---by Micheal
So, CBS decided that someone needed to be thrown into the volcano as an offering to appease the cultural storm gods. In goes Don Imus. It's for the greater good, you know. Unfortunately, like the all the other sacrifices before him, he will have gone in vain. The storms will continue. The "gods" are never satisfied.
What bothers me is the whole unruly mob process by which Imus was sacrificed. Everyone should be nervous instead of feeling better. Yes, Imus is a pompous, rude and insulting guy. That's why I never voluntarily listened to his program. But when I read the transcript in which he made his fatal remark, it seemed like the trumped up charge a lynch mob might cite.
Imus and his producer were engaging in some typical banal sportscaster blather with some lame affectations towards inner city slang. They weren't trying to defame. They were trying to sound cool. Dumb, I know, but trivial. Actually, Imus' producer said more of the "bad words", both before and after Imus did. Yet, no mob insisted that McGuirk be thrown into the volcano. The mob's capriciousness is a bit disconcerting. "Bad" words are only bad when the mob decides?
Even black commentators have pointed out that Imus' fatal words are fairly common in rap lyrics. Yet, rappers are not thrown into the volcano. Black males can call black females a "ho" but (some) white males cannot, (sometimes). During the early Civil Rights era, black men were killed by white mobs for saying something trivial like "hey baby" to a white woman.
With Imus tossed to the flames, we seem to have the exact same system at work. If a group is offended, someone must pay. Mob "justice" demands a sacrifice. Fairness, or even rationality, is not important -- only that someone be tossed into the volcano to appease the angry "gods".
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
4.13.2007
12.06.2006
Peaceful Islam?
---by Micheal
Awhile back Pope Benedict touched off a fire storm of protest from the Muslim world when he quoted an ancient Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was a violent and intolerant religion. How dare the Pope say such things, the Muslim world shouted. Riots and death threats ensued. (see previous blog entry) Anyone who says Islam is intolerant is to blame for violence by Muslims. An odd logic at best.
Now enter the Islamic court in a Somalian town. "Anyone who does not pray five times a day to Mecca will be beheaded." (I kid you not. See Fox News story for Dec. 6, 2006). The court will impose what they call "Islamic Law" on all residents. Infractions will bring death.
Okay, NOW what do we do with Muslim outrage at being called violent and intolerant? Beheading isn't violent and intolerant?
I realize that any organization, religious or secular, has its occasional wackos. There are millions of quiet postal workers, and only a tiny few who go nuts with guns. One wacko postal worker is not respresentative. There are millions of respectable Christians, and yet the occasional Jim Jones or David Koresh surface from time to time. They're not representative of real Christianity.
The huge difference here, is that we do not hear a larger Muslim community saying, "There are some wacko Muslims out there, but we're not like that. They preach hate and intolerance and death, but that's not the true basis of Islam." Instead, we hear only of riots and protests, as if the statements were true enough, but how dare anyone actually say them. "For calling me violent and intolerant, You Die!"
If the greater Muslim community does not want to be "profiled" as all wackos, they need to speak out -- and loudly -- against the wackos in their backyards. If Islam really is NOT violent and intolerant, they need to take to the airwaves and teach everyone who'll listen, what the Quran really says, if it is, in fact, peaceful and tolerant.
Christians have to do this constantly. Some idiot somewhere decides to kill people he doesn't like and says God told him to do so. Christians everywhere are tarnished by such idiots. The sane Christians then have to spend lots of time explaining to people that God says (in the Bible) that murder is wrong and that vengance his His (not ours) to extract. Or that Jesus commands us to love our enemies (not kills them), etc. etc. Christians set the record straight. No one can prevent wackos from cropping up, but sane Christians defend their faith against the wackos.
Where are the Muslim defenders? Where are the Quran lessons that prove that Mohammed did not preach beheading to those who do not pray five times a day? Where have the wackos gotten Islam all wrong? Muslim defenders have a right, an obligation to speak up. If they don't distance themselves from Muslim wackos, we've no real choice but assume the wackos are actually representative of true Islam.
Awhile back Pope Benedict touched off a fire storm of protest from the Muslim world when he quoted an ancient Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was a violent and intolerant religion. How dare the Pope say such things, the Muslim world shouted. Riots and death threats ensued. (see previous blog entry) Anyone who says Islam is intolerant is to blame for violence by Muslims. An odd logic at best.
Now enter the Islamic court in a Somalian town. "Anyone who does not pray five times a day to Mecca will be beheaded." (I kid you not. See Fox News story for Dec. 6, 2006). The court will impose what they call "Islamic Law" on all residents. Infractions will bring death.
Okay, NOW what do we do with Muslim outrage at being called violent and intolerant? Beheading isn't violent and intolerant?
I realize that any organization, religious or secular, has its occasional wackos. There are millions of quiet postal workers, and only a tiny few who go nuts with guns. One wacko postal worker is not respresentative. There are millions of respectable Christians, and yet the occasional Jim Jones or David Koresh surface from time to time. They're not representative of real Christianity.
The huge difference here, is that we do not hear a larger Muslim community saying, "There are some wacko Muslims out there, but we're not like that. They preach hate and intolerance and death, but that's not the true basis of Islam." Instead, we hear only of riots and protests, as if the statements were true enough, but how dare anyone actually say them. "For calling me violent and intolerant, You Die!"
If the greater Muslim community does not want to be "profiled" as all wackos, they need to speak out -- and loudly -- against the wackos in their backyards. If Islam really is NOT violent and intolerant, they need to take to the airwaves and teach everyone who'll listen, what the Quran really says, if it is, in fact, peaceful and tolerant.
Christians have to do this constantly. Some idiot somewhere decides to kill people he doesn't like and says God told him to do so. Christians everywhere are tarnished by such idiots. The sane Christians then have to spend lots of time explaining to people that God says (in the Bible) that murder is wrong and that vengance his His (not ours) to extract. Or that Jesus commands us to love our enemies (not kills them), etc. etc. Christians set the record straight. No one can prevent wackos from cropping up, but sane Christians defend their faith against the wackos.
Where are the Muslim defenders? Where are the Quran lessons that prove that Mohammed did not preach beheading to those who do not pray five times a day? Where have the wackos gotten Islam all wrong? Muslim defenders have a right, an obligation to speak up. If they don't distance themselves from Muslim wackos, we've no real choice but assume the wackos are actually representative of true Islam.
9.15.2006
Pope Exposes Islamic Double-talk
---by Micheal
At a university in Germany, on Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from an ancient Byzantine emperor and set off an Islamic firestorm to rival that over some Danish cartoons.
What on earth did he say? On the topic of jihads, he quoted Emperor Manuel Paleologos II who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor was speaking to that concept of become Muslim or die.
Amid the Muslim screams were statements like this, from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."
Huh? Play that back again, but slower. Anyone who accuses you of beating people will be beaten? How, exactly, is this proving the Pope wrong?
The loudly outraged part of the Muslim community are make the same kind of oxymoronic statements that American atheist liberals do. They can't tolerate people who are intolerant (usually meaning Christians).
Some Dane publishes cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims go ballistic, demanding death to the blasphemers. Al Qaeda openly announce that Americans should convert to Islam, OR ELSE! We've seen a taste or two of al Qaeda's "or else" before.
What did the the Pope say, or the emperor, for that matter, that vocal portions of the Islamic community are not saying themselves? Why are they yelling at the Pope, demanding apologies, when Muslims are saying the same thing?
What we seem to have here, is Islamic double-talk. On the one hand, they want to demand that everyone else convert or die, but they sure don't anyone (else?) to point that out. How dare they be so intolerant?
At a university in Germany, on Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from an ancient Byzantine emperor and set off an Islamic firestorm to rival that over some Danish cartoons.
What on earth did he say? On the topic of jihads, he quoted Emperor Manuel Paleologos II who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor was speaking to that concept of become Muslim or die.
Amid the Muslim screams were statements like this, from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."
Huh? Play that back again, but slower. Anyone who accuses you of beating people will be beaten? How, exactly, is this proving the Pope wrong?
The loudly outraged part of the Muslim community are make the same kind of oxymoronic statements that American atheist liberals do. They can't tolerate people who are intolerant (usually meaning Christians).
Some Dane publishes cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims go ballistic, demanding death to the blasphemers. Al Qaeda openly announce that Americans should convert to Islam, OR ELSE! We've seen a taste or two of al Qaeda's "or else" before.
What did the the Pope say, or the emperor, for that matter, that vocal portions of the Islamic community are not saying themselves? Why are they yelling at the Pope, demanding apologies, when Muslims are saying the same thing?
What we seem to have here, is Islamic double-talk. On the one hand, they want to demand that everyone else convert or die, but they sure don't anyone (else?) to point that out. How dare they be so intolerant?
9.07.2006
Five Years post-9/11: What's Changed?
---by Micheal
On this fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, there have already been numerous tributes, retrospectives and editorials. One of them stood out, or at least provoked a bit more thought than the usual sentimental gush or jingoism.
William Dobson of Foreign Policy magazine wrote an editorial entitled: The Day Nothing Much Changed. In it, Dobson reminds us how just about everyone was saying that the 9/11 attacks changed the world forever. He argues that five years later, the world has managed to return to pretty much where it was on September 10th, 2001.
The global economy reeled a bit, but eventually recovered. The transportation network was paralyzed, but returned to a degree of normalcy. Sure, we have long, slow security lines at airports and taking off our shoes has become an almost invisible routine, but by and large, we get from A to B in much the same manner as before.
Civil libertarians wailed and tore their garments expecting the onset of a fascistic security state. Eavesdropping programs and wholesale commandeering of internet and phone records have become routine, but our rights and freedoms seem little different than 9/10.
Dobson is correct that the world system, and even our various national systems, have not been changed forever. We're back to grumbling about a gutless UN. It's fashionable again for liberals to bash patriotism. Democrats are back to complaining that George W is the devil incarnate. Republicans are back to complaining that Democrats are wieners. Nothing much has changed there.
Has anything really changed? In a more subtle, background sort of way, I'd say yes. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was over. The US had no major enemy any longer. What took the place of the old Soviets, was a shadowy new enemy -- Osama's Al Queda cells.
You could argue that the world really changed back in 1993 when Osama's boys tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time. We didn't really notice the change back then. Osama failed, so we didn't take him seriously. He fired the first shots, but we hadn't thought of it as a war yet. In 2001, he got much better at the role of New Enemy.
Terrorists are still out there plotting death and destruction to (somehow) advance a twisted agenda. I wonder if any of those scheming terrorists have noticed something about terror as a tool -- it really doesn't work. Five years later, and many things really are about the same. They did not bring the USA to its knees, force the American government to cave in to their demands.
If it seems nothing much has changed after five years, it's not a sign of American complacency. It's proof that terrorism is a failure tactic of petty thugs.
On this fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, there have already been numerous tributes, retrospectives and editorials. One of them stood out, or at least provoked a bit more thought than the usual sentimental gush or jingoism.
William Dobson of Foreign Policy magazine wrote an editorial entitled: The Day Nothing Much Changed. In it, Dobson reminds us how just about everyone was saying that the 9/11 attacks changed the world forever. He argues that five years later, the world has managed to return to pretty much where it was on September 10th, 2001.
The global economy reeled a bit, but eventually recovered. The transportation network was paralyzed, but returned to a degree of normalcy. Sure, we have long, slow security lines at airports and taking off our shoes has become an almost invisible routine, but by and large, we get from A to B in much the same manner as before.
Civil libertarians wailed and tore their garments expecting the onset of a fascistic security state. Eavesdropping programs and wholesale commandeering of internet and phone records have become routine, but our rights and freedoms seem little different than 9/10.
Dobson is correct that the world system, and even our various national systems, have not been changed forever. We're back to grumbling about a gutless UN. It's fashionable again for liberals to bash patriotism. Democrats are back to complaining that George W is the devil incarnate. Republicans are back to complaining that Democrats are wieners. Nothing much has changed there.
Has anything really changed? In a more subtle, background sort of way, I'd say yes. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was over. The US had no major enemy any longer. What took the place of the old Soviets, was a shadowy new enemy -- Osama's Al Queda cells.
You could argue that the world really changed back in 1993 when Osama's boys tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time. We didn't really notice the change back then. Osama failed, so we didn't take him seriously. He fired the first shots, but we hadn't thought of it as a war yet. In 2001, he got much better at the role of New Enemy.
Terrorists are still out there plotting death and destruction to (somehow) advance a twisted agenda. I wonder if any of those scheming terrorists have noticed something about terror as a tool -- it really doesn't work. Five years later, and many things really are about the same. They did not bring the USA to its knees, force the American government to cave in to their demands.
If it seems nothing much has changed after five years, it's not a sign of American complacency. It's proof that terrorism is a failure tactic of petty thugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)