This blog’s new statistics report feature shows that there have been numerous visitors from around the world as well as the United States. I of course recognize that clicking on this site doesn’t mean that you want to join, that you have actually read anything, or if you did, that you understood it, should English not be your language. In any case, I still want to express my appreciation to those of you who have visited from other countries, so here goes:
Dutch: Dank je
German: Danke
Russian: спасибо
Hebrew: רב תודות
Farsi: motashakkeram
Hindi: Dhanyavad
Latvian: Paldies
French: Merci
Malay: Terima kasih
Portuguese (Brazil): Obrigado
Spanish (Colombia): Gracias
Korean: kam sah hamnida
And, of course, to our English-speaking friends, thank you!
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sorry Mess
Messrs. Romney and Santorum are off base when they fault the President for apologizing for the burning of the Qu’ran in Afghanistan.
Why must an apology automatically be considered an expression of weakness? Assuming that the burning was an accident, or even some kind of local policy decision (one version is that military authorities were concerned that copies of the Qu’ran were being used to spread messages), was it so wrong for the President to do what he did? In this case, the apology is as much “I feel your pain” as anything else. As children, did we – or our parents – never apologize for the grief we caused someone else – even when whatever we did to cause it seemed to be necessary?
Of course, there’s a much bigger issue here, and that’s religious hypersensitivity. It’s absolutely true that Muslims in Afghanistan are overreacting. There is no excuse for the the level of violence that has occurred, and as for apologies, we practically had to pry one out of the Afghan president with a crowbar. It calls into question what in God’s name (so to speak) we’re still doing in that country. We have two clear choices: stay there until the Taliban is wiped out – or leave.
But let me ask this: Is there a part of some of us that isn’t all that put out about the burning of the Qu’ran?
From my limited knowledge of the Bible, there’s little that upset Jesus (a Jew) more than religious intolerance. In one incident, he talked to a Samaritan woman at a well, and the woman was astonished, because the Jews “had no dealings” with the Samaritans, or weren’t supposed to. I’ve said often that religion has given God a bad name.
I’m just about convinced that this century isn’t going to end without Crusades II. Forgive me, but I’ve forgotten who won the first round.
Why must an apology automatically be considered an expression of weakness? Assuming that the burning was an accident, or even some kind of local policy decision (one version is that military authorities were concerned that copies of the Qu’ran were being used to spread messages), was it so wrong for the President to do what he did? In this case, the apology is as much “I feel your pain” as anything else. As children, did we – or our parents – never apologize for the grief we caused someone else – even when whatever we did to cause it seemed to be necessary?
Of course, there’s a much bigger issue here, and that’s religious hypersensitivity. It’s absolutely true that Muslims in Afghanistan are overreacting. There is no excuse for the the level of violence that has occurred, and as for apologies, we practically had to pry one out of the Afghan president with a crowbar. It calls into question what in God’s name (so to speak) we’re still doing in that country. We have two clear choices: stay there until the Taliban is wiped out – or leave.
But let me ask this: Is there a part of some of us that isn’t all that put out about the burning of the Qu’ran?
From my limited knowledge of the Bible, there’s little that upset Jesus (a Jew) more than religious intolerance. In one incident, he talked to a Samaritan woman at a well, and the woman was astonished, because the Jews “had no dealings” with the Samaritans, or weren’t supposed to. I’ve said often that religion has given God a bad name.
I’m just about convinced that this century isn’t going to end without Crusades II. Forgive me, but I’ve forgotten who won the first round.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Heavy Issues
I decided that some of my posts might be thought of as trivial, so today I’m writing about life and death. Really.
It’s the debate in Washington over forced birth control coverage that got my brain going down all kinds of rabbit holes. For starters: If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, shouldn’t we be celebrating conception days instead of birthdays? Perhaps some of you already celebrate both c’days and b’days.
How about contraception? It’s tough to be opposed to abortion and contraception at the same time, because if you oppose contraception, well, aren’t you likely to bump up the number of abortions under the current state of the law? Of course, there is abstinence, but you can see how well that’s worked out for us.
Death is a tough one, too. We can’t seem to agree on when a person is 100 percent dead, especially when there are now so many artificial means of keeping us going at the “end of life.” Death is as much a legal term as it is a medical one. In the past, it was actually defined differently from state to state – perhaps still is. Are you dead when the machine says your brain is no longer sending out signals? What happens if you “die,” see the white light and your departed friends, but then something happens and you’re sent back down here? Does that mean your last will and testament doesn’t take effect after all? Do the relatives waiting to cash in have to pour the champagne back in the bottle?
You can see why I have a splitting headache. It will be a relief to return to more trivial matters.
It’s the debate in Washington over forced birth control coverage that got my brain going down all kinds of rabbit holes. For starters: If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, shouldn’t we be celebrating conception days instead of birthdays? Perhaps some of you already celebrate both c’days and b’days.
How about contraception? It’s tough to be opposed to abortion and contraception at the same time, because if you oppose contraception, well, aren’t you likely to bump up the number of abortions under the current state of the law? Of course, there is abstinence, but you can see how well that’s worked out for us.
Death is a tough one, too. We can’t seem to agree on when a person is 100 percent dead, especially when there are now so many artificial means of keeping us going at the “end of life.” Death is as much a legal term as it is a medical one. In the past, it was actually defined differently from state to state – perhaps still is. Are you dead when the machine says your brain is no longer sending out signals? What happens if you “die,” see the white light and your departed friends, but then something happens and you’re sent back down here? Does that mean your last will and testament doesn’t take effect after all? Do the relatives waiting to cash in have to pour the champagne back in the bottle?
You can see why I have a splitting headache. It will be a relief to return to more trivial matters.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Syrian Scramble
Like most of you, it’s hard for me to watch nightly TV pictures of a mechanized army killing civilians at an ever-increasing rate. For those of you with a sense of history, it’s awfully reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto.
But what are we going to do about it? We already have too many boots on too many grounds. Bombing? That’s OK, except this isn’t Berlin, Baghdad, or Belgrade. Drones? Now there’s a possibility. Drone vs. tank is more than fair.
One commentator was critical of the U.S. for even bothering with the U.N. – he says we should have known that Russia and China were going for a veto, and that it was a waste of time. I disagree – the U.N. was a base we had to touch, and now that we’ve rounded it, we’re free to pursue other options – but what?
Syria isn’t Libya. It’s not all about one ruling family. Unlike Libya, Syria has a business community that doesn’t want the boat rocked. It’s about money. Analysts say the Russians have lost billions in potential weapons sales during the Arab spring. They also want a port on the Mediterranean, available to them in Syria. And then there are the Chinese, and, of course, Iran. Can we deal with Syria without having to deal with the rest of them?
CNN commentator and Stanford fellow Fouad Ajami has what seems like a practical idea: Supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons and let them at least fight the regime on a leveler playing field. The regime is getting its weapons from others. This kind of assistance is nothing new -- remember Lend-Lease during the early days of World War II?
Will many more have to die? Undoubtedly, but personally, I’d rather see them die defending themselves than simply being slaughtered. I’d be curious to find out how much of a stomach the regular Syrian army would have for supporting the regime if they had credible military opposition.
At some point, this situation, at least for the United States, has to go beyond its current status as a nightly cable-news outrage festival.
But what are we going to do about it? We already have too many boots on too many grounds. Bombing? That’s OK, except this isn’t Berlin, Baghdad, or Belgrade. Drones? Now there’s a possibility. Drone vs. tank is more than fair.
One commentator was critical of the U.S. for even bothering with the U.N. – he says we should have known that Russia and China were going for a veto, and that it was a waste of time. I disagree – the U.N. was a base we had to touch, and now that we’ve rounded it, we’re free to pursue other options – but what?
Syria isn’t Libya. It’s not all about one ruling family. Unlike Libya, Syria has a business community that doesn’t want the boat rocked. It’s about money. Analysts say the Russians have lost billions in potential weapons sales during the Arab spring. They also want a port on the Mediterranean, available to them in Syria. And then there are the Chinese, and, of course, Iran. Can we deal with Syria without having to deal with the rest of them?
CNN commentator and Stanford fellow Fouad Ajami has what seems like a practical idea: Supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons and let them at least fight the regime on a leveler playing field. The regime is getting its weapons from others. This kind of assistance is nothing new -- remember Lend-Lease during the early days of World War II?
Will many more have to die? Undoubtedly, but personally, I’d rather see them die defending themselves than simply being slaughtered. I’d be curious to find out how much of a stomach the regular Syrian army would have for supporting the regime if they had credible military opposition.
At some point, this situation, at least for the United States, has to go beyond its current status as a nightly cable-news outrage festival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)