Really, give me a break, do we have a First Amendment or not? It is very clear in what it states. So any debate about the legality, location, meaning etc of a community center which includes a place of worship is rather unnecessary - and definintely unproductive. Especially if we want to hold on to our (USA) exceptional status as a beacon of ........ (Insert you favorite!).
When people like Newt Gingrich (a historian?) confuse Nazism with a religion it becomes very weird, even more so when a large number of people believe what he and other 'intellectuals' spout in this connection.
Enough said. Please apply Common Sense to what you read and hear. And let me know what you find.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Do you mean what you say?
More and more we find that outrageous statements, which have made it into the public eye, once challenged, are followed by lame excuses such as "I misspoke" "was quoted out of context" "did not mean to say ..." "had no intention to have this meaning ..." "was misinterpreted" "totally misunderstood ..."
Take the following, which was published on Friday, July 9, 2010 by Al Jazeera English (emphasis mine):
'Brawler' General to Lead Centcom
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
On Thursday, Gates dismissed concerns about the comments, saying appropriate action had been taken at the time - Mattis was reprimanded and told to choose his words more carefully - and the four-star general had learnt his lesson.
Robert Gates, the defence secretary, praised Mattis as "one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers" as he announced his recommendation for the post on Thursday."
So, he was told to "choose his words more carefully" rather than to change his "thinking" which I am sure he will not do. Looking at that with Common Sense what does an apology or a 'misspeak' statement really say? 'Oops, I let the cat out of the bag, I should have been more careful. And here is the clean version (which of course is a lie).' In most cases there is no follow-up on the original statement and an analysis of what that statement says about the person who said it. Do you really think that the General will change his attifude, which he developed over his illustrious career?
Look for more examples as you troll through the media. What I find is truly disgusting - especially if it comes from those we have elected or from those they appointed to high offices. People we are supposed to trust and believe in. How? Why?
Take the following, which was published on Friday, July 9, 2010 by Al Jazeera English (emphasis mine):
'Brawler' General to Lead Centcom
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
On Thursday, Gates dismissed concerns about the comments, saying appropriate action had been taken at the time - Mattis was reprimanded and told to choose his words more carefully - and the four-star general had learnt his lesson.
Robert Gates, the defence secretary, praised Mattis as "one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers" as he announced his recommendation for the post on Thursday."
So, he was told to "choose his words more carefully" rather than to change his "thinking" which I am sure he will not do. Looking at that with Common Sense what does an apology or a 'misspeak' statement really say? 'Oops, I let the cat out of the bag, I should have been more careful. And here is the clean version (which of course is a lie).' In most cases there is no follow-up on the original statement and an analysis of what that statement says about the person who said it. Do you really think that the General will change his attifude, which he developed over his illustrious career?
Look for more examples as you troll through the media. What I find is truly disgusting - especially if it comes from those we have elected or from those they appointed to high offices. People we are supposed to trust and believe in. How? Why?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Just came back from watching "Countdown to Zero", a documentary about the threat of nuclear annihilation we are facing today with even more nations wanting to join the nuclear bomb club and how we must work toward a nuclear free world.
The film is a very loud wake-up call for all of us who still have an intact common sense: Why would anybody on this planet want to produce, stockpile and have at the ready a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, when all of us should know what happens when one of these horror bombs goes off. Go see for yourself! Most scary aspect of the movie to me was how much enriched Uranium is still floating about and how easy it is to smuggle it around the world.
What also bothers me about the film are some of the sanctimonious quotes by known villains such as Tony Blair, Zbiginiew Brzinsky, Robert McNamara who now speak as if they never really wanted to have anything to do with nuclear weapons. When they were in charge they were the perpetrators who kept uncounted missiles on trigger alert - where they still remain today! All that spells is mutual destruction and no winners. The story in the film goes that these catastrophic weapons must not fall into the hands of the terrorists - I ask, what are they doing in the hands of anybody? If the weapons did not exist they could not fall into anybody's hands. Again that scenario is portrayed as if North Korea, Pakistan or India wants to defend themselves through the deterrent of nuclear weapons that is evil; when 'we' do it, it is justified. The threat is a real threat, no matter who is the threatener! And to pretend that the only danger comes from the terrorists and the rogue states is pure nonsense. All the 'trigger' nations have their weapons at the ready, and that's where the mistake will be made ...
We still want to support the START-Treaty with all our powers. It is a good 'start' and could lead to the eventual elimination of atomic weaponry. But don't hold your breath, yet.
The film is a very loud wake-up call for all of us who still have an intact common sense: Why would anybody on this planet want to produce, stockpile and have at the ready a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, when all of us should know what happens when one of these horror bombs goes off. Go see for yourself! Most scary aspect of the movie to me was how much enriched Uranium is still floating about and how easy it is to smuggle it around the world.
What also bothers me about the film are some of the sanctimonious quotes by known villains such as Tony Blair, Zbiginiew Brzinsky, Robert McNamara who now speak as if they never really wanted to have anything to do with nuclear weapons. When they were in charge they were the perpetrators who kept uncounted missiles on trigger alert - where they still remain today! All that spells is mutual destruction and no winners. The story in the film goes that these catastrophic weapons must not fall into the hands of the terrorists - I ask, what are they doing in the hands of anybody? If the weapons did not exist they could not fall into anybody's hands. Again that scenario is portrayed as if North Korea, Pakistan or India wants to defend themselves through the deterrent of nuclear weapons that is evil; when 'we' do it, it is justified. The threat is a real threat, no matter who is the threatener! And to pretend that the only danger comes from the terrorists and the rogue states is pure nonsense. All the 'trigger' nations have their weapons at the ready, and that's where the mistake will be made ...
We still want to support the START-Treaty with all our powers. It is a good 'start' and could lead to the eventual elimination of atomic weaponry. But don't hold your breath, yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
