Maverick News Media MNM

And now for something completely different!

I am not really fit to have an opinion on fashion, let alone criticize the sartorial choices of others. My only advice would be: "If you can't afford designer clothes, wear black." Luckily, black goes very well with my colours. Apart from that, fashionistas can bite me!

But I will explode if I don't say something about Michelle Obama's sartorial choices. That is not because I find the hype about dressing matters worth adding to, but because the hype about the Obamas, who seemingly can't do wrong in the eyes of the world (at least of my part of the world) creeps me out. Here we have examples from the gutter-, as well as from the "quality" media.

Michelle Obama is a great looking woman, or at least she would be wouldn't her resentful nature be written all over her face. At almost six foot, slim and trim, with great legs and arms and a curved figure -- far from the clothes rack appearance of most "supermodels", one should think she couldn't do much wrong in the sartorial field, yet she goes from bad to worse to the sycophantic acclaim of the world.

At her husband's inauguration she wore a cat-sick-yellow (widely described as "golden") thing with ugly texture and an even more ugly meant-to-be "decorative" neckline, together with cow-pat green, voluminous leather gloves.

At the inauguration ball she wore a dress that looked like a wedding dress for a teenage- or early twenty-ish bride from one of the cheaper off-the-rack lines.

To be realistic, that was only what we could expect. I mean... look at the dresses in the pictures below. The first one resembles a Haloween-horror costume, the second would be alright, albeit a bit too tight, weren't it for the colour that would suit hardly any woman's skin tone, and the purple and black colouring of the third, together with the cheap-looking accessories, is a mess as well.

The Obamas are not the only megalomaniac phonies who like to be compared with the Kennedys. The futility of the claim is obvious.

(Wasn't Jackie heavily pregnant at her husband's inauguration?)

To prove our lack of political bias, here is Laura Bush at the same occasion. Nobody has ever accused her of being well dressed, but THAT even beats Michelle Obama's blunders by several lengths.

Hillary at her husband's second inauguration ball: Perfect! She must have a whole staff of extremely competent advisers. Now she is a political heavy-weight herself, she is one of the few female politicians, maybe the only one in the higher echelons of that class, who has escaped the trap of appearing either as butch or simpering. I just wish she would just sometimes wear a skirt.

Mamie Eisenhower in her inaugural ball gown: Timeless chic! I am glad that this is a black-and-white photo, though, because I have a hunch that the dress was in that awful pink she so loved.

Nancy Reagan: Very nice -- for a woman thirty years younger. It is fair to assume that this influenced Hillary's above choice of an inaugural ball gown.

But back to the Obamas. I seem to remember that Jackie Kennedy was much criticized for her choice of French over American designers, when all the world is gushing ecstatically now over Michelle Obama's third-world chic. To suppress the urge to make an -- aggressive -- statement at any possible, and impossible, occasion would do her appearance a world of good.

Cross posted at The Evil Style Queen!

Some say that Roberts botched it, some say Obama. One thing is sure: It was an unusual swearing-in:

Roberts: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
Obama: I am.
Roberts: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
Obama: I, Barack…
Roberts: … do solemnly swear…
Obama: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
Roberts: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
Obama: … that I will execute…
Roberts: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
Obama: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
Roberts: … and will to the best of my ability…
Obama: … and will to the best of my ability…
Roberts: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Roberts: So help you God?
Obama: So help me God.
Roberts: Congratulations, Mr. President.

My friend Gudrun Eussner, who owns one of the most serious and competent Islam-critical German-language websites, has a theory, a theory that may appear far-fetched to many, but here it is anyway: She says Obama stuttered because he intended to swear as "Barack Obama" and not as "Barack Hussein Obama". Thus, his Muslim part wouldn't have been included in the oath and set the Muslim Obama free to do what he has to do. "Hussein Obama" didn't, after all, swear the oath.

Judge Roberts, so Gudrun thinks, (Gudrun holds a doctorate in political sciences. Now retired, she used to work for many years for NGOs in the Middle East and is well versed in the ways of taqqiya...) has unmasked him and Obama has shown in front of millions of viewers what he is.

Roberts is the man of whom Senator Obama said:

...when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

Should Gudrun be right, Roberts has used his formidable skills here on behalf of a desperate attempt to unmask a dangerous fraudster.

But then, maybe Judge Roberts has never heard of taqqiya and really just fouled it up.

We will, I am afraid, see. Plenty of video clips online to get an own impression.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles!

An interesting point was made at VFR. Lawrence Auster asked:

Was Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III's safe landing of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River an exceptional accomplishment, even a miracle, as many believe, or, as a correspondent has put it, the outcome that would be expected of a typical, experienced airline pilot? To answer the question, we need to strip the situation down to its essentials, leaving only the water landing itself. That is, we need to eliminate the initial shock experienced by the flight crew when the flock of Canadian geese collided with the plane and destroyed the engines; eliminate the uncertainty about whether to turn back to La Guardia; eliminate the pilot's sighting of Teterboro airport in New Jersey and the discussion about whether to try to land there; eliminate the plane's curve from a northern to an eastern to a southerly course to head down the Hudson; and eliminate the challenge of keeping the engineless plane aloft long enough to maneuver it over the Hudson.

Once we've gotten rid of all those factors, we're left with this "pure" scenario: An airliner has just taken off and climbed to 3,000 feet and both its engines go out. It has several miles of a mile-wide, relatively calm river in front of it. Under those circumstances, what kind of landing would be expected? Would the smooth landing that Capt. Sullenberger achieved, with the plane left floating intact on the water, be the expected norm, or would it be very unusual?

Auster regards

...the talk about "heroism" in this and so many other cases as the hysteria of the dopey and lazy press.

Although there is a lot of merit in this opinion, I think it is just one angle from which one can see the remarkable event on the Hudson.

I do not think that one should strip the immediate understanding of the situation in a shock situation and the following lightning quick decisionmaking from the event. It was as important as the landing itself which was, indeed, "only" what can be expected from a fully trained pilot of that calibre. Still, Sullenberger was not a hero. Heroism needs, so I think, some ethical component which is lacking here. But then, to go back and search the sinking aircraft again and again to make sure that nobody was left behind has an element of heroism. John Maynard, and those for whom that fictitious character stands, are heroes. The British fighter pilot who crash landed his jet in an open field when he could have saved himself by the ejection seat at the peril of having the abandoned jet crashing into a village was a hero. That happened about 40 years ago in Eastern Westphalia and I have never forgotten it, although there was only a minor notice in our regional newspaper.

To me this is another instance of the somewhat natural reaction to a feminized world of mediocrity, self-centeredness, bitching and complaining, where a difficult job superbly performed must appear as heroism. What a "pilotesse" suffering from PMS or post-menopausal complaints would have done in Sullenberger's place I hate to think. We are so starved of heroes that any politically correct, widely accepted instance remotely touching heroism will trigger off a deluge of admiration.

An interesting bit of insight into the mind of one from that remarkable class of men gives the interviewwith Jürgen Vietor, the first officer of the legendary flight LH 181. In 1977, during the "German Autumn", after the cold-blooded murder of his captain by Arab terrorists at Aden, Yemen, the young first officer (like Sullenberger a former military pilot) had to fly the 737, which had just undergone a gruelling emergency landing, solo to land safely at Mogadishu, Somalia, an airport, that had before, literally and metaphorically, not been on his, a Boeing 737 pilot's, map. Vietor is adamant that he is no hero. Maybe not, but anyway, I strongly oppose his definition of what makes a hero. HERE is the interview.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon UN Director-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze UNHRC President Martin I. Uhomoibhi; UNHCHR Nevanethem Pillay UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura

International Commemoration Day: Victims of the Holocaust: 27 January 2009

Your Excellencies,

As reported by Reuters from Teheran on Sunday, two days ago (18 January 2008: 16:53): A student-linked Iranian publisher plans to launch English – and Arabic – language versions of a book of caricatures and satirical writings about the Holocaust (…). The book deals with the "big historical distortion" of the Holocaust and the English and Arabic editions would be published at a ceremony in Tehran later this month when a message from Ahmadinejad would be read out, Fars News Agency said. It appeared to be translations of a book which official media in September said had been published about the "fiction" of the Holocaust. "The presentation ceremony will be held on Jan. 27 ... with the attendance of a number of government officials," said Mohammad-Mehdi Hemmati, who is involved in the project. (…) Iran's IRNA news agency said in September the book had 52 caricatures plus satirical writings over 108 pages. It was published by Martyr Shahbazi Publications and the Islamic student movement of the Science and Industry University. (...) Iran staged an international competition and exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust in 2006.

On 26 October 2005, at a conference on "The World without Zionism" in Teheran, President Muhammad Ahmadinejad demanded that Israel be "wiped off the map." He also menaced all peacemakers: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury."
The Iranian president’s call was part of a prepared address. His statement was not an emotional ad hoc addition as a response to a chanting crowd, but an element in a world view that denies the possibility of any peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel. In the same speech, he provided an Islamic historical overview: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. The skirmishes of the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land." Since then, he and other Iranian leaders have expressed similar views – in total contradiction with article II (4) of the UN Charter – while promoting, with the OIC, “Dialogue" and an "Alliance of Civilizations".

A week before this solemn moment – the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust – we appeal to you to heed the words and the constant acts of the Iranian President’s "direct and public incitement" for the annihilation of a Member State – punishable under article IV of the Genocide Convention. Article III states: "the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide."

Those who drafted the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide had in memory the long incitement to hatred against the Jews by the Nazi leadership. Few took the Nazis seriously in the mid-1930s and did not foresee that hate constantly repeated would lead to systematic genocide. This book of caricatures and satirical writings on the Holocaust is more writing on the wall.

Yours respectfully,
René Wadlow David G. Littman
Representatives of the AWE and the WUPJ to the United Nations Office in Geneva

Cross-posted at Roncecvalles.

Under the header Muslims in Germany Seek Clarity on Religious Law, DW-WORLD.de sells us the following information in an article that merits its copying in full:

For years now, the teachings of imams in Germany have been hotly debated.

The vast majority (90 percent) are of Turkish origin, but there are also imams from Morocco and Iran. Frequently, imams speak little or no German, nor are they acquainted with the political, social and cultural norms in Germany. Many politicians -- as well as many Muslims living in Germany -- are now demanding that this situation change.

Ferid Heider grew up in Berlin and serves as imam at two of the city's mosques. "Every Muslim can decide for himself who he recognizes as an authority figure," Heider said.

As a Muslim and an imam, Heider is under no obligation to follow the fatwas issued, for example, at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo -- one of the most significant educational institutes in the Islamic world -- or any other scholarly community for that matter.

His task, he said, is to do the best he can according to knowledge and his conscience. For him, that means taking the German way of life into account when offering opinions and advice. A fatwa, he stressed, should always refer to a specific case and set of circumstances.

Challenges of life in Germany

Heider said he's often asked by those in his religious community about which behaviors should be permitted or forbidden for Muslims. Everyday life in Germany is not without conflict for Muslims. Prayer times and working hours often don't mesh, nudity -- whether in parks, gyms or the media -- is pervasive, and alcohol is freely available.

The imam listens to people's problems, and then refers to the Koran and examples from the life of the prophet Mohammed. Based on these sources, he then issues an Islamic legal opinion.

For fatwas issued in Europe, Heider said it's important to have "Islamic scholars in Europe that have either grown up here or have lived here for a long time." In his view, only those who are intimately acquainted with the political, social and economic situation of a place can issue adequate fatwas.

Fatwas issued in Germany often vary greatly from those issued in countries with a majority Muslim population. That's in part due to the nature of a fatwa, says Bettina Graef, an Islamic scholar at Berlin's Center for Modern Oriental Studies (ZMO). A fatwa may be a ruling in an individual case, but its significance is often much larger.

"Everything that's not forbidden is, in principle, allowed," said Graef. "And so of course people try to push the boundaries."

Fatwas are of central importance to the Islamic identity, says Graef -- an identity that has become particularly important in Europe and the US since the 1990s.

Fatwas imposed from abroad

Many legal scholars in traditional Islamic countries view the new Islamic practice of law in Europe with concern. They're worried that their brothers in faith are straying too far from the right path, and may be jeopardizing Islam. In order to prevent this, they issue their own fatwas about how Muslims in Europe should lead their lives.

These fatwas may be issued in far-off countries, but they're nonetheless a source of concern for law professor and expert on Islamic law Mathias Rohe. It's a worrying development, he said, adding that it has its roots in Saudi Arabia. Imams there have issued opinions demanding that Muslims in Europe hold themselves apart from what is, in their view, a faithless world.

Islam is a religion without a highest authority. There's no position that is comparable to the Catholic pope. Instead, the faithful can choose from a multitude of voices: the imam from the nearest mosque, scholars at Al-Azhar University, prominent TV sheiks, and superregional fatwa committees. Islamic extremists can just as easily find fatwas to confirm their beliefs as can moderate Muslims who believe in peaceful coexistence with members of other religions.

Islamic organizations representing Muslims in Germany have also attempted to convince their followers to subscribe to a set of basic principles. The variety of opinions and degree of individualism hampers Muslims' efforts to successfully represent themselves as a group, said Burhan Kesici, the secretary general of the Islamic Council in Germany.

In his view, having some commonality on fatwas is beneficial to the credibility of Islamic spokespeople in Germany and Europe. A common Islamic organization could very well influence the beliefs of individuals, Kesici said. In addition, it would make it possible to exclude Muslims with extremist views.

Does that sound reasonable? Is that a balanced article as it should be expected from a mainstream medium? I don't think so. Why? Let me first deliver some additional information regarding the experts quoted. It will clarify a lot.

Bettina Gräf M.A., who sounds like a convert (or at least like an about-to-be convert) to Islam, a "scholar" of Islamic studies appears to be without the slightest distance to the object of her supposed-to-be scholarly research. Her recently submitted doctor's thesis is about "Media-Fatwas by Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Popularisation of the Islamic Understanding of Law. That is the same Al-Qaradawi who, so Gräf herself informs us in her own words in an 4 year old article in the leftwing taz

... supports the fight for independence of the Palestinians... initiates solidarity campaigns, collects money and decries at any opportunity the ongoing occupation of Palestine... He goes pretty far here: In an Islamic legal opinion he justifies Palestinian suicide assassinations as a means to the end of self-defense against Israel's policy.

In the same article, Gräf describes the object of her scientific research as a "scholar of law" who

... promotes Islam and the rights of Muslims since his boyhood, but speaks up against extremism and violence as well. Al-Qaradawi claims for himself the term "center school of thought". That means that he equally recognizes and consults all the different Islamic legal traditions.

We can safely assume that promoting the "rights of Muslims" means, as it always does, overriding the rights of people from other cultures, and we are slowly about to get a whiff of where Gräf stands.

Mathias Rohe, the other Islam expert quoted in the above article, is of a different calibre than Gräf, which makes things worse. A highly qualified scholar of law, he holds a chair for international civil law at the old and respected Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. His secondary subject was Islamic science, which makes him a sought-after expert on Islamic law and he is, as such, a consultant to the German office for the protection of the constitution (Verfassungsschutz), a rather creepy thought in the light of the fact that Rohe promotes a speedy equal legal treatment of Islam and the Chritian faith on the grounds of the same constitution his client is supposed to protect.

Rohe, too, condiders the Islamic sharia as law with the same functions as the legal systems of Western societies, namely "to establish a societal order of peace and to coordinate and harmonize the different interests of the people". Rohe sees no conflict of interests between sharia and Western law. Case in point: An immigrant who brings his four (by Islamic law legal) wifes to this country, has no legal consequences to fear. We are accepting this polygamous marriage already for a considerable time now and German social legislation does indeed provide for all four wives widow's retirement pension expectancy. Not ONE expectancy divided by four, mind you, but four full ones. Because of that, Rohe argues, it is only logical to accept the rest as well.

The positivism out of the loony bin of Rohe's argument, that sharia is a good thing worth further promotion because parts of it are already applied, makes the mind boggle. Instead of asking for the abolition of such violation of the rights of the German people and our Western culture, this German (doubtlessly eminently highly qualified) scholar of law states that it ought to be applied even further. Rohe says now that beheadings and amputations are something the "German sharia law" will not allow. How can he know? Because all his nice, moderate, peacefully-minded Muslim friends are telling him so?

If a common organisation of all Muslims in Germany and the legal recognition of sharia law really aims, as it is nauseatingly often claimed, to promote moderate Islam by offering an alternative network to that of "militant Islamists", we don't need it. A truly moderate Islam would be able to cope with the Western laws, if it can't, it would be suicidal to allow it. We all know fully assimilated Turks, we even believe that they will never pose a threat to us. But where are they when it is about distancing themselves from Muslim claims, demands and atrocities? Where are the 100%-assimilated Muslims when their brethren rally all-but-peacefully against Israel? That said, where are the GERMANS speaking out against Muslim verbal and physical violence towards Israel?

Read the full article at Roncesvalles.