When I consider controversial topics I really do try and find reasoned arguments from both sides. With regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict it just seems to me that Zionism simply cannot make a reasoned, moral case. But I'm looking to Israel's proponents to try and see if I'm missing something.
Alan Dershowitz is a very prominent proponent of Zionism, but I have to say that when I listen to him he never seems to say anything. A lot of cliches. Little substance. But I don't know a lot of others that even try and defend Israel's actions, so I'm stuck listening to him. Right wing zealot blog Front Page Magazine recently had an effusive commentary of his recent speech, so once again I thought I'd give it a listen. You can find it here. But it's the same thing. He says nothing. "We have the arguments, we need to defend freedom of speech, we abhor your statements but defend your right to say them, these people live in 'Planet Chomsky', blah, blah, blah." I learn absolutely nothing and gain no insight in how a reasonable person would defend Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.
Contrast with John Mearsheimer. Reading the reviews from the right you'd think the guy was ready to fire up the gas chambers again. But have a listen. You can agree or disagree with him, but you have to admit that he's at least presenting a thesis and justifying it with facts and logic. At least you learn something. Dershowitz is just awful. Does anybody actually address the arguments of Israel's critics, like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tomorrow is "Be An Atheist A-hole Day"
Muslims have engaged in frequent peaceful protests with regards to cartoons that depicted Mohammed. Unfortunately when you have frequent and worldwide protests on any hot issue clashes sometimes erupt and violence occurs. This of course happened with regards to these cartoons. The worst incident I know of was a clash between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria that left 127 people dead.
Many atheists have decided that because of this it makes a lot of sense to be a massive prick and stick your finger in the eye of the entire Muslim world, including the vast swaths of Muslims that protested peacefully. Let's all draw Mohammed. I guess the thinking is that the world would be much improved if we all treated those that think differently like crap.
It's interesting to note the selective outrage of some. The Muslim country of Iraq was invaded on a pack of lies for reasons thinking people know had to do with the control of resources. Around 1.5 million dead. Prior to this Iraq was subjected to a starvation campaign. Maybe a million dead. Muslim nations have been subjected to vicious puppet dictators by the United States for decades. These things aren't noticed. These are things that are going on today and could be stopped if people could figure out which things are really worth objecting to. Instead we will focus on a small handful of idiot Muslims and how they became violent. The speck in our neighbor's eye is a problem. The beam in our own eye is irrelevant.
Unfortunately Hemant Mehta, the so called "Friendly Atheist", is promoting this. You can read his reasons and my objections in the comments section here and here. I like Hemant and really he is a friendly atheist. He may have gotten swept up here by the atheist community. He probably won't see the light quickly enough to pull his support before this incident proceeds, but I hope that he will change his thinking eventually.
Many atheists have decided that because of this it makes a lot of sense to be a massive prick and stick your finger in the eye of the entire Muslim world, including the vast swaths of Muslims that protested peacefully. Let's all draw Mohammed. I guess the thinking is that the world would be much improved if we all treated those that think differently like crap.
It's interesting to note the selective outrage of some. The Muslim country of Iraq was invaded on a pack of lies for reasons thinking people know had to do with the control of resources. Around 1.5 million dead. Prior to this Iraq was subjected to a starvation campaign. Maybe a million dead. Muslim nations have been subjected to vicious puppet dictators by the United States for decades. These things aren't noticed. These are things that are going on today and could be stopped if people could figure out which things are really worth objecting to. Instead we will focus on a small handful of idiot Muslims and how they became violent. The speck in our neighbor's eye is a problem. The beam in our own eye is irrelevant.
Unfortunately Hemant Mehta, the so called "Friendly Atheist", is promoting this. You can read his reasons and my objections in the comments section here and here. I like Hemant and really he is a friendly atheist. He may have gotten swept up here by the atheist community. He probably won't see the light quickly enough to pull his support before this incident proceeds, but I hope that he will change his thinking eventually.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Iran Offers Peace, US Rebuffs
In an effort to prevent public knowledge from slipping down the memory hole, let's just note a few historical facts with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In 2003 Iran offered to dialogue with the United States in which everything was on the table "including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups." The US does not have diplomatic relations with Iran so this offer came via a Swiss diplomat.
The response from the United States was to censure the Swiss diplomat for bringing the offer. But Iran pressed on regardless. The following year they reached an agreement with the EU in which they agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. In exchange they asked for "firm commitments on security issues." Meaning, get Israel to stop threatening to bomb us.
The EU did not live up to it's end, apparently due to US pressure. So in 2005 Iran resumed uranium enrichment.
So it would seem that punishing Iran and excluding it from the world community is more important than the security of the world.
In 2003 Iran offered to dialogue with the United States in which everything was on the table "including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups." The US does not have diplomatic relations with Iran so this offer came via a Swiss diplomat.
The response from the United States was to censure the Swiss diplomat for bringing the offer. But Iran pressed on regardless. The following year they reached an agreement with the EU in which they agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. In exchange they asked for "firm commitments on security issues." Meaning, get Israel to stop threatening to bomb us.
The EU did not live up to it's end, apparently due to US pressure. So in 2005 Iran resumed uranium enrichment.
So it would seem that punishing Iran and excluding it from the world community is more important than the security of the world.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Deliver Us From Evil
This movie is a documentary about a rapist priest who savaged dozens if not hundreds of kids with the full knowledge of the Catholic hierarchy and they did nothing but cover up and enable his crimes. What you learn is that this is not simply the case of a few bad apples. This is an institutional problem.
One victim, Ann, was raped from the age of 5 until 12. Her dad had said while she was young "If anyone ever hurt you, I'd kill them." Young Ann asked a friend what would happen if her father killed someone. They said he would go to jail. So Ann out of love for her father would not say anything to anyone.
Father O'Grady, the rapist, got very light punishment due to Catholic string pulling. He served 7 years, then was shipped back to his home country of Ireland when he'd served his sentence. He lives comfortably today. The Church bought him an annuity to help fund his life despite the fact that he was retired from the priesthood. This may have partly been to encourage him to remain silent about the knowledge the Church had since the Church has the ability to de-fund the annuity at any time.
The rape has crushed Ann's parents, who now have little monetary resources because of all of this. Imagine that they paid good money to send their daughter to private school, where she was raped routinely, and they never got a penny back, whereas Father O'Grady gets monthly checks.
Ann and another victim went to the Vatican to deliver a letter expressing the pain they had experienced. They were denied entry to the Vatican. The Vatican did not respond to the letter.
President Bush though continues the tradition of showing how every law has two interpretations. One for the rich and powerful, another for the poor and weak. Molested children are poor and weak. Bush stands with the rich and powerful. He granted the Vatican immunity from molestation charges. The kids will not be getting compensation for the suffering and destruction that has come upon them.
One victim, Ann, was raped from the age of 5 until 12. Her dad had said while she was young "If anyone ever hurt you, I'd kill them." Young Ann asked a friend what would happen if her father killed someone. They said he would go to jail. So Ann out of love for her father would not say anything to anyone.
Father O'Grady, the rapist, got very light punishment due to Catholic string pulling. He served 7 years, then was shipped back to his home country of Ireland when he'd served his sentence. He lives comfortably today. The Church bought him an annuity to help fund his life despite the fact that he was retired from the priesthood. This may have partly been to encourage him to remain silent about the knowledge the Church had since the Church has the ability to de-fund the annuity at any time.
The rape has crushed Ann's parents, who now have little monetary resources because of all of this. Imagine that they paid good money to send their daughter to private school, where she was raped routinely, and they never got a penny back, whereas Father O'Grady gets monthly checks.
Ann and another victim went to the Vatican to deliver a letter expressing the pain they had experienced. They were denied entry to the Vatican. The Vatican did not respond to the letter.
President Bush though continues the tradition of showing how every law has two interpretations. One for the rich and powerful, another for the poor and weak. Molested children are poor and weak. Bush stands with the rich and powerful. He granted the Vatican immunity from molestation charges. The kids will not be getting compensation for the suffering and destruction that has come upon them.
Hillary Clinton Being a Ridiculous Bully
So Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani born US citizen in a very amateurish effort, left an SUV filled with firecrackers and full containers of gasoline in Times Sqaure in an effort to create a terrorist incident.
Apparently Hillary Clinton is ready to blame the Pakistani government. Here's what she said:
"We've made it very clear that if -- heaven-forbid -- an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences"
So let's think about this for a moment. Why did Shahzad attempt to kill American civilians? Due to US drone attacks in Pakistan which kill many civilians. Who's responsible for that? And how in the world is the Pakistani government supposed to control US citizens living in the United States?
A whipping boy is a boy assigned to a prince that would be punished in the prince's place. The responsibility for the terrorist incident is Obama with his brutal drone attacks in Pakistan. The Pakistani government will be the whipping boy.
Apparently Hillary Clinton is ready to blame the Pakistani government. Here's what she said:
"We've made it very clear that if -- heaven-forbid -- an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences"
So let's think about this for a moment. Why did Shahzad attempt to kill American civilians? Due to US drone attacks in Pakistan which kill many civilians. Who's responsible for that? And how in the world is the Pakistani government supposed to control US citizens living in the United States?
A whipping boy is a boy assigned to a prince that would be punished in the prince's place. The responsibility for the terrorist incident is Obama with his brutal drone attacks in Pakistan. The Pakistani government will be the whipping boy.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Cool Animation of Human Migration
This animation tracks human migration starting 150K years ago and finishing at the present day. There's a mirror here in case that link doesn't work. It can get overloaded.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Still Some Principled Liberals
The crimes of Bush continue under Obama, but what has changed is the amount of outrage from the left. For some it would seem that crimes are only crimes if done by Republicans.
Fortunately that's not true of all liberals. Some 2000 liberal actors and intellectuals are calling Obama out. Read their statement here entitled "Crimes Are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them."
Fortunately that's not true of all liberals. Some 2000 liberal actors and intellectuals are calling Obama out. Read their statement here entitled "Crimes Are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)