sisu

Chomsky, Moore, Fisk: Pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant

I appease, therefore I submit to tyranny. Chamberlain, left, and Harvard President Lawrence Summers, right, who has just resigned. As the appeasing Peter, Paul and Mary sang in a different context, "Oh, when will they ever learn?"

"A repressive society is a repressive society, wherever it may fall on a continuum of brutality and thought control," we blogged awhile back in our post "Fear societies, heavy and lite," where we cited former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky's "mechanics that sustain such a society." Whether it's back in the gulags of the old USSR, in the imamically orchestrated "street" of today's Arab tyrannies or in the politically correct, ivy-covered towers in our own backyard at Harvard, intimidation is the blogtheme that keeps on giving. Cartoon Wars have it in spades, and now academia's Appeaser-in-Chief, Harvard President Lawrence Summers, is rumored to be about to submit his resignation in the wake of humiliating show trials and appeasement last spring. Enter, stage right, Eric S. Raymond of Armed and Dangerous [via Pajamas Media]:

The most important weapons of al-Qaeda and the rest of the Islamist terror network are the suicide bomber and the suicide thinker. The suicide bomber is typically a Muslim fanatic whose mission it is to spread terror; the suicide thinker is typically a Western academic or journalist or politician whose mission it is to destroy the West’s will to resist not just terrorism but any ideological challenge at all.

Raymond reminds us of the Gramscian underpinnings of the Soviet Union's insidious infiltration of our elite institutions last century -- blogged here and here -- offering a riveting checklist of "some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons," noting that "Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda":

There is no truth, only competing agendas.

All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.

There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.

The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.

Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.

The poor are victims.

Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)

For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.

When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

Go make yourself a delicious Danish ham sandwich with Havarti and then come back and read the whole thing:

The first step to recovery is understanding the problem. Knowing that suicidalist memes were launched at us as war weapons by the espionage apparatus of the most evil despotism in human history is in itself liberating. Liberating, too, it is to realize that the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Robert Fisks of the world (and their thousands of lesser imitators in faculty lounges everywhere) are not brave transgressive forward-thinkers but pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant.

We feel better already.

Update:  Nobody says it better than Dr. Sanity:

In the history of academia, I don't think anyone has ever come closer to voluntary castration for the cause of radical feminism. And look where it got him.

According to news reports, Summers plans to return to the seraglio teaching at Harvard after a year's sabbatical.

Danish cartoon affair "a revolt to assert Western values of freedom of opinion, speech and religion"

"If you did not know the tiny, unpretentious and vivacious grey-haired lady whom I had the privilege of sitting next to you would never guess that she is one of the most formidable personalities of our time," writes Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal re Bat Ye'or, above, in The Hague attending an international gathering of Western Jihad experts over the weekend.

"To Bat Ye’or the Danish cartoon affair is 'a revolt to assert Western values of freedom of opinion, speech and religion,'” writes Paul Belien, editor--in-chief of The Brussels Journal:

My wife and I had dinner with Bat Ye’or [at a gathring of Eurabia scholars in the Hague Sunday], and I asked her how it had felt to live as a dhimmi in Egypt, but she said it was only when she came to the West that she had come to realize what dhimmitude really was. “You only realize when you look from the outside in,” she said. It is perhaps because she has had this ‘priviliged’ experience that she was able to perceive from the 1970s onwards how the Europeans are slowly being turned into dhimmis. Her 2005 book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” describes this transformation process.

Then there are those inside the dummitudinous bubble of Harvard College Democrats like Andrew Golis of Cambridge Common, whose wilfully information-challenged and self-satisfied comments re the Harvard Salient's decision to publish the cartoons betray an astonishing, head-in-the-sand lack of curiosity:

But seriously, what point was there to do this other than pure attention-mongering? Yes, I know, it's a statement of principle that reaffirms the freedom of the press in the United States. That's fine, it's a good principle. But who really thought it was in jeopardy?

While Rome -- Cambridge? -- burned. When Pyrrhus of RedIvy, "the new blog of the Harvard Republican Club," posted a list of questions for Golis, the best the young man of the left could come up with was "I don't have time or desire to write the short book that your questions compel." Bat Ye'or would not be pleased. More from Paul Belien in the Hague:

Bat Ye’or convincingly argues that the transformation of Europe into Eurabia is the result of a deliberate strategy that was foolishly set in motion by French Gaullists who wanted to create a European-Arab counterweight to the United States . . . Ever since she was forced to leave Egypt Bat Ye’or has lived in Europe . . . She urges young people to continue resisting dhimmi status.

“We should not ask the moderate Muslims to save us. We have to change the present situation ourselves. That is our duty to our children and our ancestors,” warned Ye'or:

Her studies have made her aware that the destruction of Christian societies by Jihadists has always been brought about by the Christian leaders and churches themselves . . .

Not only the European Union is imposing the ideology of multiculturalism, but also the United Nations . . . According to the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Countries (OIC) even the use of “the prefix ‘Islamic’ before ‘terrorism’ is sacrilege.” Through the channels of the UN they try to curtail freedom of thought, opinion and expression with accusations of “blasphemy,” “islamophobia,” “defamation of Islam,” or “sacrilege.”

It's time for young Harvard Democrats who profess political opinions to look up from their books/computers/navels and realize that the dhimmitudinous fear society is already crashing upon our shores. Belien concludes:

I had been invited to The Hague by Daniel Pipes. I discovered that the most famous of the conference participants were not registered at the hotel under their real names and a (plain clothes) guard was watching over them. Apparently, a gathering of people for a scholarly exchange of views on the preservation of Western liberties, can no longer take place in the free West without security measures.

Those who do not study history . . .

"Swinging my leg restlessly, doodling and smoking"

"Tiny's interpretation of Aurora -- the princess of Sleeping Beauty -- is uniquely her own, a dazzling blend of classically pure movement with minimalist post-kitchen staging, her kinetically challenging partner a day-glo superball," we wrote last fall in a caption to this image, which -- in the way of one thing's leading to another -- focussed our thoughts in a post of fond remembrance of our maternal grandmother, JuJu, the woman who introduced us to the world of the dance by suggesting Margot Fonteyn as the name for our first Madame Alexander doll.

"In college, I was one of those people who sat at the very back of the room during lectures, swinging my leg restlessly, doodling and smoking," writes Neo in an artful post on alternative learning styles:

Ah yes, kids: smoking. We used to be allowed to do that in classrooms. I was never much of a smoker -- I really didn't inhale -- but I liked to light up, and to amuse myself by making perfect, long-lasting smoke rings, like the old Camel's ad in Times Square (mine were much better than his).

The point of all this is that I'm most definitely not what is known as an auditory learner. A speaker has to be riveting--and, preferably, very, very funny--to catch my attention . . .

On the other hand, when I'm reading or writing, I concentrate hard. Time tends to pass very quickly, but my mind does not wander. I've been known to try to fix a problem with a single line of poetry for what I would estimate to be ten minutes -- but then, when I look at my watch, two hours have somehow passed.

"I used to experience the same sort of concentration back in my ballet dancing days," she writes, launching a grande jeté into a perfect post, "Dancer from the dance." It got us to thinking about our own preferred learning style, which has a lot to do with thought processes and connections stimulated by the visual image. From our comments at her blog:

As with you, "A speaker has to be riveting--and, preferably, very, very funny -- to catch my attention." That's why podcasts -- even ones whose interviewers and subjects are of great interest -- don't much appeal unless there are transcripts.

The "flow" nickolaides finds during drawing and gardeniing is familiar to me when I discover and/or create the perfect graphic image to accompany and expand upon a blogpost I am working on. Often in the middle of organizing my thoughts, the image comes to me, I find or create it and and then put it into the draft, where it seems to help me hone in on the point I am trying to make.

There's nothing like a sympathetic blogger's thoughts to concentrate the blogging mind.

Update:  For more sympathetic catbloggers' thoughts, head on over to the 100th Carnival of the Cats at Bloggin' Outloud.

David Gregory, call your office

"You'll never know the good -- all you'll get is controversy, crap and confusion," said Alan Simpson in answer to Chris Wallace's tongue-in cheek question Sunday about the former Senator's fondness for the DC press corps:

Wallace: So I take it, Senator, that you really miss this place?

Simpson: [Claps hands and laughs] Oh, no, I do! I loved it, I did, I loved it. And I loved it because it was fun. I have a lot of pals on both sides of the aisle. I worked with President Clinton, enjoyed him, President Bush, President Carter, good people doing good things. But let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media.

Captain Ed is soliciting a graphic bearing the former Senator's words (see our offering above)

. . . as a slogan for the White House press corps. We can display it every time they go insane over Controversy, Crap and Confusion™.

We agree with the Cap'n that "Senator Simpson is a great interview and a notoriously straight shooter." Click on over to savor a transcript of his interview with the great man at the 2004 GOP convention.

Update:  CCC logos are pouring in at Captain's Quarters.

Crazy Sissy talks with the Harvard man*

Raphael's "Saint George Slaying the Dragon," a parable of good destroying evil (first published here two years ago in a post where we quoted a Syrian filmmaker who said after the fall of Saddam, "The myth of having to live under despots for eternity collapsed.")

"On the right wing [crazies like Sissy Willis are] easy to pick out, writes Markus Kolic of Dem Apples -- 'Love the name! -- the official blog of the Harvard College Democrats, standing up for fellow DA blogger Josh Patashnik, who was the object of spirited criticism here the other day for his pre-emptive dhimmitudinous surrender in the Cartoon Wars. While we admire Mr. Kolic's loyalty to his friend, we are disappointed -- if not surprised --  at his professed disloyalty to his own ideas in the name of winning access to power:

And after spending some time arguing with radicals [Kolic's term for "crazies" like us. --ed], I’m beginning to realize why: unlike them, my goal is not to enforce my principles on everyone else. My goal is to do good for my country, by getting my party elected. Thus, no matter how fervently I might believe some of my radical ideas, I don’t want my party to recognize them if they would alienate large portions of the American people. I might have an extreme or unusual view on 9/11, or drug policy, or taxes, or religion. But I will keep those ideas to myself, because I know that the vast majority of Americans do not and probably never will think that way. This is what differentiates us from authoritarian ideologues on both wings, who have no qualms about condemning the masses. (”Sinners!” “Consumers!” etc.)

'Reminds us of Hillary Clinton's modus operandi, pandering at will. We always wonder if such persons realize how condescending their approach is to "the masses" -- what we would call "fellow citizens" -- whose votes they seek. Unlike Hillary, however, Markus Kolic wins our heart if not our mind with the civility and humor of his comments on our blog:

As a friend and fellow blogger of Josh Patashnik, naturally I'm irked at your characterization of him, but I respect your right to that opinion. (Thanks for the link back, by the way -- no such thing as bad publicity and all that.)

We especially like that parenthetical comment, a sentiment we've often blogged here. But so much for hearts. What about minds? Markus -- may we call you Markus? -- continues:

What gets me, both with your reasoning in particular and so much of the right's reasoning in general, is how you so easily throw out words like "enemy" and "adversary." Now, there is no doubt that we are in a war and there is an enemy (OK, a few of my radical-lefty friends doubt that, but that's beside the point). But you seem to have forgotten: Islam is not our enemy . . . I fail to see how these Danish cartoons are even remotely productive in the war on terror.

Did we ever say or even imply that Islam is our enemy? Never. Some of our best blogfriends are believers, fergossake. It's the dragon of Islamist terrorism and its fellow travelers that we battle with our words here. And what about those cartoons? If our new blogfriend fails to see how they "are even remotely productive in the war on terror," perhaps it is because those presumably utopian ideas he says he keeps to himself have blinded him to the lessons of history and the imperatives of human nature. We'll let longtime blogfriend Teresa, who responds to Mr. Kolic in the comments, have the last word:

There is a reason for talks about slippery slopes. Appeasing violence rather than confronting it -- has never ever worked. It always ends with the appeaser having to give more and more -- until they are useless -- then they end up despised and dead. It's a losing proposition with extremely dire consequences for our country and our way of life.

As we've said before, we love it when our commenters, disagreeing with each other's ideas, engage in civilized debate. It gives us hope that freedom of speech will prevail.

*Title refers to the syntax of the title of W.B. Yeats's "Crazy Jane talks with the bishop."

People who say or write inoffensive things need no protection"

Duncan Phyfe dining room chair in late afternoon sunlight through a veil -- leftover Christmas ribbons strung over the doorways to remind us to be watchful for a slippery, post-waxed floor -- lightly. Note radiator upper left and newly renovated hand-laid parquet floor middle and lower left.

"I'm not sure that we should look to the Catholic pope to defend free expression," writes TigerHawk in response to comments re his latest post. As we said here the other day,

We think "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's applies here. In our view the Vatican struck just the right note for the things that are God's.

Even so, TigerHawk is right when he says

The right of free speech exists only to defend people who say or write things that offend. People who say or write inoffensive things need no protection.

We semi disagree with the totally awesomeTH in this way, as we wrote last week in "The cat among the Islamic pigeons":

Thank GOD our beloved Benedetto -- the Pope who loves cats and Mozart -- is on the case. We agree with Oriana Fallaci -- the renowned Italian Journalist indicted last year in her native country for vilifying, as the law says, a "religion admitted by the state," in this case Islam -- that "You cannot survive if you do not know the past." In an Opinion Journal interview with Tunku Varadarajan last June -- blogged here -- she said "I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true. It's that simple! There must be some human truth here that is beyond religion."

We imagine our friend would agree.

"Let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark"

"Dr. Seuss’s political cartoons from the early 1940s are just as dead on target as when he first drew them, and especially pertinent today as the ideological heirs of the good Doctor’s 'Appeasement' characters run amok in the streets of Europe and San Francisco," wrote Charles Johnson -- blogged in our "Clueless, then and now" -- two years back. Some people never learn. Click here for larger version of "Remember . . . One More Lollypop, and Then You All Go Home." For one of today's satirists whose work is on a par with Dr. Seuss's, check out Scott Ott's ScrappleFace post today, "Fatwa Adds Riot Duty as Sixth Pillar of Islam."

"Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to," writes Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons that launched a thousand calls for self-censorship, in a Washington Post op ed that catches the conscience of the thing:

But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations . . .

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. [See Dr. Seuss cartoon, above] The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Meanwhile, over in the mailbag at The Harvard Crimson, Sean Barrett ’07 has penned a thoughtful letter to the editors re the conservative student publication The Salient's decision to publish the YKW [PBUH]* cartoons that asks the right question:

As The Salient well knows, we are at war, and thus, The Salient should have asked itself, “Does publishing these cartoons help our allies or our enemies?”

But comes up with the wrong answer:

The ensuing riots that some of our allies have struggled to subdue, and the inevitable use of these cartoons as recruiting tools and propaganda by the Jihadists answer this question loudly and clearly . . . The Salient has put its desire to grandstand and challenge the liberal orthodoxy of Harvard ahead of our country’s goal of winning a war it has so eagerly supported.

On the contrary, publication of the cartoons helps our allies -- not our enemies -- by serving as a wake-up call. The Jyllands-Posten's Flemming Rose explains:

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized . . .

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

With apologies to Shakespeare, Good Freedom Lovers, "cast thy nighted colour off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark." (Hamlet 1.2.68)

Update: "Hey, I believe that this is the first time we've had Instalanche together. ;)," comments our blog buddy, TigerHawk. Be sure to go over and read his thoughtful "Realigning tolerance: Our options in the collision between free speech and Islam."

*YKW [PBUH] = You know who [Peace be unto him]

Effete and intellectually fat and lazy

A pretty girl is like a melody. Plus, girls just wanna have fun. We have always despised those men -- they're all over the place throughout history -- who project their own weakness upon women. We love the men who embrace the power of the women they love.

"Our goal here is presumably to avoid a clash of civilizations, not prove that our civilization is morally superior in that it has somewhat fewer deranged individuals. Isn’t it?" smirks an effete and intellectually fat and lazy -- not to mention Dhimmitudinous -- Josh Patashnik at Harvard College Democrats, completely missing the point of what is at stake in the Cartoon Wars. As Dick Cheney said to some David Gregory wannabe way back when, "I disagree with the premise of your question." We dropped a little comment in young Patashnik's blogbox, summarizing the gist our latest post, "Respect, always. Submit, never":

It’s about Natan Sharansky’s Fear Societies vs. Free Societies. With fans of fear societies like many in the mainstream media and academia, logic and consistency are beside the point. Control over the speech of those one disagrees with is where it’s at.

The "loyal" opposition to Harvard Salient Publisher Travis Kavulla's voice-in-the-wilderness decision to publish the you-know-who [PBUH] cartoons is working without tools. The young lad represents the latest, most-enervated-ever iteration of the left's failure to engage their adversaries with ideas of their own, having lost the ability to debate after decades of having been given a pass by the Fourth Estate.

Respect, always. Submission, never.

"Just two days ago, Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd sent an e-mail to the [Harvard] Salient, warning staff members that “some segments of the campus may be sufficiently upset by the publication of the cartoons that they may become dangerous,” reports The Harvard Crimson. So much for freedom of speech on the campus of the nation's most prestigious institution of higher learning. At a Harvard Interfaith Council forum Thursday, Salient Publisher Travis R. Kavulla ’06-’07 (above on The O'Reilly Factor the same night with our beloved Tony Snow subbing) said “There is a journalistic obligation for the mainstream media to show these things.”  Hey, New York Times et al, if you know what's good for you, get this young man on your editorial team ASAP.

"I do not know if hypocrisy is better or worse than the second most common position encountered in liberal circles: openly siding with Islamic fanaticism and putting the blame fully on the cartoonists and their editors, as Bill Clinton did, Kofi Annan and the Foreign Affairs spokesmen of the Bush and Blair governments," writes Koenraad Elst in The Brussels Journal:

In the Brussels weekly Knack, the Belgian equivalent of Newsweek and Time, with a weekly circulation of 160,000 copies, the editor, Karl Van den Broeck, launched the innovative conspiracy theory that the Neoconservative cabal, with tentacles stretching from Washington DC and Tel Aviv to Aarhus and Brussels (this website!), had planned the whole cartoon riot incident as the trigger for the Clash of Civilizations and the invasion of Syria and Iran, no less. Well, not all that innovative: a similar view was expressed by Ayatollah Khamenei . . .

The Newspeak notion of ‘verbal violence’ is an attempt to vitiate the debate by pretending that strong rhetoric amounts to, and is somehow equivalent to, physical violence. Again this is a trait which is typical of dictatorships, where dissenters are routinely criminalized as ‘trouble-makers irresponsibly sowing conflict in society,’ and the silencing and incarceration of dissidents is justified as ‘necessary for the people’s well-being and social peace.’ In fact, it is precisely the so-called ‘violent’ speech that is protected by the principle of freedom of expression.

Carrying the argument to its logical conclusion, Elst makes toast of "anyone who, like [Brussels government-funded 'intercultural' lobby group] KifKif, demands restrictions on publications that cast the Muslims' prophet in a negative light":

What does KifKif propose to do with the Hadith collections and the Quran, ban those books in toto or merely excise the parts that testify to Muhammad’s acting in contravention of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]?

But, as with all fans of fear societies, logic and consistency are beside the point. Control over the speech of those one disagrees with are where it's at. And speaking of control over the speech of those one disagrees with, we were more than a little intrigued with Elst's dhimmi-lite apologia:

Please note that in the present article and in other publications, I have practised a reasonable degree of respect for the founder of Islam. Of course I have not used any sycophantic or reverential appositions every time I mentioned his name, such as “Peace Be Upon Him” or “PBUH.” But at least I have repeatedly referred to him as the “Prophet,” and capitalized, no less. As a non-believer, I would have been entitled to describe him each time as “the so-called prophet.” Since I am not in the business of annoying people with such pedantries, I have refrained from exercising that right. It’s just a question of sensitivity, you know.

As we advised in his comments, referencing our post  "Arabic names won't go into English, exactly":

May I suggest the perfect polite but non-sycophantic solution to the infidel's toe-curling "the prophet/Prophet Mohammed/Muhammad" dilemma: "The Muslim prophet Mohammed."

Respect, always. Submission, never.

Update and Instalanche:  "To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, theocracy is forever descending on America, but somehow it always lands somewhere else," notes Glenn Reynolds.

"Arabic names won't go into English, exactly"

I say Mohammed, and you say Muhammad, he says Mohammad, and Atta says Mohamed . . . Let's call the whole thing off? (Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, left, and Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia)

With hijabs off to Jimmy Kennedy's "Istanbul":

"The prophet Muhammad" was plain old "Mohammed"
Now it's "the prophet Muhammad," not plain old "Mohammed"
Been a short time gone, plain old "Mohammed"
Now it's Dhimmi delight on a moonlit night.

Or so we thought, having noticed of late a rash of references to the man believed by the faithful to be God's final prophet as "Muhammad," "the prophet Muhammad" or even -- in the case of the BBC's "Society & Culture" website, "the Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him]." In our day it was plain old "Mohammed." As we blogged here the other day, we never got the memo. How long has this been going on? Is it creeping Dhimmitude or just one of those things or something in between?

Ann Althouse had some answers. In response to our email query, she explained that her own use of "the Prophet Muhammad" was a gesture of respect:

I'm probably just adopting the spelling that I see in the NYT. It might be related to the changed spelling from Moslem to Muslim. I did a Nexis search in the NYT for "prophet muhammad and cartoon and danish" and got 51 hits. For just "prophet muhammad," I got 449 hits. So the Times's use of the term goes way back.

"Moslem to Muslim makes sense," we emailed back:

I don't know when that happened, but Muslim does correspond better to Arabs' pronunciation of the word, and I myself made the switch years ago, thinking at the time I was superior to those who stuck with Moslem (the arrogance of youth). In the current climate, I'm not so sure.

We hadn't realized till we googled that when it comes to translating Arabic to English -- according to Wikipedia -- "a number of different transliteration methods have been invented to represent certain Arabic characters, due to various conflicting goals." Conflicting goals. We know all about those. T E Lawrence put it this way:

"Arabic names won't go into English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district."

Pre-September 11 intelligence conducted by a secret military unit -- the mysterious Able Danger -- may have identified Mohamed Atta 19 times, but consider the linguistic challenge:

Difficulties arise whenever Arabic names are listed alphabetically using the Roman alphabet, and when they are used in databases or search engines. Efforts by the FBI to track down Usama bin Laden's supporters, for instance, were severely hampered by this problem.

A little more googling brought more suprises. The American former boxing champ who converted to Islam spells his name Muhammad Ali, while former Iranian President Khatami's first name is transliterated as Mohammad with an "o" instead of "u." We can't help but notice that a lot of terrorists seem to prefer "Mohammed" with an e, though Mohamed Atta whittled his down to one "m." This post is beginning to sound like a poor woman's Jeanie Mose human-foibles featurette on CNN. No wonder we're having trouble understanding each other.

Update: From al-Bab's "Arabic words and the Roman alphabet":

Using the Google search engine, we checked for the most common spellings of some Arabic names . . . 

Muhammad     41%
Mohammed     32%
Mohamed        25%
Mahomet          3% 

Take your pick on the spelling. We think we'll stick with Mohammed. But the recent adoption by MSM types and bloggers of the honorific "the prophet" or "the Prophet" sounds Dhimmitudinous to our conspiratorial ear. When Fox News pretty boy Shepard Smith mouths "the prophet Mohammed," it makes our toes curl. We prefer Jim Angle's fair and balanced -- and respectful -- "the Muslim prophet Mohammed."