Salman Rushdie - Outrage.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:07 PM

Oh, Carol---(shades of Neil Sedaka)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:06 PM

Carol--

Carol---

Sorry, I have other things to do from time to time. As, I suspect, you do too.

You sure are a bit slippery sometimes. Let's see if we can get you to commit to a stand.

So you are saying that although the committee was not Muslim-baiting, the selection of Rushdie was? Do you not think the committee had a lot to do with that selection? Or is my theory of several posts ago closer?---that there is some sort of nebulous group which has veto power over the committee's selection, and by not vetoing their selection, that shadowy group has proven its determination to inflame Muslims? Doesn't that logic sound a bit tortured?

If that's not your view, would you please clearly state your view?

I'm still waiting for---any----evidence that "Muslim-baiting" was in any shape or form involved with the knighthood.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 03:54 PM

( ...I guess the cat got his tongue)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 11:56 PM

Please show me where in that post I ever mentioned the committee, Ron.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 11:04 PM

Carol--

"Show me where on this thread I have even hinted that I thought the committed (sic) nominated him for any other reason than the one you indicated".

OK, no problem.

Among others, let's try 25 June 2007 11:53 PM--"My opinion is that it was Muslim-baiting".

As I'm sure you know, the word "baiting" in this context conveys intent.

Yes, it was your "opinion". Point is, it is --so far --without any evidence to back it up. You are-still--cordially invited to provide any.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 02:17 PM

BTW, Ron. I should tell you that if I make a decision to ignore you, it really is more for your benefit than my own. It's possible that you won't immediately understand what I'm saying when I tell you that, but you will eventually, if I decide to not ignore you.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 02:13 PM

Has anyone read his essay, "The East is Blue"?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:48 PM

Ok, Ron. I'll respond to you. (LOL... you're such a troll.)


Please show me where, on this thread, I have even hinted that I thought the committed nominated him for any reason other than the one you indicated. (And then, when you cannot, you might want to take your own advice about ego and admitting when you're wrong.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:21 PM

Looking at the photograph of Rushdie and his newly estranged wife, makes one wonder why anyone would QUESTION giving him an honor.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:12 PM

Looking at the photograph of Rushdie and his newly estranged wife, makes one wonder why anyone would afford any kind of honor on him.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM

Carol--

Seems painful for you to admit you made a mistake, it appears.   (Obviously you were not ignoring me--since you responded.   I suspect you know you didn't really have to--so your claim to be above it all rings slightly hollow.)   I can't help thinking ego may be mixed up in this somewhere.

But we all make mistakes. I made a mistake recently in mixing up ESL and bilingual education. When a poster came on who knew a lot more about the subject than I did, I admitted I was wrong and backed right off.

You might want to try it sometime.

It does appear that neither you nor anybody else has yet managed to come up with one iota of evidence that the knighthood was given Rushdie in order to inflame Moslems.

It begins to look as if there is no such evidence. Not really surprising.

Just perhaps there is something to the idea that the West actually does try to do the right thing once in a while--that the committee really did hope the knighthood would result in better relations between Asia and the UK.

So they guessed spectacularly wrong? Even diplomats can guess wrong on the impact of what they may say or do.   Look at April Glaspie. Or do you think she said what she did in order to entice Moslems into a war?




It's clear--to me at least-- that, as I've said before, Mr. Bush belongs in the circle of Hell reserved for those who started unnecessary wars by choice--and by means of a despicable propaganda campaign. Mr Bush would be placed right next to Herr Hitler.

It's also clear that Mr. Bush is directly or indirectly responsible for much of the terrorism we now see all over the world--since the Iraq war has been a wonderful radicalizing element for Moslems ever since it started.

But that does not relieve individual Moslems from responsibility for what they do--or mean that the West is evil incarnate--that anything a Western group tries to do is meant to serve the interests of an all -powerful aggressive Western capitalist machine.

Not everything the West does is intended to serve the mythical $ystem we hear so much about on Mudcat--and it would be refreshing to hear left-of-center posters admit this once in a while. Yes, there are--many--abuses of capitalism--yes, capitalism needs a tight rein on it--and is not getting it in the US these days.

But the knighthood seems clearly to be an example of non-aggressive, non-acquisitive Western behavior. In fact, as I said earlier, a sterling example of "No good deed goes unpunished".

And so far there has been absolutely zero evidence that this is not the case.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: podman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM

Rushdie's latest book:

"buddha you fat bastard!"

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 07:21 AM

Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

Just because something doesn't get reported in our media, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The implication, for example, that people in Iran, and the Iranian government don't care about mosques of their co-religi0oniusts in Iraq being destroyed is pretty implausible.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: goatfell
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:26 AM

they all must have the same father and mother because all the sirs have BLOODY as a middle name, good old SIR SALMAN RUSHDIE.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:53 AM

Actually (this is addressed to dianavan, because I'm probably ignoring Mr. Davies... but not intending to rebut anything dianavan herself has said in her last post), I actually never made the charge that the committee had any such intention, which anyone who has read my posts in this thread will know.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:45 AM

Ron, if you notice an absence of any kind of response from me at any point in the future (beginning right after I finish this post, most likely), it is because I am ignoring you. If you can't take a hint, take a bus...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianvan
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:36 AM

I doubt if you'll find "evidence that the committee which chose Rushdie intended to enrage Moslems."

Lets just say that if they didn't know that, they have their heads in the sand. It requires only a small amount of common sense to know that it was absolutely predictable.

Please don't try to tell me the Moslem world would applaud their choice, since the Moslem world has long standing hatred of all that is British.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 09:42 PM

Carol--


Nice dodge. Congratulations.

However, we're still waiting for any evidence that the committee which chose Rushdie intended to enrage Moslems. I get the feeling it will be a long wait.

So far all you've proven is that you have a good imagination.   You ought to talk to Teribus--he has a good imagination too.

And you might want to tell us why the "Guardian" 's observation----a well-intentioned gesture not received in the spirit intended, to say the least---- does not sound much more likely an explanation than any intended "Moslem-baiting".

Sure is interesting--it's a mystery why you guys pick such unseaworthy vessels when you lash yourselves to the mast. Perhaps you'd like to compare notes with Teribus on that. (And they say only males are prisoners of ego.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 08:32 PM

Too bad. I like a book with plotty humor.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 08:31 PM

Is Rushdie worth reading? Depends on what you like to read. He likes playing with words and images, but he's not what you'd call *plotty*.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 07:02 PM

Hey, has anyone done that hilarious Salmon Rushed-y-on-the-seafood-menu joke yet?

I'll hang up and wait for the answer.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 06:52 PM

beardedbruce, how do know there was NO activity to protest the other?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 05:19 PM

There were demos. in Pakistan, with Union Flag burning.
A government minister said it justified suicide bombing of UK

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 04:18 PM

CarolC,

How do you know any Moslems objected to the knighting?

If they can riot over that, and there is NO activity to protest the other, it is obvious that there is less concern.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 04:07 PM

Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

How do you know this, dax?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:37 AM

(BTW, Ron, for answers to some of your questions, I suggest reading the thread.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM

Good night, Ron.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 11:25 PM

dax--

Absolutely right. But it ain't gonna happen. And it doesn't really help when imaginative Westerners come up with scenarios whereby the knighthood is pictured as a deliberate provocation. ( So there's bound to be response to the provocation. Any bad behavior by Moslems is due to Western imperialism and colonialism, as I'm sure you know.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 11:17 PM

Would not the cause of the damn fools who rise in outrage be better served in protesting the civil strife in Iraq where mosques are being destroyed by other Muslims. Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 11:11 PM

"of Teribus"

"20 June 2007?"

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 11:08 PM

Carol--

Thanks for giving me permission to draw whatever conclusion I'd like.

Let's try this one.

You have provided precisely zero evidence of any supposed hoped-for effect, in offering the knighthood to Rushdie, of shoring up support for Mideast or other wars. As well as zero evidence that the committee who chose Rushdie would ever want to inflame Moslems.

Unless, of course, the committee is in the pocket of the warmongers of the UK-- (which warmongers are these? one might ask--since Blair was on the way out.) And naturally these undetermined warmongers have foreseen exactly how the knighthood would be taken. Of course, how could it be otherwise?

This idea sounds surprisingly like the wooly-headed conspiracy theories of the Left which are constantly lampooned in the WSJ. (And entertaining reading too, I might add). As an added bonus, such theories provide a nice balance to the apocalyptic visions of the Teribus and his fellow brilliant thinkers on the Right--who, among their flights of fancy, predict headscarves for all Western women if the Iraq war is lost.

Did you by some chance miss the posting by Peace (from the Guardian 20 June 2007): The writers' organization "that led the lobbying for (Rushdie) to be knighted had originally hoped the honour would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia".

Now that has the ring of truth--what's the phrase? "No good deed goes unpunished". So the committee has a tin ear for the nuances of international politics? We should be surprised? They're literary folk, not statesmen.

Pardon me if I don't buy conspiracy theories with no evidence. Conspiracies do exist--the Iraq propaganda campaign is a perfect illustration--with lots of evidence, as you know.

But the knighthood does not qualify as part of a conspiracy.

Sorry.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 07:24 PM

"You think it would be an "ignorant move" if Dubya offered someone a knighthood in the U.S.?"


                Yeah, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him try it.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 07:10 PM

dianavan - I don't have any idea who the folks are who make the decision for knighthood, but if a similar thing happened in the US, given what we know about the people in charge here, I would come out on the side of ignorant move.

You think it would be an "ignorant move" if Dubya offered someone a knighthood in the U.S.?


























I"m speechless.

SRS

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 08:24 AM

"Either it was a very calculated move or a very ignorant move."
            
          dianavan - I don't have any idea who the folks are who make the decision for knighthood, but if a similar thing happened in the US, given what we know about the people in charge here, I would come out on the side of ignorant move.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 01:03 AM

Draw any conclusion you like, Ron. I'm not your performing monkey.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 12:50 AM

I think its quite possible that the knighthood of Rushdie was a move to "to shore up sagging support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as softening people up for war against Iran."

ie) If we make Rushdie a knight, there will be an outcry from the Muslim world which in turn will show the western world exactly why we need to conquer these blood-thirsty fanatics."

It might be a very twisted form of propaganda.

Either it was a very calculated move or a very ignorant move.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 12:28 AM

Carol--

Does not compute.

You were asked a specific question of why you think the knighthood offered Rushdie was done intentionally to inflame Moslem radicals.

General observations about "track record" does not answer the question.

If you do not provide a specific answer of what you envision this specific move was to do, we may be forced to the conclusion that you in fact have no idea--that it is precisely just your amorphous dark imaginings.

So far, that appears to be the case.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 12:16 AM

I look at patterns, Ron. And so far, I've been able to make quite a few predictions that way (invasion of Iraq, for instance, long before very many other people were predicting it), as well as being able to see through quite a few subterfuges on the part of the US and UK governments. Ones that are generally accepted as subterfuges by the majority of people now, such as the bogus reasons for invading Iraq. You don't have to believe me, but I trust my track record.

The people who benefit in the UK are the same ones there who benefited with from the Iraqi invasion. This time, it's to shore up sagging support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as softening people up for war against Iran (as I already pointed out here in this thread). Any time the West does something that pisses off large numbers of Muslims, that is what it's all about.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 11:46 PM

Carol--

So you do think the knighthood is "Moslem-baiting"? (Oh well, back to square one).

Then perhaps you'll share your evidence of this-- as distinguished from amorphous dark imaginings.

Please be sure to say exactly why the committee which recommended Rushdie wanted to inflame Moslem radicals. And exactly why inflaming Moslem radicals would benefit the UK.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 07:34 PM

hey, I saw your picture in the latest Fretboard Journal. You were one slim fella back then! No fatwah on those bones.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 07:17 PM

Now that he's off Oxycodone--if he really is off Oxycodone--he'll probably become fatwah again.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 07:00 PM

I heard that Democrats have issued a fatwah on Salman Rushdie Limbaugh. I wonder if they know that he's not so fatwah anymore after going on a dietwah.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:31 PM

Bugger. I grovel at your feet and eat mud. I was of course confusing Flash Gordon with Dan Dare, pilot of the future.   A bit like confusing Salman Rushdie with Enid Blyton. I creep away back into my pathetic hole.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM

*Splutter* How wrong can a man be! He was the front page, the headliner, the main man! OF COURSE Flash Gordon was in The Eagle! He WAS The Eagle!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM

Flash Gordon in The Eagle?   I don't think so.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 04:09 PM

You guys could be right. It's just that his notoriety has undoubtedly done him a few favours. As for the company I keep, I'm hardly going to judge them on whether they read Sir Salman! As for periodicals, I stopped reading The Eagle in 1959 because I thought Flash Gordon was getting a bit too full of himself, and I've never recovered.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 02:29 PM

Agreed there. If you think Salman Rushdie is obscure you are definitely not too knowledgeable about modern English language literature.

I don't think there's any mileage in criticising the award from that direction.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 01:29 PM

Steve Shaw wrote I haven't met a single person . . . who is at all impressed that this somewhat obscure (apart from his fortuitous bout of notoriety) and minority-taste author should have been honoured with a knighthood. I'd love to have been a fly-on-the-wall in whatever committee meeting decided to give it him:

Obscure? Salman Rushdie? I think not. Consider for a moment the periodicals you read and the company you keep--they may be at fault. Bibliophobia and Xenophobia are not good lenses through which to view modern literature.

SRS

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 11:50 AM

LOLOLOL

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 11:45 AM

Good dialogue!