Yesterday, I began a discussion of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey; today, let's continue that thread...
One of the issues the Pope is trying to address with the Muslim world is reciprocity - as Muslims demand more respect in Western countries, they continue to deny the same respect and freedom to other religions in Muslim-majority nations. Muslims do not see this as a problem, since they see Islam as the final, complete revealed word of God, and do not believe anyone should worship God in any other way. A good discussion of this mindset, and of the difference between "triumphalist" and "relativist" religions, can be found in Bernard Lewis's classic 2003 essay, "I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go to Hell."
Lewis notes that a triumphalist (such as a Muslim) views his as "...the only true and complete religion, all other religions are at best incomplete, and more probably false and evil; and since he is the priviliged recipient of God's final message to humankind, it is surely his duty to bring it to others..." From a Muslim point of view, Lewis continues, Judaism came first, Christianity developed from Judaism, and Islam came last to perfect the message of God. Therefore, "...Judaism and Christianity were both true religions at the time of their revelation, but they were superseded by the final and complete revelation of Islam...Anything subsequent to Mohammed...is, from the Muslim perspective, inherently false."
This does not bode well for mutual respect among the world's great religions. If you deeply, sincerely, and truly believe that your creed is the only true one, and that all others are misguided or evil, respect and tolerance will probably be difficult, if not impossible, to attain, particularly given the other related problems I discussed in yesterday's post.
I don't particularly care how a person chooses to relate to his concept of God. To me, it is more important to follow the basic ethical guidelines of the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments than it is to wear a particular religious label. Unfortunately, not everyone believes that way. Worse, we live in a world in which the label is more important than the actions one lives.
So where do we go from here? I wish I knew. I don't think there is any particular hope that Islam will develop a new sense of respect and tolerance for other religions - regardless of what the Koran may say about Christians and Jews being "people of the book" and worthy of respect, it is clear that there is no real Muslim interest in respect for any religion but their own.
Sadly, Islam appears to embody the triumphalist point of view described by Lewis: "I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell."
And that's a terrible thing to have to contemplate as we approach the Christmas season, isn't it?
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Friday, December 01, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Pope Benedict XVI continues his historic visit to Turkey today and, as you might suspect, the reviews are mixed. The Pope has been generally well-received, although with very tight security, which is necessary to protect him from those who have threatened him because he does not recognize the peaceful nature of Islam.
Benedict has avoided the type of language that caused outrage among Muslims in September when he appeared to equate Islam with violence and unreason. Indeed, he has appeared to reach out to Muslims and seek areas of agreement from which relations between the world's Catholics and Muslims can be improved. It's a worthwhile effort, but I don't think it will bear fruit, at least not soon, and perhaps not in my lifetime.
One problem has been noted often enough: there's no one for Benedict to talk to. The Pope is the acknowledged leader of, and speaks for, the world's Roman Catholics, but there is no single interlocutor within Islam who can speak authoritatively for all Muslims. This makes it very difficult to reach wide-ranging agreement on the topics that divide the religions.
A second problem comes from the differing views of history between the two religions. Islamic commentators constantly thunder about the Crusades, castigating anyone from the West as a "Crusader" and viewing almost everything through the lens of the religious wars that ended nearly a thousand years ago. They don't view the Islamic invasions of Europe in the same way, however...evidently since they were intended to spread Islam, which Muslims seem to view as a good and natural thing.
The third problem is an outgrowth of the first two: most Muslim commentators have their heads in the proverbial sand, ignoring the reality of the violence being committed every day in the name of their religion. While Muslims were outraged at the Pope's characterization of Islam as a religion of violence, I'm hard-pressed to remember the last Catholic...or Jewish...or Buddhist suicide bomber, while suicide bombers and Sunni-vs-Shia violence in Iraq and Palestine claim dozens of lives each month. If Muslim leaders continue to ignore this reality, and to cloak the evil done in their name in justifications rooted in the Koran, I see little hope for the lessening of tensions, reduction of suspicion, and acceptance of Muslims in the Christian West.
I'll continue this thread later today or tomorrow morning. Please come back and continue to follow this discussion - it's probably the most important topic of our time. How it plays out will largely shape the world my grandchildren will inherit. If you agree with me - and especially if you don't - leave a comment on this post...just make it reasonable, courteous, and free of threats and hyperbole.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Benedict has avoided the type of language that caused outrage among Muslims in September when he appeared to equate Islam with violence and unreason. Indeed, he has appeared to reach out to Muslims and seek areas of agreement from which relations between the world's Catholics and Muslims can be improved. It's a worthwhile effort, but I don't think it will bear fruit, at least not soon, and perhaps not in my lifetime.
One problem has been noted often enough: there's no one for Benedict to talk to. The Pope is the acknowledged leader of, and speaks for, the world's Roman Catholics, but there is no single interlocutor within Islam who can speak authoritatively for all Muslims. This makes it very difficult to reach wide-ranging agreement on the topics that divide the religions.
A second problem comes from the differing views of history between the two religions. Islamic commentators constantly thunder about the Crusades, castigating anyone from the West as a "Crusader" and viewing almost everything through the lens of the religious wars that ended nearly a thousand years ago. They don't view the Islamic invasions of Europe in the same way, however...evidently since they were intended to spread Islam, which Muslims seem to view as a good and natural thing.
The third problem is an outgrowth of the first two: most Muslim commentators have their heads in the proverbial sand, ignoring the reality of the violence being committed every day in the name of their religion. While Muslims were outraged at the Pope's characterization of Islam as a religion of violence, I'm hard-pressed to remember the last Catholic...or Jewish...or Buddhist suicide bomber, while suicide bombers and Sunni-vs-Shia violence in Iraq and Palestine claim dozens of lives each month. If Muslim leaders continue to ignore this reality, and to cloak the evil done in their name in justifications rooted in the Koran, I see little hope for the lessening of tensions, reduction of suspicion, and acceptance of Muslims in the Christian West.
I'll continue this thread later today or tomorrow morning. Please come back and continue to follow this discussion - it's probably the most important topic of our time. How it plays out will largely shape the world my grandchildren will inherit. If you agree with me - and especially if you don't - leave a comment on this post...just make it reasonable, courteous, and free of threats and hyperbole.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Supplemental post for today, November 29th...
When I wrote my post this morning about responsibility for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I didn't realize the significance of the date. According to the "Today in History" e-mail that I receive every day from The History Channel online (www.history.com), it was on this very date in 1947 that the United Nations voted to partition Palestine to create an independent Jewish state.
What is going on today is only the latest chapter in the long, tortured, and very interesting history of the Middle East. Much has been written about it, usually by people who are intensely partisan on one or the other side, but there are some very good and very readable histories for those of you who would like to delve into the subject. One I recommend in particular is David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Another wonderful book dealing with the end of the Second World War and the partition of Palestine is Oh, Jerusalem, by Larry Collins and Dominque LaPierre, which reads like a novel but is a marvelous and even-handed history of a turbulent time, told from the viewpoints of the Arabs and the Israelis who lived it.
It's hard to believe that next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. And, sadly, the 60th anniversary of the latest round of hatred and bloodshed in what we still call, for some reason, "The Holy Land."
Good night. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
When I wrote my post this morning about responsibility for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I didn't realize the significance of the date. According to the "Today in History" e-mail that I receive every day from The History Channel online (www.history.com), it was on this very date in 1947 that the United Nations voted to partition Palestine to create an independent Jewish state.
What is going on today is only the latest chapter in the long, tortured, and very interesting history of the Middle East. Much has been written about it, usually by people who are intensely partisan on one or the other side, but there are some very good and very readable histories for those of you who would like to delve into the subject. One I recommend in particular is David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Another wonderful book dealing with the end of the Second World War and the partition of Palestine is Oh, Jerusalem, by Larry Collins and Dominque LaPierre, which reads like a novel but is a marvelous and even-handed history of a turbulent time, told from the viewpoints of the Arabs and the Israelis who lived it.
It's hard to believe that next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. And, sadly, the 60th anniversary of the latest round of hatred and bloodshed in what we still call, for some reason, "The Holy Land."
Good night. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
When President Bush meets with Jordan's King Abdullah today, each man will have a different agenda. Mr Bush wants the King's support in resolving the mess in Iraq, while King Abdullah will press for the United States to take a stronger role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As I noted in my blog entry last Sunday, the King believes that a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the most important issue in the Middle East, and wants the United States to focus on achieving that end.
Well, I understand the King's position. Jordan has a very large Palestinian refugee population which he has to placate and he is, of course, concerned about the possibility of an additional influx of Palestinians if the conflict goes on. But I believe the King is very far off base in pressing for the United States to take a larger role in the peace process.
First of all, the United States is not recognized across the region as an honest broker. We have been solidly on the side of Israel for so long that no Arab ruler (and certainly not the "Arab street") really believes we could honestly represent their interests and concerns.
Second, peace can only be achieved if both sides really want it...and it's foolish to think that that's the case. The conflict is being driven by the extremists on both sides - the Israeli hard-liners who believe in their right to the biblical lands of Greater Israel, and the Islamic extremists who are blindly focused on the destruction of Israel, regardless of the cost to the Palestinian population. There are no moderate leaders on either side who are seriously trying to accommodate the legitimate economic, social, political, and religious interests of both sides.
The United States can't impose a peace between people who don't want it. We can't do it in Iraq, and we certainly can't do it in Palestine, no matter how much well-meaning individuals like King Abdullah might wish. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come when both sides are ready for it. We can help create the conditions for dialog by applying pressure to the Israelis (to the extent we can, and they accept), but the leaders of the Arab world must apply equal pressure to the Palestinians. The hard-liners on both sides must be forced to lay aside their extreme positions and participate in a true dialog that will result in the first steps toward peace. Compromise will be painful, but is no less necessary between the Israelis and the Palestinians than it is between Democrats and Republicans here at home.
And no less likely.
Have a good day. Tomorrow, some thoughts on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey.
Bilbo
Well, I understand the King's position. Jordan has a very large Palestinian refugee population which he has to placate and he is, of course, concerned about the possibility of an additional influx of Palestinians if the conflict goes on. But I believe the King is very far off base in pressing for the United States to take a larger role in the peace process.
First of all, the United States is not recognized across the region as an honest broker. We have been solidly on the side of Israel for so long that no Arab ruler (and certainly not the "Arab street") really believes we could honestly represent their interests and concerns.
Second, peace can only be achieved if both sides really want it...and it's foolish to think that that's the case. The conflict is being driven by the extremists on both sides - the Israeli hard-liners who believe in their right to the biblical lands of Greater Israel, and the Islamic extremists who are blindly focused on the destruction of Israel, regardless of the cost to the Palestinian population. There are no moderate leaders on either side who are seriously trying to accommodate the legitimate economic, social, political, and religious interests of both sides.
The United States can't impose a peace between people who don't want it. We can't do it in Iraq, and we certainly can't do it in Palestine, no matter how much well-meaning individuals like King Abdullah might wish. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come when both sides are ready for it. We can help create the conditions for dialog by applying pressure to the Israelis (to the extent we can, and they accept), but the leaders of the Arab world must apply equal pressure to the Palestinians. The hard-liners on both sides must be forced to lay aside their extreme positions and participate in a true dialog that will result in the first steps toward peace. Compromise will be painful, but is no less necessary between the Israelis and the Palestinians than it is between Democrats and Republicans here at home.
And no less likely.
Have a good day. Tomorrow, some thoughts on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey.
Bilbo
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Earlier today I was listening to a show on C-Span radio on which Jordan's King Abdullah was being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. The king declared that the most important and dangerous problem in the Middle East - more important than the ongoing carnage in Iraq, and more important than the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran - is the endless fight between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He said that the Palestinian issue was one on which all the Arab lands were united, and the one on which the most progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace might be made. Wolf Blitzer seemed skeptical, but didn't press the King.
With respect to King Abdullah, who is, after all, a man with a large Palestinian population to worry about, I think he's wrong.
Not that the resolution of the Palestinian issue would not be a good thing, for the Palestinians and the Middle East as a whole. To me, though, it looks as if the larger Arab world cares absolutely nothing for the Palestinians except as a useful cudgel with which to beat the Israelis and deflect attention from their own failures.
Consider the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. One might have thought that the Palestinians would use this event as a platform from which to show their ability to govern themselves and take the first tentative steps toward the eventual goal of a Palestinian state. Instead, in their time-honored tradition of always doing what is in their worst interests, the Palestinians began fighting among themselves and using Gaza as a platform from which to continue attacks against Israel...with predictable results. And far from urging them to act responsibly, the rest of the Arab world encouraged their self-destructive behavior.
When, one wonders, will a leader arise in the Arab world who will for once consider what is in the best interests of his people as a whole? How long will it take for the Arabs to realize that Israel isn't going away, and that all their blind hatred and support of violence, as much as they hurt individual Israelis, are doing more harm to themselves?
As I've said before in this space, I've given up on finding any rational adult leadership in the Arab world. While I'm no apologist for Israel, I think a good case can be made that they have at least built a prosperous nation in a difficult neighborhood, in spite of the unrelenting hatred and stupidity of their neighbors. Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances? You bet. Are they acting in their best interests to resolve them? Hardly. And are the rest of the Arabs helping them out? Not in the least.
King Abdullah is welcome to his opinion. I respect him and the difficulty of his position. But if he really wants to help the Palestinians, the best thing he could do is exert a little leadership and try to turn the Arab world from a gaggle of squabbling bigots into true partners in a peace process that can only benefit everyone.
But don't hold your breath.
Have a good evening. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
With respect to King Abdullah, who is, after all, a man with a large Palestinian population to worry about, I think he's wrong.
Not that the resolution of the Palestinian issue would not be a good thing, for the Palestinians and the Middle East as a whole. To me, though, it looks as if the larger Arab world cares absolutely nothing for the Palestinians except as a useful cudgel with which to beat the Israelis and deflect attention from their own failures.
Consider the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. One might have thought that the Palestinians would use this event as a platform from which to show their ability to govern themselves and take the first tentative steps toward the eventual goal of a Palestinian state. Instead, in their time-honored tradition of always doing what is in their worst interests, the Palestinians began fighting among themselves and using Gaza as a platform from which to continue attacks against Israel...with predictable results. And far from urging them to act responsibly, the rest of the Arab world encouraged their self-destructive behavior.
When, one wonders, will a leader arise in the Arab world who will for once consider what is in the best interests of his people as a whole? How long will it take for the Arabs to realize that Israel isn't going away, and that all their blind hatred and support of violence, as much as they hurt individual Israelis, are doing more harm to themselves?
As I've said before in this space, I've given up on finding any rational adult leadership in the Arab world. While I'm no apologist for Israel, I think a good case can be made that they have at least built a prosperous nation in a difficult neighborhood, in spite of the unrelenting hatred and stupidity of their neighbors. Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances? You bet. Are they acting in their best interests to resolve them? Hardly. And are the rest of the Arabs helping them out? Not in the least.
King Abdullah is welcome to his opinion. I respect him and the difficulty of his position. But if he really wants to help the Palestinians, the best thing he could do is exert a little leadership and try to turn the Arab world from a gaggle of squabbling bigots into true partners in a peace process that can only benefit everyone.
But don't hold your breath.
Have a good evening. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Saturday, November 25, 2006
In my post on Thanksgiving day, I wrote about some of the myriad things for which I'm thankful, and why I always look forward to Thanksgiving as a day to reflect on them.
But that was then, and this is now. After Thanksgiving comes the weekend after Thanksgiving and the traditional, dreaded Christmas decoration season. Yesterday I rented a truck and made two trips to our rented storage unit to bring back the great mass of storage boxes containing our Christmas tree and all the assorted decorations. The tree is a beautiful artificial one - the most lifelike and realistic I think I've ever seen - but putting it together and getting the lights on it will test the patience and mettle of any human being, much less a cranky old geezer-lite like myself.
First of all, the branches each have a colored dot on them which matches a colored dot on the tree trunk so that one knows where each branch goes. That's fine for those with normal color vision and brilliant lighting in the room where they're working...neither of which I have. And so our tree-erection ritual always begins with Agnes sorting out the branches by color, after which I assemble the tree and fluff it up from it's crushed-down storage state.
And then come the lights. Can someone tell me why the lunatics who design strings of Christmas tree lights don't make them with a plug on one end and a socket on the other to facilitate stringing the individual strands together? These stupid things have a combination plug-and-socket at one end, so that all the strands have to start from the same point. It takes about eight strands of lights for our tree, and so I not only have to work the individual strands around the tree, I have also to position a power strip behind the tree in such a way that it hides the vast tangle of cables that all start from the same place.
Scrooge would be proud of me by the time I'm done.
Of course, the end result is always wonderful - Agnes (a.k.a., Mother Christmas) always makes the house look beautiful for the holidays. But as for me, by the time the tree is up and all the lights strung, I'm reminded of the old cartoon that shows a neighborhood awash in gorgeous Christmas displays of lights, animated reindeer, and brilliantly lit manger scenes. You are looking at this scene from above and behind one house, around the front door of which a circle of angry neighbors confronts a fellow with a scowl on his face and his arms crossed over his chest. The caption reads, "We're from the decoration committee...". And the only decoration on the house in question is a row of lighted letters across the crest of the roof which spell out, "Aw, #%@# it!"
Somehow, I can understand.
Have a good day, and get into the holiday spirit. It's easier once the decorations are up. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
But that was then, and this is now. After Thanksgiving comes the weekend after Thanksgiving and the traditional, dreaded Christmas decoration season. Yesterday I rented a truck and made two trips to our rented storage unit to bring back the great mass of storage boxes containing our Christmas tree and all the assorted decorations. The tree is a beautiful artificial one - the most lifelike and realistic I think I've ever seen - but putting it together and getting the lights on it will test the patience and mettle of any human being, much less a cranky old geezer-lite like myself.
First of all, the branches each have a colored dot on them which matches a colored dot on the tree trunk so that one knows where each branch goes. That's fine for those with normal color vision and brilliant lighting in the room where they're working...neither of which I have. And so our tree-erection ritual always begins with Agnes sorting out the branches by color, after which I assemble the tree and fluff it up from it's crushed-down storage state.
And then come the lights. Can someone tell me why the lunatics who design strings of Christmas tree lights don't make them with a plug on one end and a socket on the other to facilitate stringing the individual strands together? These stupid things have a combination plug-and-socket at one end, so that all the strands have to start from the same point. It takes about eight strands of lights for our tree, and so I not only have to work the individual strands around the tree, I have also to position a power strip behind the tree in such a way that it hides the vast tangle of cables that all start from the same place.
Scrooge would be proud of me by the time I'm done.
Of course, the end result is always wonderful - Agnes (a.k.a., Mother Christmas) always makes the house look beautiful for the holidays. But as for me, by the time the tree is up and all the lights strung, I'm reminded of the old cartoon that shows a neighborhood awash in gorgeous Christmas displays of lights, animated reindeer, and brilliantly lit manger scenes. You are looking at this scene from above and behind one house, around the front door of which a circle of angry neighbors confronts a fellow with a scowl on his face and his arms crossed over his chest. The caption reads, "We're from the decoration committee...". And the only decoration on the house in question is a row of lighted letters across the crest of the roof which spell out, "Aw, #%@# it!"
Somehow, I can understand.
Have a good day, and get into the holiday spirit. It's easier once the decorations are up. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Friday, November 24, 2006
A reader of my blog offered this comment in response to my post on November 21st:
Why does CNN, a national news outlet, find some silly law about flags in the town of Pahrump, NV population ~24,000 newsworthy? Reading this essay I get some idea. They are trying to provoke patriotic feeling about what it means to be an American, noble and forgiving, as opposed to some inferior, misguided, constitution-less immigrant.
With respect to reader Lanzdale, I think he missed my point. All Americans (yes, American Indians, too) are immigrants from somewhere else. Not inferior, not necessarily misguided, and perhaps not constitution-less - just from somewhere else. The point I keep trying to drive home is that what separates America from much of the rest of the world is that we are a nation built by immigrants working together and based on the rule of law. Over the centuries, uncounted millions of immigrants have come to the United States in search of opportunities and freedoms denied them at home. Until relatively recently, most of these arrived in America legally, settled into their new lives, and assimilated into an America that didn't always welcome them warmly, but at least grudgingly accepted them while they built their new lives.
Now, however, we face the problem of our own success. For all its faults, America remains the gold standard of the world for desirable places to live. How many people risk their lives and break national laws trying to get into Sudan? Or Afghanistan? Or Myanmar? People want to come to America because their own countries can't meet their needs and aspirations. Unfortunately, many immigrants don't want to assimilate into American society as immigrants (including both sides of my own family) have over the years. Instead, they want to have it both ways - they want what America has to offer them, but they don't want to be Americans. They expect to be educated and served in their own languages, to retain their own cultural practices, and even to follow their own laws (consider Muslims insisting on primacy of Sharia law).
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: America is what it is because people of every race, color, and religion tacitly agreed to minimize their differences and be Americans, working together to build something that no other nation in the world could offer them. If we allow (even encourage) people to come here illegally, if we allow them to build their own separate and insular religious and cultural enclaves, if we allow (even encourage) the development of separate linguistic communities, we lose that spirit of ... for want of a better term ... American-ness that has made us the envy of the world.
If you want to live in America, and if you want to keep the society and the opportunities you came to America for, you need to do two things: obey the laws, and become an American - not a Mexican or an Ethiopian or a Greek or a Muslim who happens to live in America, but an American.
If all you want to do is come here to recreate the society you fled, what's the point?
Have a good day. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
Why does CNN, a national news outlet, find some silly law about flags in the town of Pahrump, NV population ~24,000 newsworthy? Reading this essay I get some idea. They are trying to provoke patriotic feeling about what it means to be an American, noble and forgiving, as opposed to some inferior, misguided, constitution-less immigrant.
With respect to reader Lanzdale, I think he missed my point. All Americans (yes, American Indians, too) are immigrants from somewhere else. Not inferior, not necessarily misguided, and perhaps not constitution-less - just from somewhere else. The point I keep trying to drive home is that what separates America from much of the rest of the world is that we are a nation built by immigrants working together and based on the rule of law. Over the centuries, uncounted millions of immigrants have come to the United States in search of opportunities and freedoms denied them at home. Until relatively recently, most of these arrived in America legally, settled into their new lives, and assimilated into an America that didn't always welcome them warmly, but at least grudgingly accepted them while they built their new lives.
Now, however, we face the problem of our own success. For all its faults, America remains the gold standard of the world for desirable places to live. How many people risk their lives and break national laws trying to get into Sudan? Or Afghanistan? Or Myanmar? People want to come to America because their own countries can't meet their needs and aspirations. Unfortunately, many immigrants don't want to assimilate into American society as immigrants (including both sides of my own family) have over the years. Instead, they want to have it both ways - they want what America has to offer them, but they don't want to be Americans. They expect to be educated and served in their own languages, to retain their own cultural practices, and even to follow their own laws (consider Muslims insisting on primacy of Sharia law).
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: America is what it is because people of every race, color, and religion tacitly agreed to minimize their differences and be Americans, working together to build something that no other nation in the world could offer them. If we allow (even encourage) people to come here illegally, if we allow them to build their own separate and insular religious and cultural enclaves, if we allow (even encourage) the development of separate linguistic communities, we lose that spirit of ... for want of a better term ... American-ness that has made us the envy of the world.
If you want to live in America, and if you want to keep the society and the opportunities you came to America for, you need to do two things: obey the laws, and become an American - not a Mexican or an Ethiopian or a Greek or a Muslim who happens to live in America, but an American.
If all you want to do is come here to recreate the society you fled, what's the point?
Have a good day. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Happy Thanksgiving!
* A happy marriage to a wonderful lady.
* Three fabulous grandchildren.
* Wise and loving parents.
* Ballroom dancing.
* Good friends.
* A steady job.
* A nice home to live in.
* Books and music (yes, I know that counts as two, but it's my list!).
* Glorious sunrises and sunsets.
On this Thanksgiving Day, don't just shovel down the turkey and trimmings and watch back-to-back football games - remember what the day is really for, and think about all the things for which you can be thankful. The list is probably long.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I don't watch much television, and I especially don't watch the political talk shows. Most of them are long on shouting, short on thought, and not worth my time. But it doesn't have to be that way, does it?
Political and social discourse in America today consists largely of ad hominem attacks and thunderous denunciation of an opponent's position without offering reasonable alternatives. During the recent election season, attack ads reduced political dialog to cheap, vituperative bumper stickers bereft of context and clarity - some of the professional attack ad recorders can draw out the word "lib-er-al" so that you can just visualize the scorn dripping from the individual letters like smelly green ooze...but never explain just why "lib-er-al" ideas are so bad.
Now, contrary to what my good friend Jake would have you believe, and contrary to how it may sometimes sound in this space, I'm not a liberal Democrat. I like to think of myself as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Independent, equally scornful of pie-in-the-sky Democrats and smugly self-assured Republicans. I'd just like to see some honest discussion of the problems and issues that face the country, along with some thoughtful debate about how to solve them. The country is never going to get anywhere until we can move away from the "I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell" school of political attack to a realization that reasonable people can have differing views of the right way to address our problems. What we have lost is the ability to recognize that principled compromise is not the same as "selling out," which is what the shouting, gesticulating talking heads on TV and radio would have you believe.
For some good, thoughtful discussion of how our ability to hold reasonable dialog has gone off the rails, and what to do about it, I recommend you read Deborah Tannen's superb book, The Argument Culture. But don't just read it...think about what it says. Professor Tannen is well worth listening to, and her basic idea can be summed up in one sentence - "If you're looking for a fight, you will get heat, not light."
And right now, we need light a lot more than we need more heat.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Political and social discourse in America today consists largely of ad hominem attacks and thunderous denunciation of an opponent's position without offering reasonable alternatives. During the recent election season, attack ads reduced political dialog to cheap, vituperative bumper stickers bereft of context and clarity - some of the professional attack ad recorders can draw out the word "lib-er-al" so that you can just visualize the scorn dripping from the individual letters like smelly green ooze...but never explain just why "lib-er-al" ideas are so bad.
Now, contrary to what my good friend Jake would have you believe, and contrary to how it may sometimes sound in this space, I'm not a liberal Democrat. I like to think of myself as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Independent, equally scornful of pie-in-the-sky Democrats and smugly self-assured Republicans. I'd just like to see some honest discussion of the problems and issues that face the country, along with some thoughtful debate about how to solve them. The country is never going to get anywhere until we can move away from the "I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell" school of political attack to a realization that reasonable people can have differing views of the right way to address our problems. What we have lost is the ability to recognize that principled compromise is not the same as "selling out," which is what the shouting, gesticulating talking heads on TV and radio would have you believe.
For some good, thoughtful discussion of how our ability to hold reasonable dialog has gone off the rails, and what to do about it, I recommend you read Deborah Tannen's superb book, The Argument Culture. But don't just read it...think about what it says. Professor Tannen is well worth listening to, and her basic idea can be summed up in one sentence - "If you're looking for a fight, you will get heat, not light."
And right now, we need light a lot more than we need more heat.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
According to a story on CNN, it is now illegal in the town of Pahrump, Nevada, to fly any foreign flag unless the Stars and Stripes is flown above it. The reason for the law, evidently, is revulsion over the sight earlier this year of crowds waving Mexican flags while demonstrating in favor of rights for illegal immigrants.
Let's ignore for the moment that it's monumentally stupid to demand rights and benefits for people who willfully break the law, and that it's even more stupid to spit in the face of your host country by waving another country's flag while doing it. Sadly, I have to admit that I think Pahrump's law is short-sighted and mean-spirited.
I consider myself a patriotic American. I am a veteran of 23 years of military service. I vote and pay taxes. But I also believe in freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the Constitution. Of course, as I have said in this space before, freedom of speech and expression is not the same as freedom of smart, and all too many people trumpet free speech without engaging their brains first.
So...
If you want to demand rights for illegal immigrants while waving a Mexican, or any other nation's flag, go right ahead. You're being doubly stupid. But if you're on the other side of the debate, don't limit the right of those people to act like idiots - it just proves the moral and political bankruptcy of their demands.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Let's ignore for the moment that it's monumentally stupid to demand rights and benefits for people who willfully break the law, and that it's even more stupid to spit in the face of your host country by waving another country's flag while doing it. Sadly, I have to admit that I think Pahrump's law is short-sighted and mean-spirited.
I consider myself a patriotic American. I am a veteran of 23 years of military service. I vote and pay taxes. But I also believe in freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the Constitution. Of course, as I have said in this space before, freedom of speech and expression is not the same as freedom of smart, and all too many people trumpet free speech without engaging their brains first.
So...
If you want to demand rights for illegal immigrants while waving a Mexican, or any other nation's flag, go right ahead. You're being doubly stupid. But if you're on the other side of the debate, don't limit the right of those people to act like idiots - it just proves the moral and political bankruptcy of their demands.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)