan is also a regular contributor on Buzzfeed and TMZ’s TooFab.”

As we know, The Young Turks (TYT) is a popular “leftist” online news show, but one that has grown increasingly illiberal in its attacks on New Atheists and its noisome sympathy for all kinds of Islam.

In his new PuffHo piece of Muslim apologetics, “Why suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam“, Piker has a hard case to make. Nothing to do with Islam? NOTHING?  Even if religion were an ancillary factor here (and there’s clearly more than simply Muslim theology involved), one would have to wonder whether suicide bombings of the kind we see regularly committed by Muslims (most against other Muslims) would be as frequent. After all, if religion has nothing to do with it, then if we eliminate religion, the frequency of those bombings wouldn’t change.

Piker’s thesis, as you might expect, betrays a naiveté with both what the Qur’an and hadith say, and how religion twists and manipulates its scripture to justify anything. We are, of course, well familiar with that in the Bible, which—particularly in the Old Testament, repeatedly justifies misogyny, genocide, and the killing of gays, those who curse their parents, or people who work on the Sabbath. If we adhered to a strict interpretation of Scripture, then we’d be murdering everyone working on Saturday. But we ignore that completely, and anybody who did these things, adhering to God’s dictates in the Old Testament, would be decried and jailed. If you’re following the Bible strictly, though, you’d kill your child if he said, “Damn you, Dad!” Now, of course, we don’t look down on those who fail follow the Bible in this way; we don’t call them “not good Christians.”

But this is exactly what Piker does when he quotes the Qur’an to show that suicide bombing is not Islamic because—get this—Islam prohibits suicide. Yes, this is what he says:

Suicide bombings have been around since the 18th century, but I want to talk about suicide bombings as a tool of modern terrorist warfare and how it became the archetype of Muslim violence. Because while popular culture depicts Muslims as trigger-happy suicide bombers, suicide has always been a cardinal sin in Islam.

I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.

. . . While the Shia interpretation of the Quran offers some leeway around self-harm to allow for self-sacrifice, the Sunni interpretation strictly prohibited it.

Also, until this point only occupying combatants had been targeted, whereas now civilians were being victimized.

Suicide or Martyrdom in the Quran

By contrast, martyrdom – or when Allah decides when you die in battle while protecting your country – is sanctioned in certain verses throughout the Quran.

Frequently cited is the Al-Baqara verse:

“And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.”

I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.

So here he gets to the real issue—martyrdom—but later calls it a “perverted version of Islam.” As that verse shows, as well the ones cited below and others, there is justification for suicide in the Qur’an, if you do it in the course of fighting for Allah. And that’s all that Piker says about that.

Piker goes on, noting that some Muslim clerics and leaders began justifying suicide bombing against Israelis, for they were occupiers:

Sunni extremists’ adoption of suicide bombing that targeted civilians proved critical. Once attacks against civilians could be justified, the words in the Quran no longer meant anything. According to a 2012 study published in the National Counterterrorism Center, Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year where. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities.

This perverted version of Islam that upends more than a thousand years of a consensus interpretation of the Quran has been used to indoctrinate youths in countries crippled by war.

One might as well call the perfectly clear Biblical call to kill your children who curse you as “a perverted version of Christianity.” In fact, the Qu’ran is full of verses extolling those who fight for Allah, and give their lives for that. They go to Paradise, of course. It’s not a stretch to construe countries like Israel and the U.S. as enemies of Allah; and once you see that, then the way is clear. No perverted theology involved.

And so, without going further into how suicide bombers like the 9/11 group actually justify their actions, or whether they see a connection between their acts and Islam, Piker exculpates the religion. But . . . he sort of admits that connection toward the end of his piece (my emphasis):

In states where citizens have very little access to the basic amenities that many governments elsewhere provide, young people with nowhere else to turn seek answers from religious leaders. And those religious leaders are not shy about pointing the finger of blame at western occupying forces and justifying attacks against fellow muslims as a means of advancing their own agendas.

. . . While power-hungry religious clerics – and other Islamic leaders – have promoted suicide bombings as a justifiable tool of war, the majority of Muslims condemn it – just like the Quran does.

Suicide bombings have always been used to achieve political ends and have nothing to do with waging holy war, no matter what western media, Islam’s critics or religious clerics will have you believe. The attack committed by the PKK on Turkish soil is merely the latest example. Religion is simply a recruitment tool targeting the undereducated, the vulnerable and the disaffected…a violent means for a violent end.

Umm. . . why do the youth turn to religious leaders rather than their parents? Why is religion such a potent recruitment tool? That has nothing to do with religion? And why are Sunni and Shia in such conflict, regularly killing each other? Because the Sunni and Shia disagree on who were the rightful heirs of Muhammed—the original cause of that schism. Were there no Islam, there would be no such division. Further, like the divide between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, religion (in this case Islam) gives people a way of “othering” others and building animosity toward them. Sure, the killers might not be aware of the finer points of Islamic theology, but all they need to know is that someone with authority—religious authority—sanctions their acts. The religion is important because it assures you of an afterlife, something you need if you’re going to throw away your real life.

But that’s not the main failing of Piker’s piece. That failing is this: those Muslims who engage in suicide bombing, or promote it, don’t see it as suicide—they see it as MARTYRDOM. Suicide is just offing yourself; suicide bombing is a way to destroy your enemy, please Allah, and gain virgins in Paradise. That this can be even more explicitly religious is seen in the way the 9/11 bombers purified themselves and recited the Qur’an before their deeds.

And martyrdom can be justified by referring to both the Qur’an and the hadith. This site gives many examples; I’ll show just two:

Qur’an 9-111. Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Qur-an 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

11.  That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

And from the hadith, the traditional sayings of Muhammad, which have great authority. The Sahih Bukhari is particularly important.

Sahih Bukhari Book 52, Number 54:

The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.

Sahih Bukhari (52:46)- “Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Low hanging fruit but eh! Article by Hasan Piker, of The Young Turks

There are more, and believe me, between the hadith and the Qur’an, Islamic clerics and scholars have found ample justification for suicide bombing, and it’s never not just self-killing but “martyrdom” in the cause of Allah—martyrdom that gains one paradise. And those believers really think they’ll go to Paradise! For Piker to underplay this is mendacious and misleading, but of course his task is to show that nothing bad can be laid at the door of Islam itself.

Such are the Young Turks.

bwzvpiaiuaagn9
Hasan Piker roars

h/t: Cindy

HuffPo names 17 Muslim-American women who “Made America Great” this year. Guess how many wear hijabs?

December 11, 2016 • 1:00 pm

Yep, you’re right: all of them. The women named in the December 8 piece include a hijabi fashion blogger, a journalist who appeared (clothed) in Playboy, a fencer, a hip-hop group, and the Miss Minnesota contestant who wore both a hijab and a burkini. It’s not so much the achievements of Muslim women that are celebrated here—and there’s nothing wrong with that—but the headscarf. Hijabs are mentioned repeatedly: here are two excerpts.

From the introduction:

Muslim Americans continue to face rising intolerance and Islamophobia as a result, in part, of aggressive attacks on their community by politicians and conservative media. They were assaulted, ridiculed and at times even murdered for their religious identification ― and hijab-wearing Muslim women often bore the brunt of this bigotry.

Check the link to the “even murdered for their religious identification” link in the Guardian, which says this about the murder of two men wearing Muslim garb:

The motive for the shooting was not immediately known and no evidence has been uncovered so far that the two men were targeted because of their faith.

“There’s nothing in the preliminary investigation to indicate that they were targeted because of their faith,” said deputy inspector Henry Sautner of the New York police department.

That’s the exact opposite of what the HuffPo article claims about the link. And then there’s this:

Well-known Muslim beauty blogger Nura Afia made history in November by becoming CoverGirl’s first ambassador who wears a hijab. With her CoverGirl contract, Afia will appear in commercials as well as a giant billboard in New York’s Times Square alongside celebrity representatives like Sofia Vergara and Katy Perry.

“I feel proud to be part of a movement that is showing the hijab in a positive light for once. The more of us who can wear them as representatives of these big household names on TV or billboards the better,” Afia told The New York Times.

Now that’s making America great!

What is really the positive light here is not the woman herself who is achieving, but that the achiever wears a hijab. And can this garment, reflecting a religious dictate that women must hide themselves to avoid arousing the uncontrollable lusts of men, really be seen in a positive light? It’s a symbol not only of a largely oppressive faith (one based, like all faiths, on fiction), but of the misogyny of that faith itself. Do we need to show the yarmulke in a positive light given the higher per capita rate of anti-Semitic than anti-Islamic acts?

Read for yourself (screenshot links to the article):

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-12-02-50-pm

Jeff Tayler back in the saddle again: criticizes the “first hijabi” trope

December 8, 2016 • 11:00 am

If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know of my frequent and splenetic posts about “The first hijabi  [Muslim wearer of the hijab, or headscarf] to do Y,” where Y represents various forms of athletics, ballet, contestants in beauty pageants, news anchors and so on (see, for instance, here, here, here, and here).  This ridiculous glorification of a scrap of cloth is found among many Western white feminists, most vocally among the privileged white editors of The Huffington Post. And you’ll know my objection to this glorification. While I agree that women shouldn’t be banned from wearing hijabs, or reviled because of them, I don’t think they should be celebrated for wearing them, either. My reasons are several.

First, the hijab is a garment of modesty, worn by many Muslim women to protect their hair from the prying eyes of men. The assumption here is that if a man glimpses a woman’s hair, he’ll turn into an uncontrollable bag of testosterone and possibly attack the immodest woman. This idea that men must be prevented at all costs from seeing bits of women, and that women are responsible for snuffing this incipient lust, reaches its apogee in the burqa, which, worn with a face covering, turns the woman into a shapeless sack of cloth.

Further, some hijabis are engaged in activities incommensurate with the religious reason for wearing the cloth. Look at this hijabi, for instance, a Cover Girl Ambassador celebrated by PuffHo as a “fearless dreamer”. I may be wrong, but I don’t think she’s trying to hide her beauty, since her makeup must have been laid on with a trowel.

screen-shot-2016-11-08-at-1-10-42-am

And the loud acclaim for the hijab- and burquini -(full body bathing costume) wearing contestant in the Miss Minnesota pageant? What is that about? How does parading your assets on stage comport with modesty?

Futher, what about celebrating non-hijabi Muslim women who have achieved good things? Well, that doesn’t often happen, even when the press knows about it. No, it’s the religious headscarf that’s being celebrated, not the Islamic breakthrough women who, bravely, refuse to hide their faces and hair. This leads me to believe that many of those celebrating the hijab are actually applauding their own perceived open-mindedness, by supporting Women of Color. But why does the celebration vanish when the Woman of Color doesn’t wear a scrap of cloth on her head? Because the hijab stands for Islam; and that is is not to be celebrated. In fact, no religion should be celebrated, since the vast majority of them are based on fairy tales, wish-thinking and engage in various forms of oppression based on warped views of what the deity wants. Islam is one of the worst, what with its mandates to kill infidels and apostates, and its demonization of gays and pervasive misogyny. Why on earth should we applaud such a faith?

Finally, we must remember that in many places in the world the hijab is required, and in many others might as well be because of familial and social pressures to conform to religious dictates. That’s even true in the U.S., where in some Muslim schools girls as young as 5 are forced to wear the hijab. What kind of “choice” is that? At the very least, I think, those women who do wear hijab without any social pressure to do so should speak out against the fate of their sisters in Afghanistan and Iran, who have no such choices.

All this I’ve said before, but Jeff Tayler says it better, more eloquently, and with more data in a new article in the upcoming website Quillette: “The hijab and the regressive left’s absurd campaign to betray freethinking women“. Tayler used to write antitheistic pieces for Salon, but no longer (I suspect they didn’t want more God-bashing on their site!). Fortunately, Quillette has taken on the contributing editor of the Atlantic, where I look forward to some good old religion-bashing in the future.

Jeff gives some of the same examples I cite above, and more as well, and then sets out the problem:

Headlines proclaiming such “firsts” — performed by Muslim women living, nota bene, in the United States and Canada — have appeared often in the press over the past couple of years. Surely by now you’ve seen them.  The associated coverage is frequently gushing, but when it is not, it is not probing, and certainly not critical.  It is, in fact, part and parcel of the regressive left’s insidious attempt at brainwashing well-meaning liberals into lauding what should be, in our increasingly diverse societies, at best a neutral fact: freedom of speech means freedom of religion.  Women should be free to dress as they please.  Some Muslim women wear hijabs and are the first to do so in various endeavors.

By no means does freedom of religion, however, confer on religion or religious customs exemptions from criticism, satire, or even derision.

. . .Hence, few spectacles are more puzzling, disturbing, hypocritical, and potentially damaging to women’s rights — and therefore to human progress as a whole — than the de facto campaign in some purportedly liberal press outlets to normalize the hijab and portray it as a hallmark of feminist pride and dignity, and not as a sartorial artifact of a misogynistic, seventh-century ideology, forced upon its wearers by law in some countries and by hidebound cultural norms and community and familial pressure, even violence, elsewhere.

And the consequences, limned by Tayler’s dry wit:

The Huffington Post also apprised us of the case of the fourteen-year-old Stephanie Kurlow, an Australian who converted to Islam at age ten, and her hopes of being the first hijabi ballerina.  Young Kurlow tried to crowd-fund her dance school tuition, but eventually, Swedish tennis legend Björn Borg (who professed to be “really moved” by her story) stepped in, and his organization offered to foot the bill.  Upon learning this, Kurlow declared that she sought to “bring the world together by becoming the very first hijab-wearing ballerina” and wanted to “encourage everyone to join together no matter what faith, race or colour” and thereby “leave [sic] in a world with greater acceptance.”

How Kurlow intends to “bring everyone together” by espousing a faith mandating everlasting hellfire for non-Muslims — still the majority of humans on this planet — and death for apostates and gays, is anyone’s guess.  Nevertheless, Bjorg’s marketing director swooned over her.  “The strength and the courage that it takes for [a] 14-year-old to not give up in a situation like this, to see possibilities where others see problems, is exceptional.”  (Italics mine.)

Noor Tagouri is a hijabi news anchor who appeared (clothed, of course) in Playboy. And she’s said some bizarre things. Tayler again:

 The headline for the Huffington Post article about her states, without intimations of satire, that “Noor Tagouri Makes a Forceful Case for Modesty.”  Again, by appearing in Playboy.

(Google Tagouri and you will find quite a few photos showcasing boldly — that is,immodestly — her model-level looks on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.  You will also come across a saccharine Hollywood Life piece about her career, which leaves readers no doubt about how she has leveraged her faith to make a name for herself.)

The Huffington Post also publishes, without commentary but with typos, Tagouri’s assertion that she believes “in rebellion as a form of honestly [sic] . . . .  To be our most authentic self is to rebellious [sic].”  Wait – to be one’s most “authentic self” as a twenty-first-century American woman means adopting a 1,400-year-old religion that demand wives submit to their husbands (even abusive husbands), sets outinegalitarian inheritance rights for women, permits taking captive women as sex slaves, and even sanctions the savage butchery that is female genital mutilation?  No one at the Huffington Post thought to ask her such impertinent questions.

Finally, on the Miss Minnesota beauty pageant contestant, Halmia Aden (she didn’t win):

Most recently, Halima Aden, a nineteen-year-old Somali-American teen from Minnesota, won attention for a two-for-one: for being, again according to the Huffington Post (notice a pattern?), the “first ever contestant . . . to wear a hijab and a burkini” in, of all things, the Miss Minnesota USA pageant.  A tweet reproduced shows a video of Aden, thus attired, swinging her hips – modestly? – as “contestant number one” on the catwalk in the swimsuit competition.  Emblazoned above her Huffington Post accolade in hot pink letters is PAVING THE WAY.

One wonders, paving the way to what? to the dawn of Islamic theocracy in Minneapolis?  To the shaming of non-hijabi Muslim women across the land?  To the shaming of uncovered nonbelieving women in general?  A hijab- and burkini-bound beauty contestant “paves the way” to nowhere I would want to go.  And hey, aren’t beauty pageants something to which we progressives should object?  In any case, a shame-based retrograde view of the female body (as nothing but a provoker of male lust) forms the core of modesty dress codes, be they Islamic, Christian, or Jewish.  Such codes implicitly brand the women who choose not to comply as impious sluts inferior to the Righteous Ones strutting about in their ostentatiously self-segregating getup.

There’s a lot more, so go read Tayler’s piece. The solution? In my view here’s what we should be doing:

  • Stop celebrating Muslims unless they achieve something in the face of discrimination. They’re a religion, not a race, and their religion is often vile, even when held by Western Muslims.
  • Hold Muslims accountable for their beliefs. Before osculating those beliefs, ascertain what they are: see if they think apostates should be killed, gays demonized, and women oppressed. See if they endorse a literal reading of the Qur’an. If they do, ask them about the horrible bits of the Qur’an (and hadith) that, for many Muslims around the world, promote bigotry, oppression, and immorality.
  • Ask hijabis why they’re wearing the garment, and if they had a choice to do so. If they say they did, but they wear glamorous clothes and makeup, ask if they really are trying to be modest. Then ask if they think veiling should be mandatory in some Middle Eastern countries.
  • If a hijabi says she wears the garment for modesty, ask her why women and not men are responsible for curbing the lusts of men.
  • Stop celebrating women who achieve something while wearing the hijab by concentrating on the hijab. By all means celebrate Muslims for overcoming obstacles (see point 1), but not for wearing a headscarf. That’s like celebrating an achieving Jewish male who wears a yarmulke for wearing the yarmulke. Remember, in the U.S. per capita rates of hate crimes are still twice as high against Jews as against Muslims. Why don’t we see “first American yarmulkabi bobsledder in the Olympics” articles? What about the Sikhs? “Paving the Way: First turbani in the Mr. Universe Contest”.

It’s time for this nonsense to stop. But it won’t so long as PuffHo and other regressive leftists thoughtlessly worship a symbol of women’s oppression.

PuffHo: No Muslims should be portrayed as terrorists on television

December 3, 2016 • 1:01 pm

It would clearly be bigoted, on a TV show about terrorism, to portray only Islamic terrorists. But it would also be tendentious to neglect Muslims on a show about terrorism, pretending that Islamic terrorism simply doesn’t exist. Yet PuffHo (of course) is applauding such a show in its new article: “Here’s why you’ll never see a Muslim terrorist on this TV show“. To wit:

Here’s something we can hopefully all agree on: we’ve seen enough Muslim terrorists on TV.

Whether it’s reinforcing the threat-next-door stereotype *cough “24” cough* or how far too many actors who are or appear to be Middle Eastern have played a terrorist on TV (Kal Penn, Rami Malek, etc.) representations of Muslim people as extremists only fuel Islamophobic and xenophobic sentiments.

To subvert this history of stereotyping and marginalization on-screen, “Quantico” showrunner Josh Safran has made it his mission to never feature a Muslim terrorist in the series, which follows a group of FBI recruits combating incidents of domestic terrorism.

In a New York Times article titled “Can Television Be Fair to Muslims?” featuring excerpts from a roundtable of writers and showrunners of series like “Homeland” and “Quantico,” Safran explains that his series stands in direct defiance of this kind of typecasting.

“For me, it was important to not ever put a Muslim terrorist on our show,” he said. “There hasn’t been one. This year we have the appearance of one — which is a spoiler. But it’s not true.”

Now think about this. If you know the “24” television series, you’ll also know that it was not all about Islamic terrorists; in fact, they’re in the distinct minority. It was about a panoply of terrorists from distinct countries and backgrounds. If you have a show about domestic terrorism in the U.S., it’s almost a form of censorship to leave out a group that has been responsible for several major and deadly episodes of terrorism. Even fears of “Islamophobia” must bow to reality. But the Regressive Left prefers distorting reality rather than portray the true nature of American terrorism, some of which is committed by Muslims.

There’s more:

Safran also said the result of the presidential election was a turning point for the series. In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s win, the writers of “Quantico” were at a loss as to how to depict terrorism in this moment of extreme political volatility, leading to a frank conversation with a network head.

“We had this long talk the day after the election, in the writers’ room, about how the show is about terrorism. We were there for hours. We were crying, and it was really tough,” Safran recalled. “How do you go in there and talk about what terrorists are going to do today? You just don’t want to do that. I don’t want to watch a show about terrorism now. I called the network and I said, ‘Can we change the show?’ They said yes. We’re changing the show so that it can represent, in a dark time, more hope.”

What is the “hope” here? That Muslims won’t commit any more acts of terrorism? That hope is vain. To partially quote Richard Feynman, “. . . Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

Then there’s this:

Maybe this will be a case of life imitating art, because even FBI Director James Comey noted in 2015 how the cast of “Quantico” is far more diverse than the overwhelmingly white, male makeup of FBI employees

What the sentence above says is pretty true, but what PuffHo omits is that the FBI is making a big push to diversify its staff. The problem is finding qualified minority employees. As The Marshall project notes,

“The FBI is overwhelmingly white and male among my agent force,” FBI Director James Comey told an audience at Georgetown University last month, Politico reported, after a speech lamenting mistrust between white police and black communities. “I have to change the numbers.”

The bureau is in the midst of a new “targeted” recruiting strategy, says James Turgal, Comey’s new head of personnel. According to Turgal, the agency has expanded the list of schools where it recruits to include dozens of colleges with large minority enrollment. He also sends staff to black, Latino, and Asian organizations that cater to lawyers, MBAs, and other professionals.

Finally, one hopes that Arab Muslims cast on TV shows get to play roles that aren’t going to be clumsily defined by other stereotypes—like the hijab-wearing  Joanna in Bloomers (ironically played by a Hindu actress).

Science fiction has always been ahead of the curve in this sort of thing. Star Trek DS9 cast Siddig El Fadil (a.k.a. Alexander Siddig) as the station’s Doctor Bashir, a young, naive and nerdy scientist who was in no way stereotyped or defined by either his ethnic origins or religion.

unnamed

Perhaps “showrunners of 2016” should emulate what sci-fi was doing back in 1993, that would be nice.

In the end, we won’t end Islamic terrorism by pretending it doesn’t exist. You can be absolutely sure that the FBI knows this, and is monitoring Muslim groups, websites, and phone traffic to stave off potential terror attacks.

h/t: Grania

Heather Hastie on the declining state of American education

November 27, 2016 • 9:00 am

I call your attention to Heather Hastie’s new post, “Has the US education system been set-up to fail?” It paints a dire picture of what’s happening in U.S. schools, discusses Trump’s appointment of Betsy DeVos (probably a creationist) as his education secretary, and explains why DeVos’s and Trump’s emphasis on “school choice” as a solution to the problem is wrong. The post is thoughtful, full of data, and well worth reading.

By the way, Trump apparently offered DeVos’s post first to Jerry Falwell, Jr., the out-and-out creationist president of the Christian school Liberty University. Falwell, however, turned down the offer as he couldn’t afford the 4-year commitment to a cabinet post in light of his university duties. Despite that, HuffPo (I’m still obsessed) still has this headline on its front page (click to go to the article):

screen-shot-2016-11-27-at-7-15-36-am

As you see, when you click on the HuffPo headline, it goes to an Associated Press report that says this:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. says President elect-Donald Trump offered him the job of education secretary, but that he turned it down for personal reasons.

Falwell tells The Associated Press that Trump offered him the job last week during a meeting in New York. He says Trump wanted a four- to six-year commitment, but that he couldn’t leave Liberty for more than two years.

. . . Trump announced Wednesday he had selected charter school advocate Betsy DeVos for the job. Falwell says he thinks DeVos is an “excellent choice.”

It would behoove HuffPo to have an accurate headline; this one is duplicitous and is another attempt to go after Trump. Granted, Falwell would have been an abysmal choice—I despair of having a Secretary of Education who doesn’t accept evolution— and DeVos may well share that view, but the headline is misleading.

But no matter what happens, make no mistake: science education, and perhaps science funding, is likely to take a serious hit under a Trump administration.