Tie Your Camel

I imagine some of you South Park fans in the UK have managed to catch the 200th and 201st episodes of the show and perhaps even read about some of the resultant controversy. In between the 200th and 201st episode, Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park) came under studio pressure from the bigwigs at Comedy Central after implied death threats were posted on a New-York based internet message board called ‘Revolution Muslim’. Parker and Stone went on with the show but the every mention (visual and aural) of the Prophet Muhammed was censored.

Now the context: South Park’s been at the centre of numerous controversies over the years and they’ve not taken any prisoners. Various religions and races are regularly parodied and insulted, Hollywood actors of every stripe are ridiculed, disabilities, homosexuality etc etc are thoroughly target for jokes, sometimes even abuse. Just before the 200th episode, Eric Cartman verbally crucifies the Pope over the Catholic child-molestation controversy. This was not the first time they’ve had to censor a depiction of Muhammed – their episode featuring a Family Guy piss-take was censored. They have, however, previously been free to poke fun at Islam/Muslims (along with the other myriad targets). Take for example Mr. Garrison’s song ‘Merry Fucking Christmas’:

‘I heard there is no Christmas in the silly Middle East
No trees, no snow, no Santa Claus, they have different religious beliefs.
They believe in Muhammed, and not in our holiday,
And so every December I go to the Middle East and say:
Hey there Mr Muslim, Merry fucking Christmas,
Put down your book the Quran and hear some holy wishes.
In case you hadn’t noticed it’s Jesus’ birthday,
So get off your heathen Muslim ass and fucking celebrate’

They’ve had other moments – Mr Garrison talking about Muslims being pissed off because they can’t have sex or the Prophet Muhammed being part of the ‘Super best friends’ where he has the power of fire. Then the Jyllands Posten controversy happened and since that point the networks have censored themselves fairly vigorously.

The show should have been aired completely uncensored. There’s a time for self-censorship and a time to avoid it and this was the latter.

Firstly, the depictions of Muhammed have been pretty benign and saccharine. Compared to virtually any other group, Muslims have been getting off light on South Park.

Secondly, if you’re a serious Muslim, why care about some silly jokes Kafirun will make? Why care so much? There are many, many worse problems Muslims face in the US than a depiction of a Prophet in a bear suit. The attitude of Fox News where their ‘guests’ routinely talk about Islam being ‘evil’ or Muslims deserving ‘special treatment’ at airports etc. These are the real problems in American media. Let people joke as much as they like! It’s when a joke becomes a mean-spirited attack on all Muslims that a Muslim should worry and even then the best response is to ignore it or fight back with your own humour.

Thirdly, if you find others depicting the prophet to be insulting then you should find pretty much anything on television insulting: the depictions of sex and violence routine in American dramas, men and women playing on their sexual tension, Christian evangelism etc. etc. If you do find these offensive, the solution is simple: do not watch American television. You have the choice not to watch what you find offensive and you should exercise it. Let others think and feel what they like, so long as they aren’t directly hurting you or others, it should be none of your concern.

Fourthly, in countries like the US, Muslims live under a secular rule and we generally live pretty well. I hate hearing arguments like “there’s no freedom in Islamic countries, therefore Muslims should shut the hell up when in our country”. It’s a stupid logical fallacy based on a small kernel of truth: if we do not enjoy the freedoms in the US or the UK, we should try our best to change it legally or move abroad to somewhere where it is more to your liking. Having sampled the freedoms available in the UK, Europe, China and the Middle East, I still find the UK the best of all. As unpleasant as it may be to hear ignorant folks on the news saying outrageous things about Muslims (e.g. the horrendous toad, Melanie Phillips), it is infinitely more unpleasant to be worried about the Mukhaberat listening in on you in Jordan (or any other Arabic country) , or that the page you’re visiting on the internet will get you thrown out of your Chinese educational institution.

Lastly, there’s an element of this being a self-created drama. Censorship would have likely happened even if that “Revolution Muslim” group hadn’t made the implied threat. By responding in such a heavy handed manner, Comedy Central has created a fuss that I, like many other Muslims, would have liked nothing to do with beyond enjoying another humorous episode of South Park.  It highlights Muslims as crazed, radical, insane, manipulative and ready to kill at the drop of a hat. Note that other death threats are not treated in the same vein – writers like Norman Finkelstein, Robert Fisk et all have routinely received death threats from various groups (among other unpleasant writings). The fact is it is easy to write and to threaten, especially when it is apparently so easy to leverage quick results. It is much harder to commit the deed – and if we look at examples where it has happened it is after some really vigorous, hateful and disgusting attacks.

It is also, apparently, now, much harder to press forward against censorship, and that’s a problem for all of us.

Tracey Emin decides to weigh in with an uninformed opinion

You can’t go a week without reading another story about the wealthy threatening to leave our shores because of something or another. ‘Taxes are too high!’ cry the bankers and glitterati. Tracey Emin has decided to join the whining droves, per BBC:

The government’s 50p tax rate for incomes of more than £150,000 will be introduced in April.

Emin said she is considering France because she thinks it has lower taxes and appreciates the arts more.

She said: “So much here is simply not working now. The taxes are too high, there aren’t enough incentives to work hard, and our politicians have put me off. We’re paying through the nose for everything.”

‘Importance of culture’

Referring to the new tax, she said: “I reckon it would mean me paying about 65p in every pound with tax, National Insurance and so on.“

Oops. Someone doesn’t understand how income tax in the UK works.

Income tax is not levied at a fixed rate. It is charged in bands. Your first £6,475 (current allowance) is not taxed. From £6,475 to £37,400 you’ll pay tax at a rate of 20% which means of the £30,925 you will pay £6,185 in tax. Above £37,400 you’ll pay at a rate of 40%. The proposed limit for the 50p tax band is £150,000. So, from £37,400 to £150,000 you’ll pay £45,040 on £112,600. Let’s say you earn £200,000, to create an example of what happens with tax, you’ll pay £25,000 tax on the £50,000 above £150,000.  This means that out of £200,000 you’ll pay £76,225 in tax, or a total of 38.11% of your total income.

Now what about National Insurance? Well if you’re employed you won’t really have worried about it, because it all happens on the employer’s end. It’s probably just a figure you look at on your pay slip. Take a look at an explanation on Direct Gov. Tracey Emin is probably self-employed (being an artist) which means (and let’s use the £200,000 figure as an example), she will pay 8% national insurance on a sum between £5,715 and £43,875 (on taxable profit which we’re assuming is £200,000 heading her way) which works out as £3052.8. At 1% NI on the remainder of the taxable profits she’ll pay another £1561.25.

This all means a total bill on her side of £80,838.80 which translates to 40.42% (rounded up) of her yearly income going on tax. This presumes no exemptions or naughty ways of getting around taxable income that the wealthy with their clever and highly-paid accounts manage to employ.

So no Tracey, you’re not going to pay 65p on the pound on income tax and national insurance. You’ll pay about 40p overall. But thanks for weighing in on the topic.

If you think any of my figures are incorrect, please do get in contact and enlighten me.

It has been widely reported now that Megrahi may not, after all, die within three months. For example:

The Telegraph
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express

Megrahi

As you should expect, it is the usual ragtag tabloid nonsense. The articles tend to muddle Scots law (the ‘less than three months to live’ is a guideline not a requirement). None of the articles touches on Megrahi’s probable innocence. Most seem to conclude that this indicates the existence of outside pressures which would may render the ‘compassion’ a convenient lie, exercised to give in to pressure. What is that alleged external influence? And oil agreement between the UK and Libya.

Again, the tabloids get it wrong. If you read the actual report, it’s clear that consensus on Megrahi was:

1. He has metastatic prostate cancer;
2. the cancer is, as far as they can tell, aggressive:

Factors suggesting a poorer prognosis are more numerous and weigh more heavily – the histological type of his tumour, the stage of his cancer at diagnosis, his psychological wellbeing, the passage of treatments which have been appropriate but have offered only transient success. Biochemical markers of disease once again indicate high activity and likely progression of his disease. However, no other marker or investigation would offer a more accurate barometer of prognosis to assess his clinical condition.;

3.  the initial prognosis as of Autumn 2008 was 12-24 months:

On diagnosis in autumn 2008,specialist clinical consensus gave this prognosis: and in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of months to many months rather than years.’ Pressed to offer a more specific estimate, there was an informal mid-estimate of 18-24 months.;

4. the cancer is resistant to hormonal treatment, significantly reducing his life-expectancy:

People who respond to hormonal treatment can hope for many years of disease suppression and even in the worst case scenario, one would have hoped for 2 years or more of disease control with hormone therapy[...] In June and July 2009, assessment by a range of specialists reached [the] consensus that the disease was, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is, resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis, therefore, has now moved to the lower end of expectations from 10 months ago.

Factors suggesting a

poorer prognosis are more numerous and weigh more heavily – the histological type of his

tumour, the stage of his cancer at diagnosis, his psychological wellbeing, the passage of

treatments which have been appropriate but have offered only transient success. Biochemical

markers of disease once again indicate high activity and likely progression of his

disease. However, no other marker or investigation would offer a more accurate barometer

of prognosis to assess his clinical condition.=;

So what can we conclude? Megrahi is, barring a freak accident or other sudden medical condition, going to die from his prostate cancer. The cancer is resistant to hormone-treatment and his prognosis is not good. He could live up to 12 months, ie he will probably die before Autumn 2010. But remember, the initial prognosis was 12-24 months which means that there is an increased probability he will die some time between now and Autumn 2010. This does make a three-month prognosis a reasonable one.

Moreover, as I have mentioned (and read the report I linked to), Megrahi is probably a victim of a miscarriage of justice comparable to the sentencing of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. Every day he spent rotting in prison was another day we will have to atone for if we ever learn the truth of the bombing.

Was the leave really compassionate? I’m not so sure. The Scots prefaced the release with statements like “show Megrahi the compassion he never showed his victims” and Americans have been happily portraying the Scots and, by extension, the British people as a whole as “weak on terror”. Unfortunately the fact of his likely innocence has rarely made its way into popular discourse. Megrahi had to make a choice: appeal and die in prison (but possibly clear your name) or drop your appeal and be released to die with your family and lose the chance of clearing your sullied name. It was a damned tough choice.

As for external influences? Yes, the oil deal would probably have factored into the decision, no matter what the various ministers say; it’s politics. What I think probably had a greater influence on the release was the possibility of Megrahi succeeding in his appeal or, at the very least, severely embarrassing the Scottish legal system and the UK government. Here’s hoping the Lockerbie situation is properly investigated (as many of the victims’ families want), the real killers and planners are found, and Megrahi’s name is cleared before he passes away.

If you’re a little to the left like me and you give a damn about the environment and sustainability, you might be interested in having a look at this website: Breathing Earth. It has realtime updates of the global population, births and deaths per country, and CO2 emissions. It will also give you detailed stats for each country when you hover over it with a mouse. Go check it out!

Not so much 'breathing' as 'suffocating'

Video summary: Jewish man supports nationalised healthcare based on his experience in Israel (with a nationalised health system) and his personal experience in the US, where he was asked to pay $8,000 for a 2-hour stay in an American emergency room. He encounters a terrible and bigoted woman who opposes his opinions.

Look at what happens (the bit at the end is especially indicative):