I just don't get it. I've held off posting about the transfer of "management power" of some of the United States' ports from a British company to a company from the United Arab Emerites because I didn't really have an opinion (shocking, I know!). Well, I've found a few in the deep recesses of my brain and I'd like to share them:
All of the articles I've read have said something similar to the following regarding the sale of the British company: "The [Bush] administration approved the sale of British firm P&O, which manages six U.S. ports, to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates." Nearly every article has used the term "approved." Excuse me? "Approve?" What are we doing approving of a business transaction between a British company and an UAE company? "The Japanese government recently blocked the sale of [inset USA company here] to [insert Chinese company here] because they disapproved of it." We'd be all over that! I can understand the US telling the Dubai company that we don't desire their services, but we have no place "approving" or "disapproving" of any such merger.
Secondarily, I am (once again) hearing two different and conflicting statements from the political left. Since 2001, they have been the loudest in regard to "racial profiling." It's due to their insistence that my 90 year old Irish grandmother got strip searched at airport security, when the man with a fuse sticking out of his shoe walked through because he was wearing a turban. And yet, these are the loudest people decrying this "security risk" because a company from the Middle East is responsible for managing ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans (is there much of a port left?), and Miami. Make up your mind! Either we don't use racial profiling and we treat every person the same, or we are wary of Middle Eastern people, we screen them more heavily at airports, and we deny them the ability to manage our ports. You can't have it both ways just so you can continue to bash this administration.
This issue is wrong on so many levels. We have no business telling these businesses what they can or cannot do. However, we should probably find another company to manage these ports. But, once again, this is all just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
More minor rants
It seems that there isn't anything recently that so strongly captures my attention that it warrants an entire post. So here are three brief insights that I'd like to share.
"Investigative Reporting" I've always thought that reporting was informing others of things that have transpired. Covering a story that has already occurred. Isn't investigative reporting similar to a newsperson creating a story just so they can cover it? Seems a bit unethical to me.
"The DaVinci Code" I'm not even going to discuss this like most people might think I would. Recently, an Albino group has spoken out against this movie saying they are tired of being characterized as the bad guys. They feel that too often when there is an albino character, he or she is always the villain. Um... sure... I can't tell you how many movies I've watched and seen the albino character come on the screen and think "Oh, there's the murderer. No doubt." (Let's list the albinos that we can think of: The guy in the pit of despair in "The Princess Bride," the two hitmen in "Matrix Reloaded," and this guy in "The DaVinci Code." Three movies in 20 years? A clear case of stereotyping!) This albino group (which represents around 200,000 Americans) argues that there should be more albinos in films as the next door neighbor, or the love interest. Yeah, let's do that...
"Mr. Heterosexual." A group supporting gay rights recently protested a pageant called "Mr. Heterosexual" claiming that it was hateful. Wait a minute, "Mr. Heterosexual" was in response to a pageant held out in San Francisco called "Mr. Homosexual." Is that one hateful? Can heterosexuals protest that pageant? Can special interest groups have their cake and eat it too without anyone calling them on it? It's the same thing with race issues. Would anyone stand for a "Mr. White Boston?" Would a "Mr. Black Boston" fly? I hope that the homosexuals protesting "Mr. Heterosexual" will also be protesting "Mr. Homosexual" as just as hateful.
And that's just my opinion.
"Investigative Reporting" I've always thought that reporting was informing others of things that have transpired. Covering a story that has already occurred. Isn't investigative reporting similar to a newsperson creating a story just so they can cover it? Seems a bit unethical to me.
"The DaVinci Code" I'm not even going to discuss this like most people might think I would. Recently, an Albino group has spoken out against this movie saying they are tired of being characterized as the bad guys. They feel that too often when there is an albino character, he or she is always the villain. Um... sure... I can't tell you how many movies I've watched and seen the albino character come on the screen and think "Oh, there's the murderer. No doubt." (Let's list the albinos that we can think of: The guy in the pit of despair in "The Princess Bride," the two hitmen in "Matrix Reloaded," and this guy in "The DaVinci Code." Three movies in 20 years? A clear case of stereotyping!) This albino group (which represents around 200,000 Americans) argues that there should be more albinos in films as the next door neighbor, or the love interest. Yeah, let's do that...
"Mr. Heterosexual." A group supporting gay rights recently protested a pageant called "Mr. Heterosexual" claiming that it was hateful. Wait a minute, "Mr. Heterosexual" was in response to a pageant held out in San Francisco called "Mr. Homosexual." Is that one hateful? Can heterosexuals protest that pageant? Can special interest groups have their cake and eat it too without anyone calling them on it? It's the same thing with race issues. Would anyone stand for a "Mr. White Boston?" Would a "Mr. Black Boston" fly? I hope that the homosexuals protesting "Mr. Heterosexual" will also be protesting "Mr. Homosexual" as just as hateful.
And that's just my opinion.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Next Olympic Event: Speed Ranting
Happy Birthday to the Queen of Hearts
Hey NBC. If I tune it to watch the Olympics, I want to watch the Olympics. I don't want to watch you talk about the Olympics. Bob Costas blabbing about how exciting the day was and asking gold medal snowboarders which figure skaters he thinks are hot is not exactly my idea of "Must See TV!" Show what happened, quit the yappin'!
Bill Maher was on the Tonight Show last night. He has really rocketed to stardom recently on this innovative, inventive, new comedy routine of bashing the president. After spouting something negative about taxes and the president's plan a few people in Jay's audience applauded, to which Bill turned to them and congratulated them as the "free thinkers." Yeah, free thinkers, free not to question what nearly every Democrat is saying. Free not look at the evidence and question what they've heard from both sides. It was great that most of the people in the audience weren't reacting positively to his diatribes. The panic that exploded into his eyes when he realized he wasn't in front of people who have paid to see him, who knew what he was about, and wanted to revel in their fellow hatred of the man America elected (at least once), was priceless. But Bill spreads unity in America by saying "Hey, I didn't elect him." Good for you, Bill.
Here's some good news! John Henry (Principle owner of the Red Sox) appears to have become a republican. Major League Baseball has a program that makes teams who spend over $120 million dollars on their players have to pay a "luxury tax" that is distributed among the teams who don't make as much money. John Henry was complaining that this takes money from the successful teams and gives it to the less successful. He said that this policy does not have any incentive for these lesser teams to improve because they are getting free money. This all coming from a man who was an outspoken supporter of Mr. "Commonwealth," himself: John Kerry. So what do you think Mr. Henry would of the welfare system? Now that he's fully experiencing what it's like to not have a high power CPA getting him through tax loopholes, and he's seeing his money (which he tried to claim was the fans money) go places that he doesn't agree with. Do you think he'll be voting Democratic in the next election?
(and on a brief side note: If the Republican party is the party of the rich, why are all of the richest people in the public eye Democrats? Actors, Athletes, Musicians, Team Owners, Comedians, TV "Personalities" (that's funny, does Matt Lauer really have much of a personality?), etc. Take a look at who gives money to the Democratic party, you might be surprised...)
This just in: Racism continues to abound and continues to be perpetuated by African Americans! Bryant Gumble said yesterday "The winter Olympics, count me among those who don't like 'em and won't watch 'em... Try not to laugh when someone says these are the greatest athletes when there is such a [void] of blacks that it looks like a GOP convention." Wow, so he slams the republicans and the Olympics in one fell swoop. I'm not going to comment on this any more than to speculate that Bryant is expressing his anger that he narrowly missed joining the 1984 Winter Olympic Men's figure skating team to Scott Hamilton because he two footed a triple lutz, though Bryant claims it's because he's black.
Once again: Just My Opinion.
Hey NBC. If I tune it to watch the Olympics, I want to watch the Olympics. I don't want to watch you talk about the Olympics. Bob Costas blabbing about how exciting the day was and asking gold medal snowboarders which figure skaters he thinks are hot is not exactly my idea of "Must See TV!" Show what happened, quit the yappin'!
Bill Maher was on the Tonight Show last night. He has really rocketed to stardom recently on this innovative, inventive, new comedy routine of bashing the president. After spouting something negative about taxes and the president's plan a few people in Jay's audience applauded, to which Bill turned to them and congratulated them as the "free thinkers." Yeah, free thinkers, free not to question what nearly every Democrat is saying. Free not look at the evidence and question what they've heard from both sides. It was great that most of the people in the audience weren't reacting positively to his diatribes. The panic that exploded into his eyes when he realized he wasn't in front of people who have paid to see him, who knew what he was about, and wanted to revel in their fellow hatred of the man America elected (at least once), was priceless. But Bill spreads unity in America by saying "Hey, I didn't elect him." Good for you, Bill.
Here's some good news! John Henry (Principle owner of the Red Sox) appears to have become a republican. Major League Baseball has a program that makes teams who spend over $120 million dollars on their players have to pay a "luxury tax" that is distributed among the teams who don't make as much money. John Henry was complaining that this takes money from the successful teams and gives it to the less successful. He said that this policy does not have any incentive for these lesser teams to improve because they are getting free money. This all coming from a man who was an outspoken supporter of Mr. "Commonwealth," himself: John Kerry. So what do you think Mr. Henry would of the welfare system? Now that he's fully experiencing what it's like to not have a high power CPA getting him through tax loopholes, and he's seeing his money (which he tried to claim was the fans money) go places that he doesn't agree with. Do you think he'll be voting Democratic in the next election?
(and on a brief side note: If the Republican party is the party of the rich, why are all of the richest people in the public eye Democrats? Actors, Athletes, Musicians, Team Owners, Comedians, TV "Personalities" (that's funny, does Matt Lauer really have much of a personality?), etc. Take a look at who gives money to the Democratic party, you might be surprised...)
This just in: Racism continues to abound and continues to be perpetuated by African Americans! Bryant Gumble said yesterday "The winter Olympics, count me among those who don't like 'em and won't watch 'em... Try not to laugh when someone says these are the greatest athletes when there is such a [void] of blacks that it looks like a GOP convention." Wow, so he slams the republicans and the Olympics in one fell swoop. I'm not going to comment on this any more than to speculate that Bryant is expressing his anger that he narrowly missed joining the 1984 Winter Olympic Men's figure skating team to Scott Hamilton because he two footed a triple lutz, though Bryant claims it's because he's black.
Once again: Just My Opinion.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Extra Medium Rants. Not too big, not too small
Anyone else feel like there are times that your cat is looking at you wondering how they are going to destroy you? "Do I make it quick and painless? Or do I make him suffer? Well... while I'm deciding I'll just knock over this plant. It has begun..."
A conservative paper at Harvard was the first paper to reprint the caricatures of Muhammad. Liberals decried this saying that it was "disrespectful" to Muslims. Disrespectful. Let's see what other groups the new is "disrespectful" to: DSS, The Catholic church, the government, Conservatives, Democrats who aren't liberal enough, Democrats who are too liberal, other news outlets, celebrities, to name just a few. So, on behalf of liberals everywhere, I hereby announce a new standard for newspapers everywhere: You are not allowed to report anything that could be construed as disrespectful to anyone.
The Olympic opening ceremony had Yoko Ono (the woman who broke up the Beetles) read a poem about peace written by her late husband John Lennon. Then they had Peter Gabriel sing "Imagine" also by Lennon. Does anyone realize that this song is not about peace. This song is about Communism (Socialism at best). What are we imagining? No countries, no religion, no heaven, no hell, no possessions, and yet no need for greed or hunger. Please note: this song does not say "Imagine there's no government. No leaders in this land. Imagine there's no tyrants, no rulers with iron hands..." So what I'm hearing is a religionless government that owns everything and controls the world, giving to each according to their need. Shame on the Olympics. Without capitalism these games would not exist. Sing about peace all you want, but leave Communism and Socialism outside of the Stadio Olympico.
Food for thought: In one weekend both of the following occur: Vice President accidentally shots a fellow republican in a hunting accident. Former Vice President and Former Presidential candidate Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia for an economic forum making statements selling out his government in an attempt to get Saudi support for his party. The current Veep contacts the media and informs them of the occurrence. The former veep says that Saudi's are being "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." In the post 9/11 America, does anyone think that breaking federal laws by overstaying your visa is a minor offense? Also, I'd like to see the "foreign" section of our detention centers. Silly me, I thought we kept all law breakers in the same place. Day after day I hear about the unfortunate hunting incident. I stumbled on the Gore story deep in the paper and have yet to hear of it on TV or radio.
Just a few quick thoughts, courtesy of Just My Opinion.
A conservative paper at Harvard was the first paper to reprint the caricatures of Muhammad. Liberals decried this saying that it was "disrespectful" to Muslims. Disrespectful. Let's see what other groups the new is "disrespectful" to: DSS, The Catholic church, the government, Conservatives, Democrats who aren't liberal enough, Democrats who are too liberal, other news outlets, celebrities, to name just a few. So, on behalf of liberals everywhere, I hereby announce a new standard for newspapers everywhere: You are not allowed to report anything that could be construed as disrespectful to anyone.
The Olympic opening ceremony had Yoko Ono (the woman who broke up the Beetles) read a poem about peace written by her late husband John Lennon. Then they had Peter Gabriel sing "Imagine" also by Lennon. Does anyone realize that this song is not about peace. This song is about Communism (Socialism at best). What are we imagining? No countries, no religion, no heaven, no hell, no possessions, and yet no need for greed or hunger. Please note: this song does not say "Imagine there's no government. No leaders in this land. Imagine there's no tyrants, no rulers with iron hands..." So what I'm hearing is a religionless government that owns everything and controls the world, giving to each according to their need. Shame on the Olympics. Without capitalism these games would not exist. Sing about peace all you want, but leave Communism and Socialism outside of the Stadio Olympico.
Food for thought: In one weekend both of the following occur: Vice President accidentally shots a fellow republican in a hunting accident. Former Vice President and Former Presidential candidate Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia for an economic forum making statements selling out his government in an attempt to get Saudi support for his party. The current Veep contacts the media and informs them of the occurrence. The former veep says that Saudi's are being "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." In the post 9/11 America, does anyone think that breaking federal laws by overstaying your visa is a minor offense? Also, I'd like to see the "foreign" section of our detention centers. Silly me, I thought we kept all law breakers in the same place. Day after day I hear about the unfortunate hunting incident. I stumbled on the Gore story deep in the paper and have yet to hear of it on TV or radio.
Just a few quick thoughts, courtesy of Just My Opinion.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Hate Crimes?
Hate Crime: "Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability."
Recently nine churches have been burned to the ground. No one has mentioned the term "hate crime." Well, that's not entirely true. I heard someone say that if those churches were burned because they are primarily black churches then they would be considered "hate crimes."
A few buildings in Denmark have been attacked by Muslim rioters because the papers printed a picture of Mohammad. Is this a "hate crime?" These people have been targeted because of their perceived (and actual) non-Islamic religion.
Why are these two occurrences not being labeled as hate crimes? Is it because hate crimes can only be perpetrated against people that it's unfashionable to repress? Who do we often hear of hate crimes being committed against? Homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and Muslims (since 9/11). If these churches were synagogues or Mosques, would they be hate crimes? If the rioters were burning down a gay bar, would it be a hate crime? What if gays were torching the homes of black people?
I recognize that the arson by the Muslims is occurring in another country that may or may not have such laws. If it were here, in America, does the sheer number of people involved prevent it from being a hate crime? What if a group of incensed African-American citizens attacked a despicable white supremacist group?
Either hate crimes need to be labeled as such every time they occur, or the definition needs to be reworked.
The above is, as always, just my opinion.
Recently nine churches have been burned to the ground. No one has mentioned the term "hate crime." Well, that's not entirely true. I heard someone say that if those churches were burned because they are primarily black churches then they would be considered "hate crimes."
A few buildings in Denmark have been attacked by Muslim rioters because the papers printed a picture of Mohammad. Is this a "hate crime?" These people have been targeted because of their perceived (and actual) non-Islamic religion.
Why are these two occurrences not being labeled as hate crimes? Is it because hate crimes can only be perpetrated against people that it's unfashionable to repress? Who do we often hear of hate crimes being committed against? Homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and Muslims (since 9/11). If these churches were synagogues or Mosques, would they be hate crimes? If the rioters were burning down a gay bar, would it be a hate crime? What if gays were torching the homes of black people?
I recognize that the arson by the Muslims is occurring in another country that may or may not have such laws. If it were here, in America, does the sheer number of people involved prevent it from being a hate crime? What if a group of incensed African-American citizens attacked a despicable white supremacist group?
Either hate crimes need to be labeled as such every time they occur, or the definition needs to be reworked.
The above is, as always, just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Disgracing the King and Kudos for... Clinton?
Yesterday, once again, liberals proved that they have no tact, respect, or manners.
The memorial service for Coretta Scott King was held yesterday and everyone who thinks they are someone was there: Ted Kennedy, President Bush I, President Bush II, Carter, Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, among many many others.
It turns out that President Bush rearranged his schedule to attend this funeral, only to hear liberal Democrats take political potshots at him.
While President Bush II actually remembered Mrs. King in his remarks, several other speakers felt that this was an appropriate time to spew their political rhetoric.
These people were mostly people who recognize that this may be the only national stage they have in many years and simply couldn't pass up on this opportunity.
Reverend Joseph Lowery felt this was an acceptable time to mention that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "But there are weapons of mass distraction here." he continued. Yes, there are. You! Your ignorance and lack of respect for the deceased is the distraction. Your need to be in the spotlight is the distraction. Take a seat!
Following the "good" Reverend was former President Jimmy Carter Jr. He chose to attempt to jab at President Bush II by commenting on the "covert wire tapping" that the Kings had to deal with during the civil rights movement. The former President said, "It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." Um, Mr. President, there are two problems with that. 1) Domestic wire tapping is illegal. President Bush II has not engaged in this. All of the wire tapping that has occurred has been conversations with suspected terrorists in other countries. 2) It was your own party that tapped the King's phone! It was your party's heroes! Their brother is two chairs away from you! It was Jack and Robert Kennedy! Maybe while you are saving tortoises in the Everglades and hammering nails in the Sudan you could take a history lesson or two! Take a seat!
Many people cheered at these comments. Proving that the lack of social graces in the liberal left does not sit solely with the elite. It trickles down to the underlings. Those who would accept and encourage inappropriate behavior at a memorial service for a great woman!
President Bush and his father sitting just behind the podium, shook their heads slightly at some of the criticism. I believe that their actions were less concerned with what was being said, but more bothered by the abuse and desecration of the venue. That people would use this time of honor and recollection for their own personal gain.
Then, an amazing thing happened! Former President Clinton showed some class! He rose with his wife and walked to the podium. He said that he was honored to be with his current President and former Presidents. At this point, some nut job liberal who doesn't understand the meaning of tact shouted "and future President!" of course suggesting that Hillary had some sort of a chance at the White House.
Former President Clinton (I highlight "former" because many liberals seem to forget this and enjoy referring to him as "President Clinton" and referring to the current President as "Mr. Bush." Hommie don't play that.) took this opportunity to chastise his own party.
"I want to remind everyone why we are here. We aren't here to chastise. We aren't here to argue politics. Let's remember that there is a real woman here. A woman we are here to remember and to honor."
Good for you Mr. Clinton! Thank you for pointing your misdirected party back in the proper direction for the occasion. And thank you to the rest of the liberals for proving that the only thing you truly care about is power and pontification. If you truly cared about the civil rights movement that you so loudly support, you would have respected the gravity of the ceremony that you were attending, not used it as a soap box to spout from. Thank you for once again separating yourself from the average American. Please feel free to continue with this behavior.
But, what can I say? That's just my opinion.
The memorial service for Coretta Scott King was held yesterday and everyone who thinks they are someone was there: Ted Kennedy, President Bush I, President Bush II, Carter, Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, among many many others.
It turns out that President Bush rearranged his schedule to attend this funeral, only to hear liberal Democrats take political potshots at him.
While President Bush II actually remembered Mrs. King in his remarks, several other speakers felt that this was an appropriate time to spew their political rhetoric.
These people were mostly people who recognize that this may be the only national stage they have in many years and simply couldn't pass up on this opportunity.
Reverend Joseph Lowery felt this was an acceptable time to mention that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "But there are weapons of mass distraction here." he continued. Yes, there are. You! Your ignorance and lack of respect for the deceased is the distraction. Your need to be in the spotlight is the distraction. Take a seat!
Following the "good" Reverend was former President Jimmy Carter Jr. He chose to attempt to jab at President Bush II by commenting on the "covert wire tapping" that the Kings had to deal with during the civil rights movement. The former President said, "It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." Um, Mr. President, there are two problems with that. 1) Domestic wire tapping is illegal. President Bush II has not engaged in this. All of the wire tapping that has occurred has been conversations with suspected terrorists in other countries. 2) It was your own party that tapped the King's phone! It was your party's heroes! Their brother is two chairs away from you! It was Jack and Robert Kennedy! Maybe while you are saving tortoises in the Everglades and hammering nails in the Sudan you could take a history lesson or two! Take a seat!
Many people cheered at these comments. Proving that the lack of social graces in the liberal left does not sit solely with the elite. It trickles down to the underlings. Those who would accept and encourage inappropriate behavior at a memorial service for a great woman!
President Bush and his father sitting just behind the podium, shook their heads slightly at some of the criticism. I believe that their actions were less concerned with what was being said, but more bothered by the abuse and desecration of the venue. That people would use this time of honor and recollection for their own personal gain.
Then, an amazing thing happened! Former President Clinton showed some class! He rose with his wife and walked to the podium. He said that he was honored to be with his current President and former Presidents. At this point, some nut job liberal who doesn't understand the meaning of tact shouted "and future President!" of course suggesting that Hillary had some sort of a chance at the White House.
Former President Clinton (I highlight "former" because many liberals seem to forget this and enjoy referring to him as "President Clinton" and referring to the current President as "Mr. Bush." Hommie don't play that.) took this opportunity to chastise his own party.
"I want to remind everyone why we are here. We aren't here to chastise. We aren't here to argue politics. Let's remember that there is a real woman here. A woman we are here to remember and to honor."
Good for you Mr. Clinton! Thank you for pointing your misdirected party back in the proper direction for the occasion. And thank you to the rest of the liberals for proving that the only thing you truly care about is power and pontification. If you truly cared about the civil rights movement that you so loudly support, you would have respected the gravity of the ceremony that you were attending, not used it as a soap box to spout from. Thank you for once again separating yourself from the average American. Please feel free to continue with this behavior.
But, what can I say? That's just my opinion.
Monday, February 06, 2006
February "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll for the week of February 20th-March 5th (whoops)
Question: How much of the Olympics have you been watching?
Results:
Poll for the week of February 13th-February 19th
Question: Combination of the last two weeks: Which is the best among the top 7?
Results:
Poll for the week of February 6th-February 12th
Question: Which Disney Animated Movie do you think belonged on last weeks poll?
Results:
Poll for the week of January 30th-February 5th
Question: What is your favorite Disney animated movie?
Results:
Question: How much of the Olympics have you been watching?
Results:
I haven't missed a second!
- 1 vote (5.9%)
- 4 votes (23.5%)
- 5 votes (29.4%)
- 5 votes (29.4%)
- 2 votes (11.8%)
Poll for the week of February 13th-February 19th
Question: Combination of the last two weeks: Which is the best among the top 7?
Results:
Aladdin
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll for the week of February 6th-February 12th
Question: Which Disney Animated Movie do you think belonged on last weeks poll?
Results:
Aladdin
- 5 votes (45.5%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
Poll for the week of January 30th-February 5th
Question: What is your favorite Disney animated movie?
Results:
Bambi
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
Friday, February 03, 2006
Solidarity in Europe...
... while Muslims claim that there is "something rotten in Denmark."
I was saddened to learn that the publication of a cartoon depiction of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked protests and threats of violence from the Muslim world. Saddened, mind you, not surprised.
I was surprised, however, to learn that several other European nations are showing their support for the freedom of the press by reprinting these cartoons in their newspapers. This is a remarkable display of unity in Europe.
Of course, those in the Islamic world are even more outraged. Many countries have removed their diplomats from Copenhagen and the Danish government has evacuated their embassies in parts of the Middle East. (Of course, removing diplomats from countries where they are not threatened does nothing save put your citizens in that country at risk. If a Iranian citizen needs help in Denmark they have no embassy to go to...)
(Don't get me wrong, Christians love to play the "most persecuted group" card all the time. "How dare you depict Kanye West as though he were Christ." "The book of Daniel is blasphemous and must be taken off TV." But I think it goes further than that with this situation. I don't think most people assume that if Christians are protesting there will be violence. It's nearly expected for Islamic protests at this point.)
A German paper commented that "perhaps their protests would be taken more seriously if they were not so hypocritical. A Muslim publication depicted Rabbis as cannibals and the Imams were silent."
Does anyone see any parallels between this and the Nazis pre WWII? Does anyone see the elitist nature of their viewpoint? Somehow they are far more worthy of consideration than other races/nations/ethnicities? Don't print a cartoon of our prophet but we'll call for the destruction of the Jews. Don't blaspheme our religion but we'll decapitate people and video it for all to see. Don't try to force your culture on us but you better become a Muslim or we'll kill you.
There was another point that was made in a European paper that I found interesting, especially as one who desires to live outside of the US. How much does an immigrant need to assimilate into the culture? How much does a culture need to cater to the immigrant? I hope to learn the language and the culture of whatever country in which my family and I will reside. Are the Muslims living in Denmark requiring too much of their host country? Is Denmark being too inhospitable to the people who have chosen to live in their nation? Does what Denmark prints in their paper have anything to do with Saudi Arabia? These are perhaps the most intriguing questions raised by this situation.
No one likes to be offended, especially when it comes to religion whose roots spread deep in the life of the believer. But I personally believe that if you are going to reside in a country or area that is known to be anti-whatever-you-are, you shouldn't be surprised or upset when you get offended. If a Jew lives in Palestine they shouldn't be expected to be a special interest group that gets any special interest!
But that's just my opinion!
I was saddened to learn that the publication of a cartoon depiction of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked protests and threats of violence from the Muslim world. Saddened, mind you, not surprised.
I was surprised, however, to learn that several other European nations are showing their support for the freedom of the press by reprinting these cartoons in their newspapers. This is a remarkable display of unity in Europe.
Of course, those in the Islamic world are even more outraged. Many countries have removed their diplomats from Copenhagen and the Danish government has evacuated their embassies in parts of the Middle East. (Of course, removing diplomats from countries where they are not threatened does nothing save put your citizens in that country at risk. If a Iranian citizen needs help in Denmark they have no embassy to go to...)
(Don't get me wrong, Christians love to play the "most persecuted group" card all the time. "How dare you depict Kanye West as though he were Christ." "The book of Daniel is blasphemous and must be taken off TV." But I think it goes further than that with this situation. I don't think most people assume that if Christians are protesting there will be violence. It's nearly expected for Islamic protests at this point.)
A German paper commented that "perhaps their protests would be taken more seriously if they were not so hypocritical. A Muslim publication depicted Rabbis as cannibals and the Imams were silent."
Does anyone see any parallels between this and the Nazis pre WWII? Does anyone see the elitist nature of their viewpoint? Somehow they are far more worthy of consideration than other races/nations/ethnicities? Don't print a cartoon of our prophet but we'll call for the destruction of the Jews. Don't blaspheme our religion but we'll decapitate people and video it for all to see. Don't try to force your culture on us but you better become a Muslim or we'll kill you.
There was another point that was made in a European paper that I found interesting, especially as one who desires to live outside of the US. How much does an immigrant need to assimilate into the culture? How much does a culture need to cater to the immigrant? I hope to learn the language and the culture of whatever country in which my family and I will reside. Are the Muslims living in Denmark requiring too much of their host country? Is Denmark being too inhospitable to the people who have chosen to live in their nation? Does what Denmark prints in their paper have anything to do with Saudi Arabia? These are perhaps the most intriguing questions raised by this situation.
No one likes to be offended, especially when it comes to religion whose roots spread deep in the life of the believer. But I personally believe that if you are going to reside in a country or area that is known to be anti-whatever-you-are, you shouldn't be surprised or upset when you get offended. If a Jew lives in Palestine they shouldn't be expected to be a special interest group that gets any special interest!
But that's just my opinion!
Regarding George
Hey George W.: You can't run again!
Wow, I was somewhat disappointed with the Presidents State of the Union address. I thought that the reason Presidents tried to win second terms was so that they could actually do something. Not so that they could continue to bow to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, George! You don't need to pander to the radical left anymore! This is when you start "sticking it to them!" This is when you begin announcing all of the plans that you have that make them squirm because they know they can't stop you.
George Steinbrenner: Relaxing!?
Damon is apparently on the wrong team.
Johnny recently said that he thought that the Yankees would be a great place for Manny and David Ortiz to play. Saying that "if they wanted a place to relax and play then New York was the place for them." (Clearly Johnny hasn't actually met George or the New York fans. Boston made a ton of money when Yankees fans were buying our "Yankees suck" shirts early last season when they actually did!)
Hey Johnny, if you wanted to be on a team with Manny and David there is a place you could have done it: Boston! If you are regretting your move, don't try and drag our loyal players into your field of torment with you. I thought it wasn't about the money...
Wow, I was somewhat disappointed with the Presidents State of the Union address. I thought that the reason Presidents tried to win second terms was so that they could actually do something. Not so that they could continue to bow to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, George! You don't need to pander to the radical left anymore! This is when you start "sticking it to them!" This is when you begin announcing all of the plans that you have that make them squirm because they know they can't stop you.
George Steinbrenner: Relaxing!?
Damon is apparently on the wrong team.
Johnny recently said that he thought that the Yankees would be a great place for Manny and David Ortiz to play. Saying that "if they wanted a place to relax and play then New York was the place for them." (Clearly Johnny hasn't actually met George or the New York fans. Boston made a ton of money when Yankees fans were buying our "Yankees suck" shirts early last season when they actually did!)
Hey Johnny, if you wanted to be on a team with Manny and David there is a place you could have done it: Boston! If you are regretting your move, don't try and drag our loyal players into your field of torment with you. I thought it wasn't about the money...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)