Garry Trudeau criticizes Charlie Hebdo for hate speech. WHAT?

April 11, 2015 • 11:19 am

According to PuffHo and numerous other venues, Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau has come out attacking Charlie Hebdo for “hate speech.” It’s unfortunate that in the article, whose text I copied yesterday (below), they misspell the cartoonist’s first name:

Famed Doonesbury cartoonist Gary [sic] Trudeau slammed his counterparts at Charlie Hebdo — the French satirical newspaper that was attacked by terrorists in January — at the George Polk journalism awards on Friday, saying their work “wandered into the realm of hate speech.” The attack on the publication, which has mocked Islam and other faiths in its pages, ignited a fierce international debate over free speech and racism.

“Free speech … becomes its own kind of fanaticism,” Trudeau said as he accepted a lifetime achievement award from the organization, adding that cartoonists’ role is to “punch up” rather than down.

According to The Daily Beast, Trudeau is the first cartoonist ever to receive a prestigious Polk Award for journalism. (It was also the first strip cartoon to nab a Pulitzer Prize for political cartooning). And if any cartoonist deserves it, he does. His scathing political satire, especially directed at American wars abroad and especially conservative politicians, made his strip a must-read for those of us with a liberal bent. But he not only punched up, but also punched down, making fun of hippies and college students. And is it really “punching up” to make fun of the much-derided Dan Quayle by representing him as a feather?

Maybe so, but I reject the putative moral difference between “punching up” and “punching down,” which I take to mean making fun of the powerful versus the relatively powerless, respectively. In the Social Justice Warrior Code, the former is okay and the latter is not. I reject that distinction.  While it’s important to satirize those with power, bad ideas are not the monopoly of the majority. Yes, you shouldn’t gratuitiously impugn society’s disposssessed, but there are times when minorities have bad ideas and should be criticized or satirized. I, for one, would have no problem criticizing—or satirizing, if I were any good at that—the college students who need puppy and kitten videos to find respite from the “hate speech” of having to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali or, G*d forbid, a defender of Israel. For those people, though they’re still in the minority, threaten the rights of the rest of us, and if we don’t call them out early and often, we’ll all be threatened.

As for Trudeau’s misguided criticism of Charlie Hebdo, I’m immensely disappointed. Did he not understand what those cartoons were about, or that Charlie Hebdo was in fact punching up when defending the rights of the Muslim minority?  He should have asked some French speaker to tell him what the cartoons were all about, which is what I did.  And what, exactly, is the “hate speech” to what Trudeau refers? Is it the making fun of the doctrine of Islam? Does he know that even after the savage slaughter of its writers and artists, Charlie Hebdo refused to lash out against Muslims?

Finally, I’m not sure what he means by “free speech. . . becomes its own kind of fanaticism.”  Really, what is the difference between drawing Mohamed in a way that makes fun of the tenets of Islam (as did the Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoonists) and depicting Dan Quayle as a feather to make fun of his dimwittedness?

I’ve been a huge admirer of Trudeau (I have an autographed copy of his famous “creationist strip” in my office), but this time he’s gone badly wrong. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has no idea what Charlie Hebdo was all about, but Trudeau is savvy and, I’d think, would try to find out more about the magazine before he slams it. By characterizing Charlie Hebdo as an organ of “hate speech” he implicitly justifies those who try to silence it.

120323_gary_trudeau_ap_328
Garry Trudeau

Caturday felid trifecta: Kitten learns how to drink, Japanese company keeps cats in the workplace to improve morale and productivity, and fusses with lions

April 11, 2015 • 9:15 am

Today we have another three items for you early-morning ailurophiles. First, a kitten apparently learns to drink by watching its mother. There’s one moment here where the mother drinks, as cats sometimes do, by dipping its paw into the water and licking the paw. You can see the kitten tentatively imitate that action.

*******

From Oddity Central, we hear of the greatest innovation in bureaucracy ever. Cats in the workplace! (I have to admit that I have had resident cat in my lab from time to time.) The Japanese do so love their cats: they may be the world’s greatest ailurophiles, though the Russians give them a run for their money.

In a cramped city like Tokyo, where owning a pet is a luxury and most apartments have strict no-pets policies, it’s hard for cat lovers to spend quality time with their favorite animals. In response, cat cafés have cropped up all over the city, where people get to sip delicious beverages while petting a purring kitty. But even that doesn’t come close to having a cat in your own home, because the time spent with the furry creatures is quite limited.

That’s why a Japanese company has come up with a great idea to get its employees to interact with pets more often – a cat-populated workplace! The offices of Ferray Corporation, an internet solutions business, is filled with nine lovable rescued cats that are allowed to roam freely all through the day. The cats are so adorable that employees of Ferray are reporting considerably lowered stress levels.

office-cats2-550x412

Of course,letting cats run free in a workplace can have unexpected consequences, and the Ferray office is no exception. The felines are regularly up to no good – they switch off computers, chew on LAN cables, scratch the walls, tear up papers, and mess up code by walking on keyboards. And when clients visit the premises, the purring felines have the bad habit of going through their bags or sleeping on meeting tables.

office-cats3

What a great place to work!

Not only does the company have nine cats, but every single day is Bring Your Pet to Work Day. Employees are encouraged to bring their own pets into the office. And if they don’t have a pet of their own, the company actually offers a 5,000 yen ($42) per month ‘cat bonus’ to anyone who is willing to adopt a cat.

office-cats5

More on this and other cat-loving companies. Note especially their enlightened hiring practice (my emphasis):

Interestingly, Ferray isn’t the only office in Tokyo with bizarre pet policies. Mars Japan Limited, a company that specializes in pet supplies, also encourages employees to bring their pets to work. It also gives benefits such as time off, condolence pay and covering funeral costs in case of the unfortunate death of a pet.

Ferray actually admits that the most important quality that they look for in job candidates is a love of cats! Of course, they ask for basic skills and experience too, but if you don’t love animals, you have little chance of getting hired.

Reader Sameer, who sent me this item, also added this:

The Japanese company mentioned in the story, Ferray Corporation also has a Twitter account where they post photos and videos of their feline colleagues.

Here are two pictures from that Twi**er account. Perhaps Japanese-speaking readers can give us translations:

Screen Shot 2015-04-11 at 8.49.03 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-11 at 8.49.43 AM

*******

Finally, from J. Hawk Daily, we have a lovely video of a man having his morning fusses with a young rescue lion. I hope to do something like this in the next year, though perhaps with a younger specimen!

 

Philomena returns!

April 11, 2015 • 8:29 am

We interrupt today’s episode of “Readers’ Wildlife Photos” for a special comedy interlude. Our regular program will return tomorrow.

This will probably interest only those readers who are either enamored of Philomena Cunk (Diane Morgan) or those who follow UK politics, but because the show features the Official Website Sweetheart™, I’ll put it up anyway. It’s last night’s version of “Have I got News For Uou,” a BBC comedy show hosted on this occasion by Daniel Radcliffe.

Philomena, as usual on these multiple-comedian shows, remains rather quiet; I think she’s shy or reticent. As Matthew (who saw the show) commented, “She (and Armando Ianucci, who was the other guest) were pretty quiet to be honest. But she had some good gags and also knew some of the answers to the topical questions.” I have to say that I don’t understand nearly 95% of the humor, as it’s based on UK events, and I’m a parochial Yank.

See for yourself:

Matthew Cobb sent me a sample of the encomiums on Morgan’s twi**er feed. Best post: when someone asks her if she’s on as herself or Philomena Cunk, and Morgan replies, “Myself. But there’s hardly much difference.”

What’s not to like? She had me at “mohn-keh,” and she can drink four Sambucas and seven gin and tonics.

Philomena twi**ter

Saturday: Hili dialogue

April 11, 2015 • 4:37 am

The Ceiling CatMobile is finally repaired, and I am off this morning at 5:15 a.m. to reclaim my 15-year-old car (the shop opens at 6 a.m.) Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili wants to do SCIENCE! I suspect she’s studying the escape behavior of voles and mice.

Hili: Science is curiosity, stubbornness and regularity.
A: So what are you reasearching?
Hili: I don’t know yet.

P1020500

In Polish:

Hili: Nauka to ciekawość, upór i systematyczność.
Ja: A co badasz?
Hili: Jeszcze nie wiem.

 

Extremely kind people save a juvenile squirrel in a pickle

April 10, 2015 • 3:45 pm

Just like the evening news, we here at WEIT like to end the week on an upnote. So here’s our equivalent of NBC’s “Making A Difference.”

It’s the rescue of a juvenile squirrel by the British organization Wildlife Aid, which Wikipedia characterizes as “a charity dedicated to the rescue, care and rehabilitation of sick, injured and orphaned animals.” The YouTube notes:

Lucy (our vet nurse) had to rescue her favourite animal, a very badly stuck squirrel! The poor chap tried to bite through a metallic bird feeder to get some tasty peanuts. He ended up stuck, mouth wide open and no snacks! After a careful “surgery” on the bird feeder, the squirrel was freed from this evil food store! We only kept him a couple of hours at the hospital, before releasing him in the garden where he was found… hoping he learned his lesson!

What a great job by Lucy!

h/t: Heather Hastie, Amy Carparelli

Our donation to Doctors Without Borders

April 10, 2015 • 2:45 pm

After selling the Fancy Book and realizing over $10K from that, and with artist Kelly Houle donating her profits from the sale of her painted book cover (and a percentage of her profits from the Darwin’s orchid print), we have finally received the money from the buyers and donated it to Doctors Without Borders.  I know readers will trust us that the money indeed went to charity, but I wanted to put up the donation receipt just for the record.

Kelly put up the auction pages, ran the auction, received the money, sent off the goods, and made the final donation, for which I am immensely grateful. And here’s what DwB got (we had to give $400 to PayPal for the transaction, an execrable action on their part given that it was a charity auction, and there was also a fee for the registered mail to send the book to the winner). It’s $10,357.97.

Payoff

Despite the mercenary grasping of PayPal, that’s still a lot of dough. I think I’ll do it again with Faith versus Fact, and will begin collecting signatures on the first edition when the book comes out on May 19. Kelly has kindly volunteered to illuminate and illustrate the book again, so look for another auction in a couple of years!

The Spectator: Christianity is the foundation of “our” civilization

April 10, 2015 • 1:17 pm

Religious rump-osculation among anglophones isn’t limited to Americans. For a prime example from the other side of the pond, see the new piece by Michael Gove, a British conservative MP, in The Spectator: “Why I’m proud to be a Christian (and Jeremy Paxman should be ashamed)“. (The subtitle is “Despite a tidal wave of prejudice and negativity, faith remains the foundation of our civilisation.”)

Gove’s article can be seen only as a defense against the waning tide of religion in Britain, or as the defensive snarl of a fatally trapped animal. He begins by excoriating Paxman (an ascerbic BBC newsman and interviewer) for making fun of Christianity:

Was it true, Jeremy inquired [of Tony Blair], that he had prayed together with his fellow Christian George W. Bush?

The question was asked in a tone of Old Malvernian hauteur which implied that spending time in religious contemplation was clearly deviant behaviour of the most disgusting kind. Jeremy seemed to be suggesting that it would probably be less scandalous if we discovered the two men had sought relief from the pressures of high office by smoking crack together.

Praying? What kind of people are you?

Well, the kind of people who built our civilisation, founded our democracies, developed our modern ideas of rights and justice, ended slavery, established universal education and who are, even as I write, in the forefront of the fight against poverty, prejudice and ignorance. In a word, Christians.

But to call yourself a Christian in contemporary Britain is to invite pity, condescension or cool dismissal. In a culture that prizes sophistication, non-judgmentalism, irony and detachment, it is to declare yourself intolerant, naive, superstitious and backward.

And yes, it sort of is. It certainly brands you as someone who is superstitious (albeit not necessarily intolerant: after all, this is the UK!), and somewhat backwards in at least what you believe to be true. And of course Christians built a lot of British civilization because everybody was a Christian for the last millennium and a half.  You can’t give Christianity any more credit for that than you can racism, for most of the people who built “our” civilization were racists, classists, and sexists.

Gove then goes on, citing Francis Spufford (see here for my critiques of that man) to defend Christianity, asserting that not all Christians believe in creationism, the afterlife, and “fairly tales.”  But a surprising number of them do, at least if you believe Julian Baggini’s two surveys of churchgoers whose results appeared in the Guardian (see here for some data). Yes, Spufford and Gove may both adhere to Sophisticated Theology™, but the data show that they’re not the rule but the exception. By and large, Christians, including British Christians, do believe in fairy tales.

He then goes on, and I’ll finish here, with the old canard that because Christianity supposedly inspires acts of charity, it is a good thing regardless of its truth, an argument that reader Sastra calls “The Little People Argument” and that Dan Dennett calls “Belief in Belief”

The contrast between the Christianity I see our culture belittle nightly, and the Christianity I see our country benefit from daily, could not be greater.

The reality of Christian mission in today’s churches is a story of thousands of quiet kindnesses. In many of our most disadvantaged communities it is the churches that provide warmth, food, friendship and support for individuals who have fallen on the worst of times. The homeless, those in the grip of alcoholism or drug addiction, individuals with undiagnosed mental health problems and those overwhelmed by multiple crises are all helped — in innumerable ways — by Christians.

Churches provide debt counselling, marriage guidance, childcare, English language lessons, after-school clubs, food banks, emergency accommodation and, sometimes most importantly of all, someone to listen. The lives of most clergy and the thoughts of most churchgoers are not occupied with agonising over sexual morality but with helping others in practical ways — in proving their commitment to Christ through service to others.

That may be so, but right over the North Sea, the countries of Scandinavia and northern Europe have all that, and more. Those countries benefit not from Christianity, but from socialism and secular morality. In other words, you can have the good stuff without the fairy tales? To the West, Ireland, still ridden with Catholicism, prohibits most abortions, still has anti-blasphemy laws on the books, and terrifies its children with threats of hell. Oh, and up North the Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other, but of course that’s all in the past.

The question is this: does Gove believe that the truth claims of Christianity—the existence of Jesus as savior and his resurrection—are true? Does he even care? Or does he think it doesn’t matter so long as a faulty foundation supports a useful superstructure? Apparently so:

Relativism is the orthodoxy of our age. Asserting that any one set of beliefs is more deserving of respect than any other is a sin against the Holy Spirit of Non–Judgmentalism. And proclaiming your adherence to the faith which generations of dead white males used to cow and coerce others is particularly problematic. You stand in the tradition of the Inquisition, the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuits who made South America safe for colonisation, the missionaries who accompanied the imperial exploiters into Africa, the Christian Brothers who presided over forced adoption and the televangelists who keep America safe for capitalism.

But genuine Christian faith — far from making any individual more invincibly convinced of their own righteousness — makes us realise just how flawed and fallible we all are. I am selfish, lazy, greedy, hypocritical, confused, self-deceiving, impatient and weak. And that’s just on a good day. As the Book of Common Prayer puts it, ‘We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts…And there is no health in us.’ [JAC: As Hitchens used to say, “Christianity tells us we are born sick and commanded to be well.”]

Christianity helps us recognise and confront those weaknesses with a resolution — albeit imperfect and fragile — to do better. But more importantly, it encourages us to feel a sense of empathy rather than superiority towards others because we recognise that we are as guilty of selfishness and open to temptation as anyone.

Well, first let’s see Gove’s evidence that Christians really do perform more good acts in Britain than do non-Christians or secularists. What he presents in his piece is simply a string of assertions without evidential support. Absent that data, I’m not prepared to accept Gove’s argument. And even if it were true, the other countries of Europe show that one can have societies healthier than that of the UK, all without the superstition.

And of course Gove conspicuously leaves the U.S. out of his argument.

Grant, Lee, and Parker

April 10, 2015 • 1:12 pm

by Greg Mayer

Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the surrender to General Ulysses Grant by General Robert E. Lee of the Army of Northern Virginia. Although some Confederate forces did not surrender for a few more weeks, Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Virginia, effectively ended the American Civil War.

There have been various commemorations of the Civil War’s sesquicentennial, including events and publications by the National Park Service, and a four year long series of articles by the New York Times, Disunion, which followed the war on a chronological basis. I think this attention has had very salutary and clarifying effects, especially the republication of the secession ordinances passed by the legislatures of the Confederate states. Although there is rich historical nuance and context in the development of regional differences and antagonism in ante bellum America, the ordinances make plain the cause of the war. As Apu put it, “Slavery it is, sir.

I had noticed some years ago that in many photographs of Grant’s staff, one of his officers was an American Indian. I looked into this, and found that he was a Seneca from upstate New York: Ely Samuel Parker (Seneca: Hasanowanda).

Grant and his staff, Parker sitting at left.
Grant and his staff, Ely S. Parker sitting at far right.

Parker, a lawyer, engineer, and sachem, met Grant before the war in Galena, Illinois, where Parker was working as an engineer for the U.S. Treasury Department. When war broke out, Parker sought to join the Army, but his obligations to the Treasury, and prejudice against Indians, delayed his joining until 1863, when he was commissioned as a captain of engineers. He soon found his way to his old friend Grant’s staff, with whom he served till the end of the war, and later in Grant’s presidential administration. At Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomattox, it was Parker who wrote up the formal copy of the surrender terms that was signed by Grant and Lee.

Grant, lee, and Parker at Appomattox, April 10, 1865.
Grant, Lee, and Parker at Appomattox, April 9, 1865.

In the picture above, the illustrator Tom Lovell puts Parker standing at the right (with George Armstrong Custer standing behind him, and, I think, Phil Sheridan at the far left of the group of Union officers!). More contemporary images usually show Parker seated. Parker’s own account of his meeting with Lee is classic. Grant introduced Lee to his officers, coming in due course to Parker. Parker later wrote (A.C. Parker, 1919, p. 133):

After Lee had stared at me for a moment, he extended his hand and said, “I am glad to see one real American here.” I shook his hand and said, “We are all Americans.”

Ely Samuel Parker.
Ely Samuel Parker (1828-1895). Portrait by Matthew Brady.

___________________________________________________

Parker, A.C. 1919. Last Grand Sachem of the Iroquois and General Grant’s Military Secretary. Buffalo Historical Society, Buffalo, New York. (online)

Update. I should have posted this yesterday! The signing in the parlor occurred on April 9th. Lee and Grant met again on the 10th, and the formal ceremony of surrender was on April 12th, but the iconic meeting depicted in myriad illustrations, and the cessation of fighting, occurred on the 9th. Mea culpa!