Ox and Rat Race

The Economist did the following little thingy today:

Putting a rat in the White House
WITH a week to go and a poll lead of eight percentage points, by most measures Barack Obama is comfortably ahead in the presidential race in America. John McCain, however, could take heart from a less conventional predictor: his Chinese zodiac symbol. Mr McCain was born in the year of the rat, as were five presidents, including George Washington and Jimmy Carter. Pigs and snakes have been equally successful at getting to the top job. By contrast Mr Obama has been preceded by only three oxes, and one of those only made it thanks to the resignation of a rat. (The Economist)


**********************************************************

John McCain might also be heartened by the story of how the Year of the Rat came to be first in the 12-year cycle:

The Emperor of Heaven decided to create a calendar based on a race between all of the animals across a river. The cat and rat, good friends but not very good swimmers, negotiated a ride on the back of the kindly ox. Midway through, the rat pushed the cat into the water, instigating the animosity between the animals today. As the ox approached the bank, the rat ran and jumped off of the ox's head to win the race and have the first year of the zodiac named after him. The Year of the Ox comes second.

(That's how I remember it anyway.)

It might also be noted that 2008 is the Year of the Rat, and a lucky year - I think - for those who share the sign.

John McCain might need such luck.

It makes foreboding divination for Barack Obama, though, for whom the riverbank is in sight...

On maintaining a blog

Due to changes in my personal situation, I have neglected my blog.

It's not that there has been nothing to write about. The movie "Fitna" by Geert Wilders - who thinks the Koran should be banned in the Netherlands and compares Islam to Nazi fascism - came out. There were protests from Muslims and Danish editor Flemming Rose unnecessarily defended the film. Then there is the US presidential race in which Obama lost a major contest in my native Pennsylvania. I have been talking with both Chinese and Tibetans as they have faced a major crisis in their shared history - events that are more complex than they are often portrayed in the West. These are all blog-worthy subjects.

But the circumstances that had kept my blog going until about the end of March have been disturbed. I moved from Japan to New York into a less stable situation. More of my time must be dedicated to securing a steady income and there is less mental room for crafting my thoughts in blog form.

Should a blog try to remain focused? Is it worth writing about all my day to day worries and about what I had for breakfast? I had been trying to keep it on a certain level. I started my blog to address a certain issue, specifically because I felt that the blogosphere was unbalanced in its treatment of it (I am talking about the Danish Muhammad cartoon thing, which was my MA thesis topic). I branched out into other topics such as the US elections, but generally kept it political. Some have suggested that I include more about culture and language - topics that sound a little wishy-washy to me, but that I must admit I like.

Flemming Rose and Osama Bin Laden

It seems strange to argue that people should not be killed for speaking their minds. It is strange because this is an established point that does not need to be argued. But some are making this argument in response to terrorist threats.

The argument is not with terrorists themselves, though, because terrorists are presumably beyond the reach of ideological debate. So what is its purpose? And, perhaps more importantly, what are its consequences?

These are questions that a critically thinking public should have asked when European newspapers rallied around 'free speech' and began republishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in 2006, incensing the Muslim world. But instead, a misguided debate about 'free speech' and 'religious sensitivity' emerged and continues today.

A key element of this argument is presenting 'freedom' or 'free speech' as in danger. These values, being perhaps the most central to Western society and even an individual's identity, elicit strong emotions in Westerners. They may be similar to the emotions that Muslims experience when the central symbol of Islamic society and identity was attacked by Western media and society at large. This comparison may help Westerners to consider the reactions of Muslims more objectively.

In both cases, it became difficult to think things through rationally. A threat to such basic elements of identity elicits fear. This should be recognized as dangerous. In the volatile circumstances that breed terrorism, war and social tension, it is precisely at junctures such as those faced in 2006 as well as today that we must be most careful.

Recently, Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who is behind the publications of caricatures of Muhammad that caused an uproar in 2006, responded to a tape recording of Osama Bin Laden, the man who is supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks and whose name is synonymous with "terrorism." They are voices engaging one another on fiercely antagonistic ideological grounds in a time when their words have real consequence.

There is one point that they appear to agree on. Each seems convinced that the best way to address the tension between Islam and the West is through head-on confrontation.

Mr. Rose presents himself as if he is speaking for the West and challenging the ideology of "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or something. But I wish he would stop.

My neighborhood: ghost town

Dangerous word games

Flemming Rose is the Danish editor who commissioned the Muhammad cartoons that caused an international crisis in 2006

Flemming Rose has problems with certain words. Recently it was Islamophobia. In the past it was multiculturalism and cultural-relativity. He questions the validity of these terms and the concepts that underpin them.

He also has a penchant for certain words. He uses words like politically-correct and victimology with all the legitimacy he can muster.

The above terms that he decries are those used by his ideological opponents. The terms he uses, describe them. So far, he has left tolerance and diversity alone. And although he has avoided a term for his own position, I can think of a few.

What is interesting is that he and people who sympathize with his viewpoint have begun to use words like multiculturalism and cultural-relativity pejoratively. This, to me anyway, is mind-boggling. Where I am from, to openly criticize and oppose diversity falls into the realm of racism and is not tolerated by wider society. (An example is a recent article entitled, "Multiculturalism Kills; Cartoons Don't."*)

But I am not from Denmark. The average Dane seems to me to be something of a victim. Many seem baffled that their quiet benevolent country could be demonized and subject to boycotts, threats, and riots. They have been put on the defensive.

Unfortunately, it seems that many have positioned themselves in opposition to "Islam." Here, the quotes are intended to denote that, as an object of fear, Islam has become an abstract concept that often encompasses Muslims. Anyway, it is much more than "a set of ideas" as Mr. Rose claims. Of course, this fear and prejudice is widespread throughout the West.

Check my comment about Islamophobia on Flemming Rose's blog.