Who is dying for this Koran burner's rights? (Rights, not beliefs.)
Does that really matter? A protester was shot and killed last week, after the mob attacked a military base. It was a German base, IIRC. In other places, people were poised to wreak havoc. Many people were at risk, but thankfully, the court of public opinion took care of it before it went bad.
To ask people to not be free to help keep soldiers who are fighting for freedom from being targets in a war where they are already bombing the shit out of people... it all sounds a bit wishy washy on the reasoning side of things. To me.
Perhaps, but if a firefighter is fighting to keep down a blaze, is it wise to add gas to the fire? To make his job harder? I don't like the idea nor the principle that it represents, but I also recognize that one can exercise one's freedoms without also directly pissing off an extremely militant group.
Who is dying for this Koran burner's rights? (Rights, not beliefs.)
Does that really matter? A protester was shot and killed last week, after the mob attacked a military base. It was a German base, IIRC. In other places, people were poised to wreak havoc. Many people were at risk, but thankfully, the court of public opinion took care of it before it went bad.
A protester died. This was at a protest where there was no expectation of violence, right? No, it wasn't. It was at the kind of protest that, almost from the very start, is designed to be violent. Were they protesting at a German army base? That anyone turned up to such protest is NOT the responsibility, nor the fault, of the Koran burner, nor should he be punished in any way.
I know people who protest in front of the Israeli military in the west bank. I know people who have been gassed and shot at. However, they know exactly what they are getting into in that situation. I can't believe for a second that anyone who dies at a massive "Hate to the west!" rally in an Islamic country, that often have histories of violence at protests, didn't think there was a chance it might happen.
Perhaps, but if a firefighter is fighting to keep down a blaze, is it wise to add gas to the fire? To make his jobharder? I don't like the idea nor the principle that it represents, but I also recognize that one can exercise one's freedomswithoutalso directly pissing off an extremely militant group.
I'm not talking about theoretical fire fighters. I'm talking about LITERAL and REAL soldiers fighting IN A WAR. Burning a Koran doesn't make their job harder because they are, and I'm not talking figuratively here, SHOOTING PEOPLE DEAD and DROPPING BOMBS ON PEOPLE. The people shooting back are trying not to die, or are trying to make other people die. This is happening now. This was happening before anyone said they might burn a Koran.
The thing both sides are fighting for are clear. One side wants to kill the other in the name of making people follow a strict set of rules that includes the subjugation of women and the respect of holy texts. The other side wants freedom and equality, the kind that exists in the USA that lets them burn books if they want. You can't ask the people back home to calm down a bit when your main method of convincing the other side is to kill them all until they are dead.
From 1791 until the early 1900s, the U.S. Supreme Court heard no cases regarding free speech and free press issues. Then, after World War I, the Court decided several cases arising from enforcement of wartime laws to limit freedom of expression that threatened national security. In Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States (both 1919), the Court upheld such federal laws, basing its decisions on its “clear and present danger†and “bad tendency†tests.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): The Court ruled that a state may not forbid or limit speech merely because it advocates the use of force against the government or the violation of the law. Rather, government may limit speech only when it is directly and immediately connected to lawless behavior. The Court departed from the “clear and present danger†doctrine used in Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States, which permitted government prohibition of speech that had a tendency to encourage or cause lawless behavior.
...there must be proof of overt lawless actions, not just expression of ideas about illegal behavior... Further, individuals do not have freedom under the Constitution to provoke a riot or other violent behavior. In times of national crisis, such as war or rebellion, the government could be justified in limiting freedom of expression that would critically threaten national security. The individual's right to freedom of expression must always be weighed against the community's need for stability and security. At issue is the point at which freedom of expression is sufficiently dangerous to the public welfare to justify constitutionally its limitation in speech, the press, television, or radio.
Lots of info...
EDIT: Man,,, I wish the internet was around when I was in grade school. I would have plagiarized the fuck out of everything.
Burning a Koran doesn't make their job harder because they are, and I'm not talking figuratively here, SHOOTING PEOPLE DEAD and DROPPING BOMBS ON PEOPLE.
And morale plays no factor? I think the entire history of warfare disagrees. The point is not to kill absolutely everyone; the point of war is to fight until your opponent gives up. Giving them another reason to hate the US spurs them to keep fighting, and increase casualties for everyone.
Once again, allowingother peopleto die foryour beliefsis anything but valorous.
To wit, I propose we stop using the phrase, "fought to protect our country," as a descriptor for veterans. Instead, let's use, "fought to earn money for a specific political agenda."
Once again, allowingother peopleto die foryour beliefsis anything but valorous.
To wit, I propose we stop using the phrase, "fought to protect our country," as a descriptor for veterans. Instead, let's use, "fought to earn money for a specific political agenda."
"I fought to protect my country's moneyed class' interest in oppressing people like me."
And morale plays no factor? I think the entire history of warfare disagrees. The point is not to kill absolutely everyone; the point of war is to fight until your opponent gives up. Giving them another reason to hate the US spurs them to keep fighting, and increase casualties for everyone.
The entire history of warfare includes the entire history of warfare in Afghanistan. Waiting for the other side to give has yet to work in that particular arena. Obama sending in more troops is, most likely, not going to help, just as burning Korans is not going to hinder in any appreciable way.
Again, the name of the operation in Afghanistan is "Operation Enduring Freedom." We are killing them in the name of freedom. It obviously means a lot. Right? Freedom.
I can understand not wanting to "throw oil on the fire" but in this case the thing you are fighting for is the very right to do that! It's a mind bending concept, but to use the argument "It puts our troops in more harm" (true or not, and I think not) to stop someone exersizing the exact freedom you are sending troops to fight and die for is really, really dumb. You can have it one way, or you can it another, but if you think these freedoms are worth fighting for and dying for and killing for and invading other countries for, to turn around and say "Actually, too dangerous now" is quite disingenuous.
I can understand not wanting to "throw oil on the fire" but in this case the thing you are fighting for is the very right to do that! It's a mind bending concept, but to use the argument "It puts our troops in more harm" (true or not, and I think not) to stop someone exersizing the exact freedom you are sending troops to fight and die for is really, really dumb. You can have it one way, or you can it another, but if you think these freedoms are worth fighting for and dying for and killing for and invading other countries for, to turn around and say "Actually, too dangerous now" is quite disingenuous.
It is certainly mind-bending, and I am thoroughly aware of the painful irony of the situation. As you said, the crazies have really just won.
The thing is, we're fighting - ostensibly - for all of the freedoms for which this country - and every modern and liberated nation - stands, not just speech. The problem with extremist Muslims isn't just that they suppress speech, it's that they suppress lives. We're fighting not just for the right to have people believe what they want or to express what to want, but the right to not live in fear of being beaten to death by an angry mob because they think you cheated on your husband. We're fighting to end the crime of being a homosexual. We're fighting for all of those noble things that define Western culture: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're dealing with a culture that violently suppresses and controls the most basic facets of human existence.
The right to free expression is a relatively modern concept, and while I agree it's worth fighting to preserve, the situation in these fundamentalist Islamic nations is far worse than a simple suppression of speech. People are stoned to death on the suspicion of adultery.
It's naive for anyone to think we can institute massive, sweeping cultural changes through warfare, let alone change a single facet of that culture. While it might sound nice to say, "We're going to free the shit out of Afghanistan," the sad reality is that any freedom that actually happens there will only come about after a very slow and painful process. I doubt it can even actually succeed. Human history has shown that people would much rather cling tenaciously to their ideals to the bitter end, and that makes true change an incredibly slow process.
Is there a good source of information on the fall of Islamic culture? WTF happened over there? We're talking about a culture that brought us all sorts of great scientific achievements that has fallen into a funk worse than the dark ages of Europe.
If we can find the reasons why Islam went from being pro-science to a society of stoning people for perceived insults we may be able to actually help them enter the 21st century.
If we can find the reasons why Islam went from being pro-science to a society of stoning people for perceived insults we may be able to actually help them enter the 21st century.
Maybe they still stoned people back then along with all the science. Completely uneducated guess.
I met Newt Gingrich a couple of years ago and had a chance to interview him. He's an incredibly intelligent man, very well-spoken, and completely bereft of all compassion. He's a fat cat. He pulled the whole "people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" mentality. I don't think he has met real people or understands their problems. His idea of poverty is people who only make $50,000 a year.
Well, I made it through 4.5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh's moronic invective at lunch time today before I could no longer stand it. As previously mentioned, I like to listen to all sides of the political spectrum. There's something to be learned from hearing Limbaugh's tirades: He's trying to desperately capitalize on Palin's brief time in the spotlight as the right's endorsement of female leadership. There's an obvious swing from him dry-humping Republicans to outright prostituting himself to the Tea Baggers. And he's proven that repeating often enough that America is unhappy with social progress that at least among his base it's become truth. As always, I marvel at his special ability to revel in logical fallacy; either he's too stupid to realize he's committing them or he's brilliantly and intentionally stringing them together to beguile his audience.
he's brilliantly and intentionally stringing them together to beguile his audience.
I'm pretty sure this is what's happening. Of course, at this point, the entity that we know as Rush Limbaugh is the entity which expresses his views on the air. Whatever he actually thinks is irrelevant, because he presents his heinous viewpoints as actually being his own, and his audience buys into it.
Did I mention I might go see Karl Rove? He's speaking at Oberlin College, which is a block from my office. I'm not sure I'll be able to listen very long.
..... I HATE HATE HATE PRO-LIFE people who are not willing to cover children with problems...
(and Maternity leave, that's already a joke here in the US)
This person is completely unfamiliar with the concept of an insurance pool.
I've noticed this as a typical tea-party/neo-con platforming belief. "If I'm not using it, I shouldn't have to pay for it." or more clearly, "I want exactly zero social responsibility because I'm a selfish douchebag". They don't want to pay any taxes on anything, they want everything privatized with no regulations at all, and basically want to live in a capitalist-ocracy with no real government.
They're 100 years too late to the party. We tried this already, it fucking sucked.
This is why I think we should concentrate on history more in schools. Really beat what this country, and other, has gone through into the thick skulls of children.
We really need to remind people that a lot of the problems that we are having now have happened in the past. There is a wealth of experiments that have been performed through out in history that failed to solve and solved to some degree problems that have popped up time and again.
Complete financial melt down? Been there, private industry tried to save themselves and succeeded a little bit until the system shook its self again and everything really fell apart. Then we tried to stop the government from spending money and had the problem get worse. Then we did all those crazy works programs and wow everything stabilized. Granted no growth really happened until we had that crazy world war but you know thats how the world it.
We've tried to legislate what we can put into our own bodies, trying to get rid of all the social ills and dregs of society just by abolishing that vehicle of the devil, alcohol. Which lead to some of the worst crime in our history! It funded criminal empires increased corruption in our government and these criminal groups are still dogging us some 90 years later.
We went to other countries to bring freedom to the poor destitute peoples of, where ever. Like freedom was the new Cadillac and we were going to export it like it was going to rust away on the lot.
And these things happen again and again and yet there is always one part of the public that forgets what happened in the past.
Financial meltdown is looming and what if the suggestion, freeze governmental spending. Just like Herbert Hoover did! There is a reason why those cardboard shanty towns were called, HooverVilles!
We repealed the 18th amendment and then started the war on drugs.
Wasn't Korea and Vietnam enough to learn?
Maybe I am not giving people enough credit. Maybe they remember their history lessons and then say to themselves, "Well, that may have happened in the past but we know better now. We will avoid the pitfalls that tripped the generations of the past and we will succeed where they failed.".
I always liked this definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I didn't really learn US history until I took a class on Post Civil War Reconstruction in my senior year of college. I'd been taught the birth of our nation before and everything up to about the civil war, but never really learned the rest of it (or if it was taught to me it was not retained in any fashion). It's really a time period that everyone should be intimately familiar with as it's when our modern, industrialized society was really created. There are so many parallels to what's going on today it's frightening. And the tea party frightens me the most, they remember an America that told England to fuck off, they don't remember the second industrial revolution that they seem so intent on driving us back to. They don't remember why we have government regulation.
hey don't remember the second industrial revolution that they seem so intent on driving us back to. They don't remember why we have government regulation.
There is always the option of states' rights. Let the red states do whatever they want, but cut off the communist federal subsidy they rely upon so heavily. Many places that are so keen to throw off the federal yoke likely couldn't even pay for their roads, let alone police, schools, hospitals, etc...
Comments
I know people who protest in front of the Israeli military in the west bank. I know people who have been gassed and shot at. However, they know exactly what they are getting into in that situation. I can't believe for a second that anyone who dies at a massive "Hate to the west!" rally in an Islamic country, that often have histories of violence at protests, didn't think there was a chance it might happen. I'm not talking about theoretical fire fighters. I'm talking about LITERAL and REAL soldiers fighting IN A WAR. Burning a Koran doesn't make their job harder because they are, and I'm not talking figuratively here, SHOOTING PEOPLE DEAD and DROPPING BOMBS ON PEOPLE. The people shooting back are trying not to die, or are trying to make other people die. This is happening now. This was happening before anyone said they might burn a Koran.
The thing both sides are fighting for are clear. One side wants to kill the other in the name of making people follow a strict set of rules that includes the subjugation of women and the respect of holy texts. The other side wants freedom and equality, the kind that exists in the USA that lets them burn books if they want. You can't ask the people back home to calm down a bit when your main method of convincing the other side is to kill them all until they are dead.
EDIT: Man,,, I wish the internet was around when I was in grade school. I would have plagiarized the fuck out of everything.
Again, the name of the operation in Afghanistan is "Operation Enduring Freedom." We are killing them in the name of freedom. It obviously means a lot. Right? Freedom.
I can understand not wanting to "throw oil on the fire" but in this case the thing you are fighting for is the very right to do that! It's a mind bending concept, but to use the argument "It puts our troops in more harm" (true or not, and I think not) to stop someone exersizing the exact freedom you are sending troops to fight and die for is really, really dumb. You can have it one way, or you can it another, but if you think these freedoms are worth fighting for and dying for and killing for and invading other countries for, to turn around and say "Actually, too dangerous now" is quite disingenuous.
The thing is, we're fighting - ostensibly - for all of the freedoms for which this country - and every modern and liberated nation - stands, not just speech. The problem with extremist Muslims isn't just that they suppress speech, it's that they suppress lives. We're fighting not just for the right to have people believe what they want or to express what to want, but the right to not live in fear of being beaten to death by an angry mob because they think you cheated on your husband. We're fighting to end the crime of being a homosexual. We're fighting for all of those noble things that define Western culture: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're dealing with a culture that violently suppresses and controls the most basic facets of human existence.
The right to free expression is a relatively modern concept, and while I agree it's worth fighting to preserve, the situation in these fundamentalist Islamic nations is far worse than a simple suppression of speech. People are stoned to death on the suspicion of adultery.
It's naive for anyone to think we can institute massive, sweeping cultural changes through warfare, let alone change a single facet of that culture. While it might sound nice to say, "We're going to free the shit out of Afghanistan," the sad reality is that any freedom that actually happens there will only come about after a very slow and painful process. I doubt it can even actually succeed. Human history has shown that people would much rather cling tenaciously to their ideals to the bitter end, and that makes true change an incredibly slow process.
If we can find the reasons why Islam went from being pro-science to a society of stoning people for perceived insults we may be able to actually help them enter the 21st century.
..... I HATE HATE HATE PRO-LIFE people who are not willing to cover children with problems...
(and Maternity leave, that's already a joke here in the US)
We really need to remind people that a lot of the problems that we are having now have happened in the past. There is a wealth of experiments that have been performed through out in history that failed to solve and solved to some degree problems that have popped up time and again.
Complete financial melt down? Been there, private industry tried to save themselves and succeeded a little bit until the system shook its self again and everything really fell apart. Then we tried to stop the government from spending money and had the problem get worse. Then we did all those crazy works programs and wow everything stabilized. Granted no growth really happened until we had that crazy world war but you know thats how the world it.
We've tried to legislate what we can put into our own bodies, trying to get rid of all the social ills and dregs of society just by abolishing that vehicle of the devil, alcohol. Which lead to some of the worst crime in our history! It funded criminal empires increased corruption in our government and these criminal groups are still dogging us some 90 years later.
We went to other countries to bring freedom to the poor destitute peoples of, where ever. Like freedom was the new Cadillac and we were going to export it like it was going to rust away on the lot.
And these things happen again and again and yet there is always one part of the public that forgets what happened in the past.
Financial meltdown is looming and what if the suggestion, freeze governmental spending. Just like Herbert Hoover did! There is a reason why those cardboard shanty towns were called, HooverVilles!
We repealed the 18th amendment and then started the war on drugs.
Wasn't Korea and Vietnam enough to learn?
Maybe I am not giving people enough credit. Maybe they remember their history lessons and then say to themselves, "Well, that may have happened in the past but we know better now. We will avoid the pitfalls that tripped the generations of the past and we will succeed where they failed.".
I always liked this definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.