Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Two good developments

Posted: August 17, 2010 by datechguy in culture, internet/free speech, media, opinion/news
Tags: , ,

Two amazing things have taken place:

The Hospital internet is now working!

An Arab language newspaper has come out against the Mosque at Ground Zero:

“I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime. Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?…

“Those pushing to build this mosque may be construction companies, architect firms, or political groups who want to exploit this issue. The individual who submitted the building application – I do not know whether he [really] wants [to build] a mosque that will promote reconciliation, or whether he is [just] an investor looking for quick profits. Because the idea of a mosque right next to a site of destruction is not at all an intelligent one. The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.

“What the citizens of the U.S. fail to understand is that the battle against the 9/11 terrorists is not their battle. It is a Muslim battle – one whose flames are still raging in more than 20 Muslim countries… I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam… This has already started to happen: [the Islamophobes] are claiming that a mosque is being built over the corpses of 3,000 U.S. citizens who were buried alive by people chanting ‘Allah akbar’ – the same call that will be heard from the mosque…”

I take exception to the words “Islamophobes, but all in all a piece that acknowledges what MSNBC and CNN and the rest of the “Defend Obama” media can’t or won’t see. (Dana Milbank for example)

Bill Kristol thinks it will be over soon, I hope he’s right.

memeorandum thread here.

The biggest loser here won’t be the president (who was already sinking in the popularity ratings.) or Congressional democrats (who get a great chance to separate themselves from an unpopular president, or the republicans, (who get another talking point) or even the people trying to get the mosque built (who will get concessions for moving it and be celebrated as “tolerant” for doing so)

No the biggest loser is the media who fawned all over the president’s statement, called the American People ignorant bigots for disagreeing and then expect them to not only watch their programs but to take their word on issues.

Of course within their Niche market it might not hurt that much but their days of influencing the mass of Americans is rapidly and thankfully drawing to a close.

Update: Case in point

When did we stop praising politicians for doing what is right even when it’s not politically expedient?” she asked rhetorically. Suggesting that it was unjust for them to suffer political consequences since “the reason everybody is groaning all the time about our politicians is because they’re such hacks and nobody stands up for what’s right,” she concluded saying that “somebody has to say that we’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked us”– suggesting that the people who oppose its construction are, to some extent, the moral equivalent to those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Her point seemed to have been that religious intolerance was behind both sentiments, but the issue is already heated enough without constructing this kind of analogy.

I wasn’t up early enough to see this on Morning Joe or I would have mentioned it.

The president can take solice in his newfound friends

Posted: August 16, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech
Tags: , , , ,

He may be on the wrong side of the Mosque issue as far as the American People are concerned, but he is certainly on the side of the angels according to Hamas:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC.

It brings to mind a poem:

One night in late October,
When I was far from sober,
Returning with my load with manly pride,
My poor feet began to stutter,
So I lay down in the gutter,
And a pig came near and lay down by my side;
Then we sang “It’s all fair weather when good fellows get together”,

Till a lady passing by was heard to say:
“You can tell a man who boozes,
By the company he chooses”,
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.

Much better to like down with Hamas than those bigoted Americans, right Mr. Halperin?

Memeorandum thread here

Update: Another example of those unenlightened ignorant Americans that the president’s friends of Hamas would not approve of:

I was asked to say a few words, which were these: this was a quintessential American wedding. A handsome Marine marries a beautiful Iraqi woman who is led down the aisle by two old Jewish guys.

Don’t you think?

Bigots.

Via Glenn who says Only in America

Morning Joe: Sarah Palin? Who’s that?

Posted: August 16, 2010 by datechguy in elections, internet/free speech, media, opinion/news, politics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

We knew the Mosque issue was going to be all over the news.

Morning Joe has been a shield in front of the president all Morning vocally defending the president without hesitation on the NY Mosque issue.

But defense is not enough so they decided to counterattack, however Who they choose to attack says a lot about what they think.

This weekend on on Facebook Sarah Palin said this:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

A clear, lucid statement from one of the leading contenders if not THE leading contender for the Republican Nomination in 2012. A person who was on a National Ticket just 2 years ago.

Normally Sarah Palin means views and hits so naturally they would be injecting her whenever possible…

…but this statement would win votes, so we can’t have that.

Instead they are going after Newt Gingrich for saying it is like “putting a Swastika next to the Holocaust museum” (they don’t manage to quote him saying: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” too many people would get that), and are touting him both as a voice of intolerance and as the republican front runner.

Let’s cut to the chase. Newt Gingrich is no more going to be the Republican nominee in 2012 that I am. These people know this, but pretend otherwise.

This is simply political cover, cover for Obama’s statements and covering up Sarah Palin’s statements so a weak White House doesn’t have to respond.

A must read for Catholic and Athiests

Posted: August 15, 2010 by datechguy in catholic, internet/free speech
Tags: , , ,

Gary Gutting who teaches philosophy at the University of Notre Dame puts up, at of all places the NYT online, a pair of spectacular philosophical pieces on belief, non belief and agnosticism.

The first from Aug 1st is called Philosophy & Faith:

At this point, the class perks up again as I lay out versions of the famous arguments for the existence of God, and my students begin to think that they’re about to get what their parents have paid for at a great Catholic university: some rigorous intellectual support for their faith.

Soon enough, however, things again fall apart, since our best efforts to construct arguments along the traditional lines face successive difficulties. The students realize that I’m not going to be able to give them a convincing proof, and I let them in on the dirty secret: philosophers have never been able to find arguments that settle the question of God’s existence or any of the other “big questions” we’ve been discussing for 2500 years.

One of the things that Dawkinsites tend to forget is that great thinkers and scientists and people of reason have been debating, writing on and discussing the existence of God in general and the truth of Christianity and Catholicism in particular for centuries before Guttenburg’s first bible rolled off the presses. Their image of the believer is a straw man.

His second part went up three days ago to respond to the Dawkinsites who were dismayed at his critique of the man they follow (we Christians are used to it, part of the job description you know) another peek:

My August 1 essay, “Philosophy and Faith,” was primarily addressed to religious believers. It argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith. I very much appreciated the many and diverse comments and the honesty and passion with which so many expressed their views. Interestingly, many of the most passionate responses came from non-believers who objected to my claim that popular atheistic arguments (like popular theistic arguments) do not establish their conclusions. There was particular dismay over my passing comment that the atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins are “demonstrably faulty.” This follow-up provides support for my negative assessment. I will focus on Dawkins’ arguments in his 2006 book, “The God Delusion.”

For “unbelievers” they sure get their knickers in an uproar when someone questions what they think.

As I’ve written my own Catholicism is primarily based on experience, reason and history leading to my conclusion that it is true as a fact. The faith part of my equation is pretty weak by comparison and I need to work on it.

It’s worth noting that Gutting doesn’t argue for God but looks at the various arguments being made. Argument and rational debate are very important in this field, because if your arguments are worthwhile, they will stand up under fire. If you are unwilling to brave that fire then you might want to take another look at those beliefs.

I’m sure there will be later chapters that I have more issue with but that is the beauty of debate and through. Can’t wait for them. And to those who think it’s the wrong way to go I say anyone who thinks Christianity can’t be reached through reason or that Christians should not embrace reason needs a stronger faith and/or a more open mind.

Catholicism has stood this fire for 20 centuries and will likely be doing so for 20 more.

Older Entries
Newer Entries