I did a double-take when I saw this van today on the way to work. It seemed both clever and unkind. It left me wondering whether, and to what extent, it was over the line.
I wonder what blind people would think about this play on words. If they all said that they were OK with it, should that be the deciding factor?
Am I just being too PC?
I think there will never NOT be a "Taliban" or some such other indigenous, nationalist Afghan movement without an Islamic base. It is by the very nature of the diverse peoples in Afghanistan that Islam is the focus which unites all Afghans. Any nationalistic movement in Afghanistan will necessarily have an Islamic base. It is by the very nature of the diverse peoples in Afghanistan that we cannot hope to quell all inter-tribal or inter-nationality violence in and across Afghanistan. That being said, what chance does any foreign nation have of completely stopping any Afghan insurgency which is indigenous rather than foreign in its base? Certainly, we might see ourselves at being successful at cutting off the re-arming of Afghanistan from Pakistan if we could trust that the indigenous Afghan national and local security forces were sufficient in numbers and training to do so within some reasonable time period. We would also need the co-operation of the Pakistani authorities, which are fighting the Taliban at home. And Pakistan is now more amenable to support efforts against the Taliban and al Qaida along the joint borders between Pakistani and Afghanistan. But, there are some other borders and issues to be concerned about which will always take up the time of any national security forces, Iran (sectarian) and the North (opium trade). It is not known how long it would take to build a national Afghan army or security force sufficient for this effort. The Afghan people pride themselves on their ability to oust foreign occupiers. US and NATO forces are more and more being viewed as foreign occupiers, given the rising toll of civilian deaths, notwithstanding any causalities by the Taliban (the last I heard, the Taliban doesn't have any fast-movers or aerial bombs).
I'm shaking my head at the terrible news coverage of Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during Barack Obama's health care speech last night. I'm not denying that Wilson's rude behavior is news, but look what's missing in prominent articles covering this story: Was Obama lying? It would seem that reporters should be asking whether Obama ever previously took a position on whether illegal aliens should be covered under what he proposes to be the new health care plan. Consider this AP article, which does what you expect. Wilson is rude; Wilson called the President a liar during a nationally broadcast session of Congress; the President looked stunned; Wilson was heavily criticized; John McCain is applauded for saying the obvious, that Wilson should apologize; Wilson does apologize; lots of head shaking; what will his behavior mean for Republicans? If I were teaching journalism school, I would tell my cub reporters to figure out whether Obama has ever promoted national health care coverage for illegal aliens. Then I would tell them to report on this central issue. If Obama has promoted health care coverage for illegal aliens, he was a liar. If he has never taken this position, then Joe Wilson is a liar. If Obama had previously taken the position that illegal aliens won't be covered, then Joe Wilson is a big fat despicable liar. If Joe Wilson turns out to be a liar, then his apology would need to go much further than it did; it would need to admit not only that he was rude but that he was the liar; he would need to admit that Obama never advocated health care coverage for illegal aliens. In any case, Wilson should be cross-examined like this by reporters: On what basis did you claim that Obama was lying? Show us your evidence. If Wilson has no evidence, he should admit that he had no evidence, and then he should add that he makes things up and that he is exactly the sort of mindless obstructionist to health care that shouldn't be part of the conversation because he is not an evidence-based being. Unfortunately, the media is once again running wild with the conflict of the moment, with the apology and all the head-shaking. Instead of covering the obvious issue that would put an end to the big sideshow, most news stories have side-stepped it. This issue of coverage for illegal immigrants is important for many people. It would be great for the illegal immigrants, of course, but it would also drive up the bill for all of those people who pay taxes (this would include many illegal immigrants). This is an important and contentious issue that needs to be addressed clearly. But when Joe Wilson shouts that Obama is a liar, the media can't even get to the point: Was Obama a liar? It is so damned difficult to keep the media focused on the actual terms of proposed health care reform. I do think shouting "Liar" at a President could be appropriate, even in Congress, if the President were lying about an important issue. It would be an extraordinary thing to do, but what if, for example, the President was lying to Congress that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that a war would be a cheap cake-walk when he knew these to be lies. In that case, I would think it would be appropriate for a dissenting member of Congress to stand up and call him a liar in order to spare the lives of several thousand American soldier, to prevent tens of thousands of soldiers from being maimed and to prevent the deaths, injuries and homelessness of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Too bad no member of Congress had the guts to stand up and break the silence in early 2003.
This is really a treat. Go to this link and see ten photos taken by the recently refurbished Hubble telescope, along with detailed commentary. The image below is one of the ten. It depicts the "Butterfly Nebula." The inset photo is of barred spiral galaxy NGC 6217.
Here's the description of the above photo, from NASA:
A dying star that was once about five times the mass of the Sun is at the center of this fury. It has ejected its envelope of gases and is now unleashing a stream of ultraviolet radiation that is making the cast-off material glow. NGC 6302 lies within our Milky Way galaxy, roughly 3,800 light-years away in the constellation Scorpius. The glowing gas is the star’s outer layers, expelled over about 2,200 years. The "butterfly" stretches for more than two light-years, which is about half the distance from the Sun to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. The central star itself cannot be seen, because it is hidden within a doughnut-shaped ring of dust, which appears as a dark band pinching the nebula in the center.
The Associated Press is reporting that there is a new curriculum debuting in 7 states this year with the goal of teaching middle-school and high-school students about the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Developed by the September 11th Education Trust, the curriculum will focus on 7 areas "designed to help students reflect on the impact and legacy of September 11, 2001". Sample units include:
"This is one of the critical subjects on which young people should develop some ideas and thoughts. They're going to have to live with this for quite some time," he said. "It gives young people a framework in which to think about Sept. 11, all that it meant and all that it means to the present."I'm not quite sure what he means when he says that "They're going to have to live with this for quite some time." Does he mean the threat of terrorism? Does he mean the consequences of our reaction to 9/11?