Must-Flee TV

The Taliban is gone, so at least Afghans have some TV. But this dispatch says the airing of a 20-year-old clip of a woman singing sent the Supreme Court into tizzy, which protested to the ministry of information and culture. The result: Afghan women can read the news on the tube, but singing or dancing is right out.

Comments

[nobody of importance]

Ah gotta love theocracy!

I mean you have to... it's the law.

[rst]

But the Supreme Court said the footage was against the constitution, which also stipulated that no law was above the beliefs of Islam.

We traded the Taliban for this? Now we have to recognize these retards. What an interesting Constitution it is that allows the SC to stop the presses for what it sees on TV. The FCC would have been a preferable philosophical blunder to that.

What is truly sad is that there is most definitely a section of Islam angry that the hijabless female performer wasn't disembowled in some gruesome enough manner so as to please the desert god.

[Swamp Justice]

Are the Afghan Supreme Court judges or police officers? If they don't like what's on TV, maybe they shouldn't watch it! And how do their laws prevent satellite broadcasts of "Baywatch" re-runs from entering their air space? 🙂

Maybe we should just adopt Afghanistan as the 51st US state.

[Warren]

I'm sick of these irrelevant trivialities the pinko media keeps trotting out. LETS FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT. We kicked Saddam's ass! Now he's right where he belongs: in a cage like the rabid dog he is, and our red-blooded Troops are still kicking ass all over Iraq.

Who cares whether or not the towel heads in the most god-forsaken corner of the globe allow their women folk to compete on American Idol.

[GoonFood]

Well what would anyone really expect? It is really hard to get a mass of people to totally change overnight.

Not to mention here in the US (the supposed capital of world Democracy) the SCOTUS decided we can't show political commercials too close to election time (1st amendment be damned). I'd say the Afgan system is just mirroring ours: full of personal agenda and struggle for control.

[rst]

We kicked Saddam?s ass!

Yes, we kicked the Taliban's ass too. Set them on a path to a new government, Constitution, whole nine (like what we're doing in Iraq). This is what happens when you hand the reins to children. The temperature rises and they think the desert god is mad at them.

[dude]

Speaking of theocracy.

Anyone want to bet Iraq turns out a theocracy? Except the kurdish part. We let the ayatollahs take over in exchange for being allowed to bug out and declare victory just in time for the election?

[Jennifer]

Warren-

Are you seriously suggesting that the media not report stories of such setbacks? What guidelines would you propose, to let the pinko media know whether or not they should report a story?

[ed]

"Maybe we should just adopt Afghanistan as the 51st US state."

That'll take the heat off Mississippi.

[Russ D]

The US didn't root out the Taliban for the sake of Afghanis.

And if the Afghanis run their country like this, they are unlikely to see very much of that "aid" so many countries pledged.

[Russ]

"Set them on a path to a new government, Constitution, whole nine (like what we're doing in Iraq). This is what happens when you hand the reins to children."

Sounds like it's time to stop giving a fuck. Is there any good reason for any rational individual in the United States to be concerned with what is or isn't broadcast on a television set in a country on the other side of the planet?

Yeah, the censorship thing is stupid, but I'm none of us here happen to reside in Kabul. If they want to be stupid and they're not harming us, why should we care?

By caring, and setting up their governments, and helping to write their constitutions and handing out bags of money, we're imposing costs on ourselves for no tangible benefits. How stupid is that?

[joe]

"By caring, and setting up their governments, and helping to write their constitutions and handing out bags of money, we're imposing costs on ourselves for no tangible benefits. How stupid is that?"

Yeah! I'd like to see somebody give me one example of political instability in Afghanistan ever hurting us. Just one.

[thoreau]

Joe-

Why should we care about political instability in Afghanistan? The only reason political instability in Afghanistan ever affected us was because Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq. Saddam was the centerpiece of terrorism, the most dangerous of the Islamo-fascists. But now we've beaten Saddam, so Afghanistan doesn't matter.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Dan]

We traded the Taliban for this?

Would you show some perspective, please? This sort of cultural conservatism isn't one one-thousandth as bad as the Taliban was.

Fifty years ago, American TV would only show Elvis Presley from the waist up. A decade later, the "long-haired" (past their ears!) Beatles were considered an extremely risky move. Today we have network shows about porn producers and exotic dancers, and Victoria's Secret runs lingerie ads in prime time.

Yes, the Afghans will have to wait for their crusty old conservatives to die, the same as we did. But at least the pendulum is swinging in the right direction for them now.

[Russ]

"Yeah! I'd like to see somebody give me one example of political instability in Afghanistan ever hurting us. Just one."

And what, pray tell, was the cause of that political instability? It couldn't have had anything to do with trying to reshape the political structure of foreign countries... could it?

[thoreau]

Russ asked:
And what, pray tell, was the cause of that political instability? It couldn't have had anything to do with trying to reshape the political structure of foreign countries... could it?

I'm curious where you stand on the invasion of Iraq.

[Andrew]

Thoreau--

Staying ahead of the power curve is NOT a bad idea. Who wouldn't want to see another big domino fall right now? Perhaps in Iran?

There does have to be a tipping point...and it was safe to assume that Afghanistan, taken by itself, wouldn't be it.

(Say it again-- the sarcasm is tedious, unimaginative, and prone to produce confusion.)

[Russ]

thoreau,

"I'm curious where you stand on the invasion of Iraq."

I was opposed, but only because there was insufficent cause to justify the use of armed force.

I can think of only 3 occasions where military force is justified:

1. As a defensive measure, to repel and defeat an actual attack by an adversary.

2. As a retalliatory measure, after suffering an attack, to deny the adversary the ability or will to mount further attacks.

3. As a pre-emptive measure, to prevent an imminent attack from an adversary who has demonstrated ability, opportunity and intent to attack.

In the case of Iraq, I didn't see any evidence suggesting that Hussein had sponsored any attack against America, nor was I convinced that he had any opportunity, ability or intent to attack in the foreseeable future.

However, principles aside, invading Iraq isn't going to generate much goodwill toward America, and the financial costs alone have already dwarfed the benefits. We could have bought plenty of oil for $87 billion.

[Warren]

thoreau@5:07
Thanks, you said it better than me.

[stickler]

Warren,
Better than "I".
Sorry.

[dhex]

dan hits something right on the head - it wasn't too long ago that america had to be throat-fucked out of it's horrible puritan slumber. with the requisite over the top swings back and forth that come with social repression.

[joe]

"The only reason political instability in Afghanistan ever affected us was because Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq. Saddam was the centerpiece of terrorism, the most dangerous of the Islamo-fascists."

Had you signed with a name I didn't recognize, thoreau, I absolutely would not have guessed this was sarcasm. I read assertions with this level of dishonesty and detatchment from reality every day. Printed in the midst of several Cheney or Perle quotes, it would be impossible to pick out the fake one.

[Will]

There are some great comments here and I don't have much to add other than:

1. I like to think (maybe I wrong) that the rampant media Puritanism during the 40s and 50s reflected not any sort of larger religious tide against naughty hip shaking, but had more to do with a fledging technology and media... and a prevailing sense of decency which was almost, but not quite religious in nature.

2. If the true goal in our "War on Terror" (really a war on Islamic theocracy as my understand of the Bush Doctrine leads me to believe) is to topple superstitious, authoritarian governments and replace them with secularist societies(the foundation of stability and prosperity) then the recent SNAFU with the Afghani "constitution" (a stretch of the word) is a resolute failure by the West to reshape the most basic and simple of Islamic countries... and ultimately doesn't speak well of our ability to curtail religious extremism in more developed countries such as Iran.
At the end of the day, despite our best efforts, these people still think we're the great Satan and will still fight tooth and nail to kill and maim us.

And that sucks. 🙁

[thoreau]

Andrew and Joe-

It's funny that Andrew thought my sarcasm was over the top, but Joe would have considered it a serious comment if he didn't know me.

It was the best of sarcasm, it was the worst of sarcasm.

I think Warren got my sarcasm, and I'm pretty sure Warren's earlier comment in this thread was also sarcastic. But I'm not 100% sure.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe she's just a bad singer? If she sings anything like the geeks on American Idol, it could just be that the Afghani Supremes are suffering from nothing more than good taste.

But probably not.

[thoreau]

Maybe she's just a bad singer? If she sings anything like the geeks on American Idol, it could just be that the Afghani Supremes are suffering from nothing more than good taste.

Simon goes to Afghanistan.

Some chick in a burqua is singing
"Oops I did it again, I learned how to read, I got uppity, ooh baby baby..."

Simon: "It's too bad those burquas don't include gags. You may be the worst singer in all of Central Asia."

[Mark Bahner]

"In the case of Iraq, I didn't see any evidence suggesting that Hussein had sponsored any attack against America,..."

The mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing is thought to be Ramzi Yousef, who came to the U.S. under an Iraqi passport.

Further, one of the alleged conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing is Abdul Raman Yasim. Yasim returned to Iraq immediately after the 1993 WTC bombing. He was definitely protected by Saddam Hussein's government (i.e., he wasn't extradited back to the U.S.)...and by some accounts he was given money by Saddam Hussein's government.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

If Abdul Raman Yasim *was* paid by the Iraqi government after the 1993 WTC attack, would you consider that to be an example of Saddam Hussein "sponsoring" an attack on America? If not, why not?

[dc]

Aha, the government kicked back and overruled it. Should get interesting:

"President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday it should be left to the government to decided whether women could be shown singing on television and hours later Kabul Television aired a tape of a performance by 1980s star Ustad Mahwash."

Also:

"However, Minister for Information and Culture Sayed Makhdoom Raheen said Saturday that no official complaint from the Supreme Court had been received and images of women singing would continue to be broadcast.

"He said members of the court were free to talk to the press and to air their views but that there would be more women seen singing on public broadcasts.

?We don?t believe in discrimination against women. Women have the same rights as men,? he told AFP."

[Douglas Fletcher]

Stop being logical. This is politics, not science.