The Virginia House of Delegates yesterday passed a bill which prohibits teenagers from talking on, sending text messages on, or taking picture with their cell phones while driving. Cell phone use would be a secondary offense, meaning that offenders would only be cited if they had already been stopped for another moving violation.
While I think this is a good thing, I think it's stupid to limit it to teenagers. Each day I walk from the local Metro (subway) station to the shopping center where I park my car, and cross a busy intersection at which at least 50% of all drivers roar through the right turn even when the light is red, not bothering to look for pedestrians. If they look around at all, they look to see if they can beat whatever traffic is coming from the left, not for pedestrians crossing from the right...and most of them are also chatting happily on cell phones.
Driving is inherently dangerous, and requires the driver's full attention. I've seen some pretty amazing driver tricks on our massively crowded Northern Virginia highways - drivers not just talking on their cell phones, but eating, putting on makeup, reading newspapers, or carrying on conversations with back seat passengers. Given all this, a law banning cell phone use while driving is a great idea for drivers of all ages even if it only removes one potential source of distraction.
The larger issue, though, is that you can't legislate against stupidity. If we could, we probably couldn't build jails big enough and fast enough to hold all the offenders.
But it's a nice thought.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Getting Ready for the Next Big One
As I write this, I'm listening to the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio, and the discussion concerns the concept of resiliency, the ability of our nation to recover from natural disasters (such as Hurricane Katrina) and man-made catastrophes (such as 9/11 or a major industrial accident). You can also read an article on this topic by homeland security expert Stephen Flynn (who is Diane's guest on the show) on the CNN website at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/flynn.commentary/index.html.
This is a very important topic, but receives little attention because it isn't sexy. It concerns things like stockpiling of emergency equipment, establishment of tough construction standards in disaster-prone areas, setting realistic insurance rates, and a million other general public and private infrastructure measures that help us recover from disasters. Because it's not sexy, it tends to be ignored until disaster strikes, at which time state and federal agencies point fingers at each other, outraged Congressmen (who previously ignored the issues) thunder and posture for the cameras, and people who in many cases should have known better plead before the TV cameras for public help in recovering from their plight. Many of the actions which build resiliency also have economic impacts that provide immediate pain without immediately-visible benefit - high insurance rates in disaster-prone areas hurt now, regardless of the aid they'll provide later, and the construction industry doesn't like construction standards that add time and cost to their products.
Let's look at this dispassionately for a moment. One reason for the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina was the failure of the levees which protect the low-lying parts of the city. Those levees failed in large part because millions of dollars allocated for their repair and maintenance were diverted by the Federal government to other uses. And now, as New Orleans struggles to recover, we find people demanding assistance and cheap insurance so they can rebuild in areas which have proven to be high risk. Are we obligated to help them take such a risk?
Hurricanes are a fact of life. They happen every year. And yet we continue to build huge cities and homes directly on the most threatened stretches of coastline. Katrina devastated New Orleans. What will happen when another Katrina strikes Miami head-on? Or when a giant nor'easter hits New York? Will we have the resiliency to recover, or will we see the same flailing exercise in governmental ineptitude at all levels that characterized trans- and post-Katrina New Orleans?
Emergency preparedness and resiliency aren't sexy. They are mundane activities that eat up resources and don't show any return on investment - until they're needed, at which time they are valuable beyond price. We all gripe about paying insurance premiums until we need to make a claim, at which time we're glad we paid them. It's time to start paying more attention to the un-sexy street-level planning that provides the insurance for our critical infrastructure.
Because when the next Big One hits, it'll be too late.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
This is a very important topic, but receives little attention because it isn't sexy. It concerns things like stockpiling of emergency equipment, establishment of tough construction standards in disaster-prone areas, setting realistic insurance rates, and a million other general public and private infrastructure measures that help us recover from disasters. Because it's not sexy, it tends to be ignored until disaster strikes, at which time state and federal agencies point fingers at each other, outraged Congressmen (who previously ignored the issues) thunder and posture for the cameras, and people who in many cases should have known better plead before the TV cameras for public help in recovering from their plight. Many of the actions which build resiliency also have economic impacts that provide immediate pain without immediately-visible benefit - high insurance rates in disaster-prone areas hurt now, regardless of the aid they'll provide later, and the construction industry doesn't like construction standards that add time and cost to their products.
Let's look at this dispassionately for a moment. One reason for the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina was the failure of the levees which protect the low-lying parts of the city. Those levees failed in large part because millions of dollars allocated for their repair and maintenance were diverted by the Federal government to other uses. And now, as New Orleans struggles to recover, we find people demanding assistance and cheap insurance so they can rebuild in areas which have proven to be high risk. Are we obligated to help them take such a risk?
Hurricanes are a fact of life. They happen every year. And yet we continue to build huge cities and homes directly on the most threatened stretches of coastline. Katrina devastated New Orleans. What will happen when another Katrina strikes Miami head-on? Or when a giant nor'easter hits New York? Will we have the resiliency to recover, or will we see the same flailing exercise in governmental ineptitude at all levels that characterized trans- and post-Katrina New Orleans?
Emergency preparedness and resiliency aren't sexy. They are mundane activities that eat up resources and don't show any return on investment - until they're needed, at which time they are valuable beyond price. We all gripe about paying insurance premiums until we need to make a claim, at which time we're glad we paid them. It's time to start paying more attention to the un-sexy street-level planning that provides the insurance for our critical infrastructure.
Because when the next Big One hits, it'll be too late.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Taxman Cometh
At six o'clock this evening I will have one of my most dreaded meetings of the year. Armed with a portfolio full of receipts, forms, and other documents, I will meet with Pat, the nice lady who, each year at this time, calculates my income tax.
As I've written here before, I don't object in principle to paying taxes. Taxes are, after all, the vehicle by which we provide our government with the funds it needs to operate. Taxes indirectly pay my salary, as I work as a contractor supporting a Federal agency. But I do object to some things.
I object to the fact that many people, especially those in the far upper income brackets, are able to hide large portions of their income from taxation using shelters and dodges unavailable to the average low- to middle-class taxpayer.
I object to the fact that many huge corporations pay no taxes at all.
I object to use of the tax system for social and political engineering, rather than for raising money to run the government. Consider that the standard Republican (and often Democratic) approach to funding new programs is by granting tax credits to targeted groups.
I object to the fact that my taxes are used to pay benefits of any kind to persons who flagrantly violate the law to enter and live here illegally, and then demand services to which they should not be entitled.
I object to the fact that much of the money we pay in taxes is spent to support nations which then villify us in the world community.
I have a lot of thoughts on the subject of taxes, and between now and April 15th I'll share them with you in this space. For now, the key points are these:
Taxes are a necessary evil.
We have a duty to pay them.
We have a duty to ensure that our government spends the taxes it collects from us wisely.
Hold these thoughts, and we'll discuss them later. In the meantime, cross your fingers for me as I get ready to meet Pat - a very nice lady who can either make me happy or reduce me to financial tears. I'll let you know how it comes out.
Have a good day. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
As I've written here before, I don't object in principle to paying taxes. Taxes are, after all, the vehicle by which we provide our government with the funds it needs to operate. Taxes indirectly pay my salary, as I work as a contractor supporting a Federal agency. But I do object to some things.
I object to the fact that many people, especially those in the far upper income brackets, are able to hide large portions of their income from taxation using shelters and dodges unavailable to the average low- to middle-class taxpayer.
I object to the fact that many huge corporations pay no taxes at all.
I object to use of the tax system for social and political engineering, rather than for raising money to run the government. Consider that the standard Republican (and often Democratic) approach to funding new programs is by granting tax credits to targeted groups.
I object to the fact that my taxes are used to pay benefits of any kind to persons who flagrantly violate the law to enter and live here illegally, and then demand services to which they should not be entitled.
I object to the fact that much of the money we pay in taxes is spent to support nations which then villify us in the world community.
I have a lot of thoughts on the subject of taxes, and between now and April 15th I'll share them with you in this space. For now, the key points are these:
Taxes are a necessary evil.
We have a duty to pay them.
We have a duty to ensure that our government spends the taxes it collects from us wisely.
Hold these thoughts, and we'll discuss them later. In the meantime, cross your fingers for me as I get ready to meet Pat - a very nice lady who can either make me happy or reduce me to financial tears. I'll let you know how it comes out.
Have a good day. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
Monday, February 19, 2007
Rights - vs - Responsibilities
A few days ago, one of my friends sent me an article from Human Events Online titled Liberalism is Philosophically Un-American, written by Rabbi Aryeh Spero. As usual with such things, I was irritated by the needlessly inflammatory wording of the title, agreed with some of what the author wrote, disagreed with some of it, and was spurred to further thought by the whole thing.
You can read the whole article for yourself at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19437 if you want, but for now, let's concentrate on the first sentence, which reads: "Three of the distinguishing features of our historic American outlook are the emphasis of (1) right over wrong, (2) liberty, and (3) judging a person as an individual, not simply as a member of a group." I think this is a profoundly important thought which captures the source of both the best and the worst of America.
As you know if you read this blog regularly, I strongly believe that one of the things which sets America apart from most of the rest of the world is our emphasis on the rule of law - of right over wrong, as Rabbi Spero expresses it in his article. Although it's true that the quality of justice one can expect is enhanced by celebrity or the amount of money one can spend on lawyers, in general, our legal system is the envy of the world for fairness. Beyond home-grown justice, though, the traditionally American sense of right over wrong has led us to intervene, sometimes heavy-handedly, in support of oppressed populations (consider the Balkans, Iraq, and Somalia); actions which may be taken in good faith, but which often end up being condemned around the world for one reason or another (anger over national impotence, jealousy, political gamesmanship, etc). But the real focus of my comment today centers on Rabbi Spero's other two points: liberty and judging a person as an individual, not simply as a member of a group. While these are both key elements of the American character and national experience, I think they also contain the seeds of many of our current problems.
The unprecedented level of personal freedom enjoyed by Americans, and our traditional encouragement of individual initiative, have helped us to create the economic, industrial, and social superpower that now is the focus of both the world's envy and its jealousy and hatred. But here's the problem: where do the rights of the individual intersect with the individual's responsibility to the larger group? Much has been written about this topic, but only around the edges of the debate; it's the real third rail of American social intercourse. The relationship of rights to responsibilities is anathema to both the conservative Right and the liberal Left, albeit for different reasons. Conservatives generally venerate the rugged individual, unfettered by silly things like big government and overly-restrictive laws; Liberals generally see the larger group as more important and threatened by an over-focus on the rights and privileges of the individual. As with so many discussions of social issues, the argument has been hijacked by the extremists of the Right and Left, and it doesn't get the serious attention it deserves.
You don't have to look far for examples of over-focus on the individual. Magazines like People, Us, and Self celebrate the activities of celebrities (which frequently aren't the sort of actions I'd prefer my grandchildren to have as examples of good behavior). An empty-headed plastic quasi-celebrity like Paris Hilton, a tragic failure like Anna Nicole Smith, or a useless professional celebrity like Kato Kaelin (who?) get headlines, while the social workers, scientists and researchers working for the betterment of the larger society are relegated to page 6 of section D of your newspaper. Bill Cosby lectures the black community about its responsibility to set a positive example and free its young people from the culture of thugs and drugs, and is villified by that community for not blaming white America for its problems, instead.
Individuals empowered by liberty and economic opportunity and protected by the rule of law made America great. Individuals willing to set aside their ethnic and religious differences and work together made America the envy of the world, and incurred its jealousy.
The individual or the group? Which is more important? Neither. The individual, nurtured and empowered by the larger group, is the engine that built America. But no one in modern American society really wants to say that.
Have a good day. The next time you demand your rights, think also about your responsibilities. We didn't get where we are today without both.
Bilbo
You can read the whole article for yourself at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19437 if you want, but for now, let's concentrate on the first sentence, which reads: "Three of the distinguishing features of our historic American outlook are the emphasis of (1) right over wrong, (2) liberty, and (3) judging a person as an individual, not simply as a member of a group." I think this is a profoundly important thought which captures the source of both the best and the worst of America.
As you know if you read this blog regularly, I strongly believe that one of the things which sets America apart from most of the rest of the world is our emphasis on the rule of law - of right over wrong, as Rabbi Spero expresses it in his article. Although it's true that the quality of justice one can expect is enhanced by celebrity or the amount of money one can spend on lawyers, in general, our legal system is the envy of the world for fairness. Beyond home-grown justice, though, the traditionally American sense of right over wrong has led us to intervene, sometimes heavy-handedly, in support of oppressed populations (consider the Balkans, Iraq, and Somalia); actions which may be taken in good faith, but which often end up being condemned around the world for one reason or another (anger over national impotence, jealousy, political gamesmanship, etc). But the real focus of my comment today centers on Rabbi Spero's other two points: liberty and judging a person as an individual, not simply as a member of a group. While these are both key elements of the American character and national experience, I think they also contain the seeds of many of our current problems.
The unprecedented level of personal freedom enjoyed by Americans, and our traditional encouragement of individual initiative, have helped us to create the economic, industrial, and social superpower that now is the focus of both the world's envy and its jealousy and hatred. But here's the problem: where do the rights of the individual intersect with the individual's responsibility to the larger group? Much has been written about this topic, but only around the edges of the debate; it's the real third rail of American social intercourse. The relationship of rights to responsibilities is anathema to both the conservative Right and the liberal Left, albeit for different reasons. Conservatives generally venerate the rugged individual, unfettered by silly things like big government and overly-restrictive laws; Liberals generally see the larger group as more important and threatened by an over-focus on the rights and privileges of the individual. As with so many discussions of social issues, the argument has been hijacked by the extremists of the Right and Left, and it doesn't get the serious attention it deserves.
You don't have to look far for examples of over-focus on the individual. Magazines like People, Us, and Self celebrate the activities of celebrities (which frequently aren't the sort of actions I'd prefer my grandchildren to have as examples of good behavior). An empty-headed plastic quasi-celebrity like Paris Hilton, a tragic failure like Anna Nicole Smith, or a useless professional celebrity like Kato Kaelin (who?) get headlines, while the social workers, scientists and researchers working for the betterment of the larger society are relegated to page 6 of section D of your newspaper. Bill Cosby lectures the black community about its responsibility to set a positive example and free its young people from the culture of thugs and drugs, and is villified by that community for not blaming white America for its problems, instead.
Individuals empowered by liberty and economic opportunity and protected by the rule of law made America great. Individuals willing to set aside their ethnic and religious differences and work together made America the envy of the world, and incurred its jealousy.
The individual or the group? Which is more important? Neither. The individual, nurtured and empowered by the larger group, is the engine that built America. But no one in modern American society really wants to say that.
Have a good day. The next time you demand your rights, think also about your responsibilities. We didn't get where we are today without both.
Bilbo
Friday, February 16, 2007
News Flash: Darwin Claimed Responsible for All the World's Evil!
One of my friends sent me an article from WorldNetDaily.com yesterday which fawningly reviewed a video presentation titled Darwin's Deadly Legacy. According to the article Jerry Newcomb, one of the program's two co-producers, claimed that "...Darwinian theory, 'which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity...'" He goes on to claim that "Darwin led to eugenics, which led directly to Hitler," and blames Darwin and the theory of evolution for everything from Hitler and the Holocaust to the Columbine High School massacre to modern attempts by parents to choose the sex and attributes of their children. One D. James Kennedy, PhD (although the subject of his doctorate is not given) hosts the video, and is quoted in the article as saying' "To put it simply - no Darwin, no Hitler."
I think the producers and their backers need to go back to school and learn to separate their religious beliefs from their science.
First of all, to blame Darwin and the theory of evolution for the twisted Nazi racial theories is just like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for the deaths of everyone who has ever been killed by a firearm. Dr Kennedy describes the theory of evolution as "a set of theories based on a crumbling scientific foundation." Evolution is a theory, true, but it's a theory with a pretty impressive load of scientific evidence to back it up. It's certainly not a perfect theory, as even its supporters will tell you, but it certainly has more factual scientific evidence supporting it than pseudo-scientific "theories" like Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than the Biblical story of Creation masquerading as scientific fact.
Adolf Hitler's racial concepts were shaped and motivated by a lot of twisted ideas that were current in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It wouldn't surprise me if Darwin's theory was churning somewhere in that mix of ideas, but to baldly state that Darwinian theories led directly to Hitler is ludicrous, and to quote Karl Marx (as Mr Newcomb did) as if his limited endorsement of Darwin's ideas proves the point is just silly.
The sad fact that the theory of evolution is being applied by some parents to select the sex or other attributes of their children doesn't make the theory itself wrong or inherently evil...it makes the application of that theory by human beings unfortunate. I would point out that devout Christians have committed unspeakable evils according to their interpretation of the Bible (more so in the past than today), and that radical Muslims do the same almost every day. But no one criticizes the Bible as being responsible for such actions, and radical Muslims will threaten to behead you if you imply that the Koran is anything other than perfect.
I think it's infuriating that people swallow claptrap like this video without thinking it through. Regular readers of this blog know that one of my recurring themes is that unthinking reliance on blind faith, whether religious or scientific, is a dangerous thing. Yesterday in this blog, I wrote about the latest flip-flop in the state of Kansas's attempts to decide whether they will craft their school curriculum according to accepted scientific theories or conservatively-dictated religious pseudo-science. True science has, for the moment, won out in Kansas. The Darwin's Deadly Legacy video, unfortunately, shows that the pseudo-science is still alive and well.
I'm sorry for all the people who will watch this documentary and swallow it whole without looking to see what agenda is being pursued behind it.
Don't let anyone - least of all me - do your thinking for you. Be skeptical. Study claims of truth from all sides. And learn the difference between hard science and quasi-religious demagoguery.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
I think the producers and their backers need to go back to school and learn to separate their religious beliefs from their science.
First of all, to blame Darwin and the theory of evolution for the twisted Nazi racial theories is just like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for the deaths of everyone who has ever been killed by a firearm. Dr Kennedy describes the theory of evolution as "a set of theories based on a crumbling scientific foundation." Evolution is a theory, true, but it's a theory with a pretty impressive load of scientific evidence to back it up. It's certainly not a perfect theory, as even its supporters will tell you, but it certainly has more factual scientific evidence supporting it than pseudo-scientific "theories" like Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than the Biblical story of Creation masquerading as scientific fact.
Adolf Hitler's racial concepts were shaped and motivated by a lot of twisted ideas that were current in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It wouldn't surprise me if Darwin's theory was churning somewhere in that mix of ideas, but to baldly state that Darwinian theories led directly to Hitler is ludicrous, and to quote Karl Marx (as Mr Newcomb did) as if his limited endorsement of Darwin's ideas proves the point is just silly.
The sad fact that the theory of evolution is being applied by some parents to select the sex or other attributes of their children doesn't make the theory itself wrong or inherently evil...it makes the application of that theory by human beings unfortunate. I would point out that devout Christians have committed unspeakable evils according to their interpretation of the Bible (more so in the past than today), and that radical Muslims do the same almost every day. But no one criticizes the Bible as being responsible for such actions, and radical Muslims will threaten to behead you if you imply that the Koran is anything other than perfect.
I think it's infuriating that people swallow claptrap like this video without thinking it through. Regular readers of this blog know that one of my recurring themes is that unthinking reliance on blind faith, whether religious or scientific, is a dangerous thing. Yesterday in this blog, I wrote about the latest flip-flop in the state of Kansas's attempts to decide whether they will craft their school curriculum according to accepted scientific theories or conservatively-dictated religious pseudo-science. True science has, for the moment, won out in Kansas. The Darwin's Deadly Legacy video, unfortunately, shows that the pseudo-science is still alive and well.
I'm sorry for all the people who will watch this documentary and swallow it whole without looking to see what agenda is being pursued behind it.
Don't let anyone - least of all me - do your thinking for you. Be skeptical. Study claims of truth from all sides. And learn the difference between hard science and quasi-religious demagoguery.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Evolution of Kansas Schools
One of the third rails of American education is the teaching of the theory of evolution, particularly to elementary and high school students. Religious groups, believing that evolution contradicts the biblical story of Creation, have spent years fighting through local school boards and the courts in an attempt to ban the teaching of evolution and to insert in its place the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is, of course, nothing more than biblical Creation dressed up as quasi-science.
In December 2005, a US District Court in Pennsylvania issued a thorough and devastating decision which effectively demolished the teaching of Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones's 139-page decision (Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ) clearly showed that the Dover School District's requirement to have the local schools teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution was nothing more than a attempt to present religious doctrine as science, in violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The gold standard for religious meddling in the teaching of science, though, has been Kansas, which has won international ridicule for its heavy-handed attempts to push religion-based concepts as science in its schools. But according to recent news reports, new elections in Kansas have brought more moderate and fewer religiously dogmatic persons to the state Board of Education, and new teaching standards reflecting mainstream science and the theory of evolution are being reintroduced into the schools.
While this is good news, it should also be noted that this event marks the fifth set of standards for Kansas schools in eight years, and could easily be overturned in another year or two if religiously conservative lawmakers are elected again.
Readers of this blog know that I am fiercely critical of dogmatic and intolerant followers of Islam, but I am equally critical of hidebound fundamentalist Christians and Jews who would slavishly apply the literal precepts of religious texts written nearly two millenia ago. Over the years I have come to have little respect for those who would impose - by force, in the case of Islam and by law, in the case of Christianity - their religious beliefs on others. Religions have been hijacked by their most extreme adherents, and have drifted far from their valuable role in providing a moral compass and guide to life in a complex time.
Kansas has won a small victory for rationality in education. One can only hope it will last, and that people of goodwill and strong moral fiber will seize religions back from those who would wield them as weapons.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
In December 2005, a US District Court in Pennsylvania issued a thorough and devastating decision which effectively demolished the teaching of Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones's 139-page decision (Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ) clearly showed that the Dover School District's requirement to have the local schools teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution was nothing more than a attempt to present religious doctrine as science, in violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The gold standard for religious meddling in the teaching of science, though, has been Kansas, which has won international ridicule for its heavy-handed attempts to push religion-based concepts as science in its schools. But according to recent news reports, new elections in Kansas have brought more moderate and fewer religiously dogmatic persons to the state Board of Education, and new teaching standards reflecting mainstream science and the theory of evolution are being reintroduced into the schools.
While this is good news, it should also be noted that this event marks the fifth set of standards for Kansas schools in eight years, and could easily be overturned in another year or two if religiously conservative lawmakers are elected again.
Readers of this blog know that I am fiercely critical of dogmatic and intolerant followers of Islam, but I am equally critical of hidebound fundamentalist Christians and Jews who would slavishly apply the literal precepts of religious texts written nearly two millenia ago. Over the years I have come to have little respect for those who would impose - by force, in the case of Islam and by law, in the case of Christianity - their religious beliefs on others. Religions have been hijacked by their most extreme adherents, and have drifted far from their valuable role in providing a moral compass and guide to life in a complex time.
Kansas has won a small victory for rationality in education. One can only hope it will last, and that people of goodwill and strong moral fiber will seize religions back from those who would wield them as weapons.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Muslim Commentator Speaks Out
Because it doesn't happen very often, it's news when a Muslim actually dares to point out some of the absurdities of Islamic behavior and the glaring differences between the words and the deeds not only of radical Islamists, but of the Muslim mainstream. On the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI, which you can link to from this blog) is a translation of an article by an Iraqi reformist columnist named 'Abd Al-Khaliq Hussein in which Mr Hussein attacks the behavior of Islamic radicals and holds up the Pope and the nations of western Europe as examples of religious tolerance. You can link directly to the article here: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD146007.
This is a very significant article, well worth your time in reading. I don't know anything about Mr Hussein's background and the amount of authority his opinions carry with other Muslims, but when any Muslim has the courage to stand up and criticize the lunacy of radical - and even mainstream - Islamic behavior, it's worth listening to him. Mr Hussein paints a devastating picture of the glaring difference between Muslim protestations of tolerance and the reality of their behavior, using their own words and symbols to make his point.
Here's a very simple, yet telling example: in discussing the violent Muslim reactions to Pope Benedict's comments about Islam in a speech last September, Mr Hussein writes, "I don't know why these people - especially the Muslim Brotherhood - deny the role of the sword and violence in the spreading of Islam. Arab-Islamic history is full of wars and raids ... the logo of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has a picture of the Koran and two crossed swords, as is clearly seen in the following picture:
"We see under the sword hilts the slogan 'Make Ready,' which is the beginning of the Koranic verse [8:60]: 'Make ready for them whatever you can of force and horses of war with which to frighten Allah's enemies and yours.'" He goes on to write later in the article, "The Pope taught a hands-on lesson in rapprochement among religions, civilizations, and cultures. He also gave an inspiring hands-on lesson in religious tolerance when he visited the Blue Mosque in Istanbul...and prayed with Muslims while facing Mecca. ... This is religious tolerance, oh Muslims. Do you have sufficient courage and humility to do the same? ... When will Muslims be governed by rationality and wisdom, and by the essence of true Islam in the interpretation of religious texts in their historical context and in accordance with the currrent era, so as to live in peace with the world? Is anybody listening?"
This is a very good question. The entire Muslim world is spring-loaded to take offense at the least hint of criticism or perceived insult, but has no problem with heaping the most vile and repulsive slander on Christians and Jews. The Council on American-Islamic Relations loudly protests any perceived criticism of Islam or allegations of discrimination against Muslims in this country, but is utterly silent about the outrageous behavior of radical Islamists (you can check it out yourself at their website, http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp).
Is anybody listening?
Yes, someone is listening - but all the listening and all the efforts at tolerance are coming from the western nations, and from the Christians and Jews who are so loudly maligned by Muslims.
Perhaps there are more Muslims out there like Mr Hussein, people of good will who can see that the Muslims are often their own worst enemies, that they create by their own actions the discrimination and anti-Muslim feelings they so loudly protest.
Perhaps those people are out there...but if they are, their complete lack of moral courage is demonstrated by their silence.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Let's Say I Break Into Your House...
Regular readers of this blog know that I have very strong feelings on the subject of illegal immigration. What's endlessly frustrating in this whole affair is the overbearingly righteous attitude of those who defend people who flagrantly violate the law, then not only expect the violation to be forgiven, but also expect to be rewarded for this in various ways.
One of my friends sent me the following, which supposedly is a letter written by a lady to her local newspaper. I've edited some of the spelling and grammatical errors, but it's otherwise as I received it:
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yes, I also demand that you learn my language so you can communicate with me."
I don't know if this actually is someone's letter to the editor or not. Knowing how things travel around the Internet, it probably isn't. But it does elegantly reduce the asinine arguments of those who support illegal immigration to a perfectly accurate metaphor.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: this argument is not about immigration. Immigration is the bedrock on which America was built. The argument is about whether or not we choose to reward flagrant and willful violation of the law. It's also about whether or not Congress will finally decide to grow a spine and come up with a fair and reasonable revision of our outdated immigration laws, instead of kowtowing shamelessly in front of a Hispanic voting block they don't want to alienate.
Oh, and yes - going back to the house-breaking metaphor: that person living in your house also expects to be able to vote.
Can you spell stupid?
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
One of my friends sent me the following, which supposedly is a letter written by a lady to her local newspaper. I've edited some of the spelling and grammatical errors, but it's otherwise as I received it:
"Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say:
- I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and done the laundry and swept the floors.
- I've done all the things you don't like to do.
- I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
- You are required to let me stay in your house
- You are required to add me to your family's insurance plan
- You are required to educate my kids
- You are required to provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking-in part).
- If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yes, I also demand that you learn my language so you can communicate with me."
I don't know if this actually is someone's letter to the editor or not. Knowing how things travel around the Internet, it probably isn't. But it does elegantly reduce the asinine arguments of those who support illegal immigration to a perfectly accurate metaphor.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: this argument is not about immigration. Immigration is the bedrock on which America was built. The argument is about whether or not we choose to reward flagrant and willful violation of the law. It's also about whether or not Congress will finally decide to grow a spine and come up with a fair and reasonable revision of our outdated immigration laws, instead of kowtowing shamelessly in front of a Hispanic voting block they don't want to alienate.
Oh, and yes - going back to the house-breaking metaphor: that person living in your house also expects to be able to vote.
Can you spell stupid?
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Monday, February 12, 2007
Winter in Northern Virginia, Part 2
No deep thoughts today...just a few comments on 'enjoying' Winter in Northern Virginia.
As I write this, the temperature outside my study window is about 15 degrees, the wind is blowing, and we're waiting to see whether the winter storm expected to start this evening will bury us in snow and ice or fizzle out (as so often happens). Forecasting the weather around here isn't easy...we sit on a sort of fault line between weather areas, and the type of winter storms we get depends on a complex mix of arcane factors understandable only to the meteorologists. One sure thing, though, is that we'll have a better time of it than the folks in upstate New York who are digging out from under 14 feet of snow.
Agnes and I often scoff at local reactions to a little snow - I grew up in Western Pennsylvania back when school didn't close unless the snow was deeper than the bus roofs; Agnes grew up in the foothills of the Alps. For us, a snowfall of an inch or two or three - cause for widespread panic and stockpiling of toilet paper and canned goods around here - is cause for a yawn. Ice, of course, is different...we do get lots of ice storms here, which are far more dangerous for driving than snow...but you lives where you do and you takes your chances.
Winter is not my favorite season. While I enjoy sitting in front of a roaring fire, sipping a cup of hot chocolate laced with peppermint schnapps and looking out at an unbroken field of glistening white snow, I much prefer sitting out in the yard, watching the beautiful ladies stolling by in their light summer clothes. For me, the true first sign of Spring isn't the first robin...it's the first young lady in a sleeveless blouse.
I'm ready for Spring. I know it's just mid-February, and winter is just getting started, but I'm officially through with Winter. Snow, exit stage left. Cue the sun. Let's get warm.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
As I write this, the temperature outside my study window is about 15 degrees, the wind is blowing, and we're waiting to see whether the winter storm expected to start this evening will bury us in snow and ice or fizzle out (as so often happens). Forecasting the weather around here isn't easy...we sit on a sort of fault line between weather areas, and the type of winter storms we get depends on a complex mix of arcane factors understandable only to the meteorologists. One sure thing, though, is that we'll have a better time of it than the folks in upstate New York who are digging out from under 14 feet of snow.
Agnes and I often scoff at local reactions to a little snow - I grew up in Western Pennsylvania back when school didn't close unless the snow was deeper than the bus roofs; Agnes grew up in the foothills of the Alps. For us, a snowfall of an inch or two or three - cause for widespread panic and stockpiling of toilet paper and canned goods around here - is cause for a yawn. Ice, of course, is different...we do get lots of ice storms here, which are far more dangerous for driving than snow...but you lives where you do and you takes your chances.
Winter is not my favorite season. While I enjoy sitting in front of a roaring fire, sipping a cup of hot chocolate laced with peppermint schnapps and looking out at an unbroken field of glistening white snow, I much prefer sitting out in the yard, watching the beautiful ladies stolling by in their light summer clothes. For me, the true first sign of Spring isn't the first robin...it's the first young lady in a sleeveless blouse.
I'm ready for Spring. I know it's just mid-February, and winter is just getting started, but I'm officially through with Winter. Snow, exit stage left. Cue the sun. Let's get warm.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Shift Happens
One of my friends sent me a link the other day to an extraordinary presentation that I wanted to share with you. At http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv, you'll find a video titled "Did You Know?" that will change the way you think not only about the future, but about the things we do in the present that will shape it.
Over the course of six minutes, this video presents a range of eye-opening statistics and provides food for thought about where we are and where we're going. Here are a few examples:
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Over the course of six minutes, this video presents a range of eye-opening statistics and provides food for thought about where we are and where we're going. Here are a few examples:
- In the year 2002, the Nintendo Corporation invested more than $140 million in research and development...in the same year, the U.S. government spent less than half that amount on research and innovation in education.
- Each month, more than 2.7 billion Google searches are executed on the Internet. Who answered all these questions before Google was available? (And my own parenthetical question: are the Google-provided answers better, worse, or the same as might otherwise have been obtained? That's a question for a future blog post.)
- A week's worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person in the 18th century was likely to come across in his entire lifetime.
- The 25% of the population of China with the highest IQs is greater than the entire population of North America...which means that they may well have more honors children than we have children.
- And finally, name this country: richest in the world, with the largest military, strongest education system, and highest standard of living; the world center of business and finance, with a currency accepted as the world's standard of value, and the world's center of innovation and invention. The country is England...in 1900.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)