I think it should go without saying (but of course, nothing does) that anytime someone wants to protect something from “denigration” or other forms of criticism, we should all grab hold of our rights and hang onto them with a death grip. To put this case most eloquently, I offer the following.
Mark is a writer and musician living in the St. Louis area. He hit puberty at the peak of the Sixties and came of age just as it was all coming to a close with the end of the Vietnam War. He was annoyed when bellbottoms went out of style, but he got over it.
While some of the remarks description of Muslims in GB seem bigoted, I find the general idea of working the system interesting. But a far better idea would be to improve the US’s reputation as a champion of human rights (something we are not currently noted for) to improve our influence in the international community by standing as an example of democracy instead of as champions for despotism around the world.
I understand that the ethical goal is to separate people from the beliefs that often characterize them as a group, but this is a hard thing to do when the beliefs in question are so all-encompassing and stringent as to constrain what we might call “reasonable consideration.” Even moderate Muslims cannot abide anything that smacks of ridicule of their religion, hence the outcry over the Dutch cartoons a couple years back. Those pushing more extreme agendas rely on this reluctance on the part of the (presumed) majority to appear to run counter to what they believe in order to defend a broader ethic which results in, essentially, derision on occasion.
Make no mistake, Christians do this, too. It’s just that we have, much to the dismay of such faithful, successfully created a secular system that supersedes such faith-based reactions. In many countries in the Muslim world this has not quite succeeded. An effort like this is categorically destructive of the very machinery that permits such a resolution to be put before a democratic body.
As to the apparent slurs mentioned…well, we’ve seen individuals do exactly that, haven’t we? Take advantage of a system while condemning it. Does this characterize “all” people of certain background? Absolutely not. But recognizing this does not preclude recognizing the initial observation about individuals.
Many wait from Obama immediate recovery and resolution of all problems they had through many years so far. It's unfair. During a year in White House Obama has done a lot. Here's a brief summary of major accomplishments of Barack Obama during his presidency:http://myhowtoos.com/en/red-hot/93-growing-list-of-barack-obama-accomplishments »
HiJust so you know in future, and can let your neighbour know. When a baby crow is fully feathered like this they naturally leave the nest. They have to one day. They take a few days then to learn to fly around with confidence. But you 'must' 'never' take the bird if the mother is around. This is normal crow behaviour and happens to 'all' cro... »
This whole crisis will just be repeated again because the way W and Obama have stacked the deck.We, the taxpayers are the payors of last resort, and there's no risk, civilly or criminally for the thieves, jackals and vultures who will pick over the last of the bones of the Middle Class at the end of the next crisis when the whole world is thrown ba... »
Erich-It seems that the Chinese are acting as though peak oil were here or something. From the article:This green spending is concurrent with their ongoing efforts to lock up remaining supplies of oil, as I briefly mentioned here. See also this article on Chinese oil buying. »
Jay, I agree. A lot of the house bill, particularly where Medicaid reform is concerned, references specific paragraphs in the Medicaid laws. Understanding the full effect of the changes wil require reading those as well. I've often thought it would be fun to get an amendment to repeal or suspend an obscure law of physics, such as the chandrasekha... »
Ya know, I thought NO ONE actually read those bills. I've always wanted to slip in weird, off the wall statements and regs that make no sense into the middle of such a document to see if anyone is actually reading them. »
Palin quit some appointment to an oil board because of GOP "corruption."Palin says the McCain people didn't let her have her say. The media just did "gotcha" moments on Palin.Palin quits being governor two years early because of conservative allegations of her being "corrupt." Just after Palin pays back Alaska for bilking the state for travel for h... »
Niklaus: I admire your determination. There are probably only a few hundred people in the entire country who have read the first 1,000 pages. When you finish, I'll invite you to read the Senate version too, so that you can do a comparison. »
Well I'm up to page 1000 in the house bill. A lot of the bill addresses specifically the loopholes that have been exploited by large corporations like Wal-mart that have permitted those companies to put most of their employees on public health care or to deny them access to coverage. Some actually includes provisions for making those corporations p... »
Get Over It, It's not about a difference of opinion. Mrs' Palin has repeatedly and proudly her voiced opinions in ways that exhibit a wanton ignorance of current events, world history, and global politics. She has on many occasions voiced opinions that show grounding in the prejudices and stereotyping common to those who prefer to leave the he... »
Hey, Get Over It,What do we do if someone actually happens to BE stupid? I suppose we could say they're rationality challenged.But seriously, I don't for a minute think this woman is stupid. I think she's opportunistic and such a thorough-going politician that she'd use just about anyone, including her family, to win.BTW, American Right To Life (... »
Ya'll need to get over it. Name calling conservatives will never get independents like me. Try to be more balanced and analyze Sarah's actions/remarks to the same degree as your beloved Obama. Also, please stop judging people to be stupid just because they don't agree with you! This elitism in the liberal party is just sickening. »
Aw, bugger! I'm in a "fight?" Who do I punch in the nose? My faith there is a God means I cannot accept that others don't believe as I do? Or that some might believe that I'm delusional and believe in mythical beings?There's some unforseen armageddon between theism and science which will result in the inevitable destruction of theism? Dammit, I gue... »
I've been working hard to not post anything on Sarah Palin, who continues to gather publicity for reasons I can't fathom. I must say, though, that I am aghast at her recent position on the illegal Jewish settlements. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/palin-on-israel.html »
While some of the remarks description of Muslims in GB seem bigoted, I find the general idea of working the system interesting. But a far better idea would be to improve the US’s reputation as a champion of human rights (something we are not currently noted for) to improve our influence in the international community by standing as an example of democracy instead of as champions for despotism around the world.
I enjoyed much of this, though I agree with Niklaus that some of this chap’s free speech veered off into over-generalized stereotyping of Muslims.
Does anyone know who this is giving this talk?
I understand that the ethical goal is to separate people from the beliefs that often characterize them as a group, but this is a hard thing to do when the beliefs in question are so all-encompassing and stringent as to constrain what we might call “reasonable consideration.” Even moderate Muslims cannot abide anything that smacks of ridicule of their religion, hence the outcry over the Dutch cartoons a couple years back. Those pushing more extreme agendas rely on this reluctance on the part of the (presumed) majority to appear to run counter to what they believe in order to defend a broader ethic which results in, essentially, derision on occasion.
Make no mistake, Christians do this, too. It’s just that we have, much to the dismay of such faithful, successfully created a secular system that supersedes such faith-based reactions. In many countries in the Muslim world this has not quite succeeded. An effort like this is categorically destructive of the very machinery that permits such a resolution to be put before a democratic body.
As to the apparent slurs mentioned…well, we’ve seen individuals do exactly that, haven’t we? Take advantage of a system while condemning it. Does this characterize “all” people of certain background? Absolutely not. But recognizing this does not preclude recognizing the initial observation about individuals.