Both episodes were fairly entertaining and I enjoyed them. But, it would seem to me that there are two separate issues here and they are being freely conflated with one another.

The first is the issue of the depiction of Muhammad. I do not think that this is the core one. The backlash against the Danish cartoonist a few years ago is commonly referenced, but there is a wide disparity between these two events. Westergaard was essentially picking on a fairly weak minority just to prove he could. In other words, while it is rather impolite to depict Muhammad I think the real issue was the rather unprovoked attack on an almost defenseless minority group that is commonly mistreated. In the case of South Park, things are a bit different. The South Park guys were rather reverential when it comes to Muhmmad, in fact they made a point of it. It was fairly clear that they were attacking Viacom and other television companies, not Muslims. So the response was fairly weak from Muslims, but strong from Viacom.

So, I think the more important issue is how Comedy Central handled it and then how the media presented the issue. In my view, Comedy Central’s reaction was almost a back handed attack on, not only the South Park guys, but the greater Muslim community. It stokes fears that Muslims are gaining political influence through terror, rather than the traditional routes, which are of course mostly blocked to them. Furthermore as the media searched for a radical group that was upset, they found one and turned a tiny web based group (that did not even make a real threat) and turned them into a representation of the extremist Muslim community (which in and of itself was a caricature) and in some cases the greater Muslim community. This isn’t a good sign.

     Well more troops are technically a good thing, but they won't lead to any sort of lasting gains if the whole strategy doesn't change.  The government in Kabul has extremely limited resources and no real military.  The various military groups that do exist within Afghanistan are lead by the same people who were in power in 1993.  They are the same exact people (with a couple omissions) who misgoverned the region so poorly that they made the Taleban seem reasonable and just.  Essentially the grand strategy in Afghanistan has been an absolute disaster and Najibullah's government has basically been recreated.  This is very nearly as bad as Taleban rule.  
     I guess the best one can hope for is economic stabalization with an increased troop presence, but with the situation across the border in Pakistan, I do not know how that would work.  

     By the way, as far as leaders to depose, the Afghan situation is much worse than Iraq.  Afghanistan had/has no real centralized government.  Even under Daoud Khan's reign much of the state apparatus was illusionary.  What it does have now are a number of "warlords."  The United States refused to depose these individuals (many of whom, had been supported by US/Pakistani/Saudi/Chinese aid in the past) and thus they continue to rule.  Their rule is symbolically and physically associated with the break down and fragmentation of the country and the creation of the mind blowing level of human suffering that have existed in the region for decades.

    Yea its been an interesting experience, but Chicago looks like its going to be perfect for me.  I'm very interested (obsessed maybe?  depends on who you ask) in the early Islamic period through to the tenth century.  So there aren't many places in America that offer much in the way of organized programs on that subject.  But Chicago has Fred Donner and a number of other people in their NELC and History departments.  But yea, I don't plan on getting involved in their economics department, but as far as history goes their politics suit me fine.  (not so much in the economics..)  But yea if you want to talk more about the grad school process just pm me your aim or whatever. 

    She wrote a fascinating book on the Sassanian/conquest periods.  (I originally looked her up because she was a student of Richard Bulliet, who I am very much fond of)  While I don't agree with everything she says in it, over the course of 500 pages she makes hundreds of compelling arguments.  Almost every page made me stand up and reassess the whole situation. (literally stand up, took me forever to finish the book heh)  I've never had an intellectual experience like that and if I had ended up at OSU's grad program she would have been a big part of it.  But yea, I met her when she spoke at my old school and she was a huge help to me in orienting myself for the grad school application process.  (which is really no fun by the way)

yeah wasn't mousavi tied to getting a bunch of people killed or something like that?

What kind of political leader would he be if he wasn't?


    Remember, there has never been very much unity among the clerical elites.  As the ideologies of the 79 revolution worked themselves out (and to a certain extent this is a continuing process) there was almost constant infighting.  Khomeini had to fight, kill, and strangely have demoted several prominent clerics before his position really solidified itself.  Khomeini was advocating a rather radical departure from the traditional values of Qom and Najaf and many of the clerics that eventually joined him, did so reluctantly.  Then again the ideological aspects of the revolution could be seen as a clerical response to their weakening role in society.  In other words, it's very possible that their role will soon be relegated to background.  Cannot say whether any of this is good or bad at the moment...

   By the way Washcycle, was Dr. Pourshariati still on sabbatical through the spring semester?  If you still haven't met her, you should get to know her.  I don't know what kind of teacher she is, but she has an absolutely brilliant mind.

    My initial reaction to reading Hundley's post, even after actually reading it, was to daydream for several minutes on how awesome it would be if Hundley ran GW.  At least it thats how the daydream began anyway...  It got a little weird from there, it's best if I don't get into it..

    I don't know the Republican party is in such a weird place right now.  I don't know if it's too useful to try and figure out where they are going to be in 2012, not yet anyway.  But I would have to think that Huckabee is as good a guess as anyone.

    In general, I like the way Obama has handled the situation.  But, the American presidency has been avenue of easy and pretty much free support for Ahmedinezhad he cannot turn away from it now, just because the president has changed, heh.  Moreover, the CIA is probably involved at some level and even if they aren’t it would be extremely easy to convince most people that they are; for Ahmedinezhad’s purposes, that perception is more important. 

 .به دانشگاۀ رتگرس و دانشگاۀ نیو جرسی وکمی دانشگاۀ پرینستن درس خوانده ام
(it was a weird inter-university program that turned out to be awesome, yea I very much considered Ohio State for grad school, but it fell through on the money end of things and now I’m headed to the University of Chicago) 

.کمی بلد باشم. حتما فارسیم از عربیم بهتر است

    Yea thats kind of interesting, (could easily get much more interesting in the coming weeks) but it's probably just some more political maneuvering.  Everyone is always trying to get some sort of advantage, especially if there are going to be some realignments in the Islamic Republic. 

    Yea, I'm not going to translate anything like that today.  It just depresses me. (its a lot of work, just to get depressed)  If I want to translate something I will stick to Bal'ami or Sa'di or something like that.  (at least for today)

    Yea thats pretty crazy, but not totally unexpected.  Mousavi has put himself out there and I would not be surprised if he is sacrificed in the making of a deal.  (of course, he could be "rehabilitated"  or  he could be being held "hostage,"  either way, the protesters will not be consulted in any meaningful way)

    You could argue that the protesters themselves lack direction and specific goals, (its a rather sizable chunk of the "urban" population, one would expect diffuse and vague views from such a large group) but the leaders behind the scenes seem to be aiming for more subtle results.  Many of the leaders are powerful men in their own right and have their own bases to challenge Khameni from.  Rafsanjani in particular is very wealthy, very well connected, and has a lot at stake, although I assume his immediate goals are to be found in unspoken arrangements.  (Mousavi is harder to gauge, but in many ways less important to the current situation, at least in my own, somewhat clouded, view)

    I have actually been quite surprised at the restraint shown by the government.  Granted, the news has been somewhat difficult to interpret, but interesting nonetheless. (somewhat reminiscent of the Shah's reaction to mass protests, of course with a completely different military situation)  Does it imply that Khameni (and his supporters) believe that the protesters are a threat, or just the opposite?  Furthermore it most assuredly means that there has been a great deal of dealing behind the scenes.  (in other words, everything has not been just decided, like Khameni wants everyone to believe)  In my view, the protests are somewhat insignifigant. (from an immediate political perspective)  What I really want to know is Rafsanjani's angle, since he appears to be the key man in all of this. 

    Yea, this group is unlikely to begin a full scale revolution.  In effect, the current protests seem to be more symptoms of a power struggle within the Islamic Republic itself rather than an expression of revolutionary feelings.  That being said, there are other groups in Iran that have those capabilities, but I don't think the results would be too favorable for Iran.  Although, I do not know how the situation has changed since the election, as I have been cutoff from my sources of information. (feel kind of helpless)

Well you know what they say. Bad things happen to bad people.

Speaking of bad people, I would like to announce my candidacy for the worst human being on Gaming world award.  Thank you for your time.


(Worst of all, no one says that.  I mean the implications are just too problematic, and it usually deters anyone who gives even half a thought to their words.  Anyway, I have been checking this thread fifty times a day hoping for some good news, maybe tomorrow...)

While it is nice to see people that actually care about medieval history, (outside of Europe) the roots of the current conflict do not go back that far, and it requires a vast oversimplification to come to the conclusion that they do.  Furthermore, going back thousands of years the region has experienced its fair share of long periods of peace and of war, not particularly exemplary when compared to regions of a similar background.  The people involved may use history to support the present situation and attempt to create a future, but even that historical view is a fairly modern construct. 

I got the sense that he was somehow joking, and just ignored my confusion as to the purpose of the joke.  Also, although it's clearly an archaic spelling, I do not see "moslem" as being any more "inaccurate" than "Muslim." (albeit, possibly more offensive)  Because of crazy pronunciation rules in English, neither effectively conveys مسلم in standard Arabic, although both could with some imagination.

As for the situation in Gaza, I am really not sure what to think right now.  In the US, the news is filtered into meaningless nonsense, so it is too soon for me.  But, my first, and uneducated, impression is that rocket attacks originating from a particular region are no excuse for the wholesale slaughter that appears to be in progress.  Of course, the rockets are only the immediate spark.. and the rockets are not without reasons as well..

    He makes some interesting points, but he back loads the crazy ( I assume quite purposely. )  This is hardly a new spin though, as this topic has been discussed in one way or another all over the place, one just has to dig a little.  The nomadic/sedentary dichotomy is an important topic for a lot of historians particularly in the late medieval period. 

    However, I think he is over simplifying the nomadic elements.  Despite making many caveats in order to show how complex he sees them, he still has no problem in creating ridiculously superficial generalizations.  I am not going to get too much into my thoughts as I have a tendency to ramble, but the civilization builders aren’t the only ones that take.  Furthermore tribal governments have their own flaws, and their own godlike tendencies.  The problem becomes where you draw the line between the two sides.  If he just suddenly declares that the nomadic elements are no longer nomadic because they exhibit these “sedentary” proclivities then I’m not sure his argument is all that sound.  Still it was a pretty interesting read and before he gets into the politics of things it was pretty good.

I do not have any suggestions really, but I'm mildly curious about what you mean by Muslim name.  I mean, do you mean a name thats specifically Islamic in connotation like Hasan or Muhammad or Ali, or something, or do you mean something, I don't know, non Western?  I mean you could go all out with a Muslim Arabic name, but that might be a little silly depending on the situation. 

Yea, pretty much.  But I do not think the ice cream truck business has to many years left in it, so, umm, buy your own ice cream.