The thing is that Obama did say that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. What did he mean by that? To whom was he speaking when he said that? I certainly hope it wasn't to Americans, because it does fly in the face of our freedoms. I think he knew that, and said it anyway.
Grammatical point:
When the leader of the free world opines on the future, it's important to note which modal verb he used - should, could, must, will. etc. POTUS used "must" and not "should." If he had used "will" then I suppose there would be grounds for treason right there. As it is, he said, in so many words, that the future must not belong to the cartoonists. This is why I don't consider Obama to be my de facto leader: he wants to lead us to a place that I reject.
27 comments:
As I wrote in 2008 before he was elected:
"my biggest problem with Obama is that he won’t tell us what B [the goal] is. He beseeches us to change, almost for its own sake." link
And anyone who had the courage to defy radical Islam early on, at great risk, ought to be supported [and not forgotten], even if there are other political disagreements.
Man, it's as if we're in "everything old is new again" territory. Innit? Or isn't it.
Let's talk about submission--and also, moral conviction
Good God. What the hell. Must we live through immense amounts of shit in order to get glimpses of 2001-2003, and to grasp flashes of 2004-2007? How odd it seems to me, that a replay is needed, given how recent "the history." I guess that it's true, what someone told me a few years back:
"You don't understand what the word 'history' means, these days."
If I could revisit that then-conversation, now, in that "then," I would reply:
"You're right. I don't."
---
[Plenty of "since," though, since "then."]
I thank you for that link, r,l. You were too early for me to appreciate then, so I acknowledge you now.
I always did want to ask you where you got that image on the the sidebar which I've long admired -- the one of the guy looking through the telescope.
As to the substance of your post, Chickelit:
I think that it should not have mattered what the hell Obama had to say about anything, insofar as he was an entirely unqualified candidate for president. He hadn't even proved his chops on the local or state level before he was elected a U.S. Senator, and he didn't spend much time doing that before embarking on his path to the White House. We all know that, right? It's why I, for example, opposed him from the git-go, all the other reasons thereafter that supported my initial decision notwithstanding.
What's the point of dissecting the B.S. he put forth back then, now? Come hell or high water, he'll be out a couple of Januaries from now.
I say, focus less on dissection-evaluation of Obama-then and focus more on how you're going to evaluate candidates going forward.
What's the point of dissecting the B.S. he put forth back then, now? Come hell or high water, he'll be out a couple of Januaries from now.
Because there is a still a fair number (a slim majority?) of people who still believe his hype and BS and especially believe in his legacy.
As to the substance of your post, Chickelit:
Oh and BTW: there never really is much is there?
Two or three pseudo-paragraphs at most.
The terrorists have achieved their goal. There will be no more cartoons mocking Mohammed. There will be plenty of people striking heroic poses and making impassioned speeches about the need for free expression, but there will be no more cartoons mocking Mohammed. And Ms. Alli will not be invited to speak at Brandeis next year. Nous sommes Ben Affleck.
...there never really is much...
Oh, no. To the contrary, there is.
I don't spend much time on blogs anymore. I respond "on-blog" even less often than that.
You can be sure that there was something about the substance of what you wrote that inspired me to respond.
Seriously, I kid you not.
(And thanks for giving me the chance to say something in which I still believe.)
There will be no more cartoons mocking Mohammed.
Oh, I dunno. That's what was said a decade-ish ago, too. Yet, by definition (see current events, for pete's sake!), that turned out NOT to be so. There were more.
There were and are artists and journalists out there who just insist on doing stuff. Perhaps, William, you are projecting on them your own convictions (however inaccurate) and fears (however irrelevant).
While I am not trying to offend you, personally, William, or anyone else, personally, I am somewhat fearless about being offensive in some ways:
Obviously, if history is a guide, this does not spell the end of offensive cartoons about religion, religions (any religion), religious prophets (any prophet), religious icons (any icon), and/or so forth.
There always have been and always will be those who...I guess the following is the preferred term..."cartoon" in one way or another.
Given that:
...then, what next?
Also, since I happen to be here at the moment, I'd like to mention this guy:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30744693
We're talking about someone who tried to sell his international experience as living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10.
Some of us knew then it was a scam. The rest are getting a hard education.
OT : LOL
To some people, April, they all look alike.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam
Slander is the interesting word in that declaration, isn't it?
Who decides what 'slander' is? It is the listener, the viewer, the aggrieved that does. Islamists, and only islamists decide what slander means. And in their view, 'slander' means anything they want it to mean.
It means that if one does not accept their religion, one commits slander. Or if one attends a church that isn't islamic, one slanders the prophet, or if one does not convert, one commits slander.
See what Obama did there? He said that the future belongs to the Muslims. Clever little trick he played.
And it's working. Look at how cowed the US media has become. The NYT won't use words that offend muslims, nor will CNN, nor the other alphabet networks. And even better, they've begun to turn the story to DEFEND the religion of peace against attacks from unknown and unstated right wing politicians.
That's the reaction now. How will the terrorist killings in France strengthen the political right.
Because to leftists, a brutal, murderous, political movement locked in an 8th century ideology is a better thing than right wing, conservative, politics.
Maybe Obama was correct.
CNN - Islamic terrorists who slaughter people in cold blood are "activists".
.....@rcommal: with respect, it seems to me that Islam as a religion is treated by western intellectuals with far more respect and discretion than is extended to any other religion and than is warranted by their behavior......Charlie Hebdo attacked Islam from the western intellectual stance of all religions are bunk. Western ntellectuals have thus taken offense at the massacre of the cartoonists. (It should be noted, however, that their support except in a few instances does not include reprinting the cartoons.). ....The videographer who Hillary held accountable for BenGhazi attacked Islam from a Christian point of view. His view was that Christianity is the true faith and Islam is a sham. If you can point out one leftist intellectual who protested against that man's jailing, I would be in your debt. It should also be noted that Coptics in Egypt and Christians in PLO territories are undergoing what is called ethnic cleansing when done to Balkan Muslims. The videographer is perhaps entitled to feel a little testy about the subject of militant Islam.
Maths.
60,000X166%=99.6
We hyperbolites like to round up wherever possible. Anything over 5 gets rounded up. It is a borderline case, admittedly, but you get into a thing like 99.666666666 and that is muy ridiculoso.
The rounded understatement is greater than the rounded overstatement and so unacceptable in light of the hyperbolic point being thrust.
So, 167% and 100,200 it is. For hyperbole porpoises.
It is very sheepish thing to do, to understate when asserting hyperbole. I showed you this already.
But you know what?
I am creating a Spring and Summertime jungle over here.
I have to clematises arriving today along with soil conditioner for them the get started off well.
A cartoonish purple and white one, Kilian Donahue Clematis
And a cartoonish white one, Clematis Henryi
These are in plant forms, not seeds.
I also have eight Hostas on their way in grown plant form. Two each of four different varieties. I need foliage plants that can take a lot of shade.
This is to conceal the iguana and the mountain lions to scare the piss out of someone sitting out there on the carved horse bench. I'm going for the element of surprise.
Shock, really.
That's what I'm going for.
This is in addition to the 288 seed starter cups. With 144 more seed starter cups on standby, waiting for more seeds to arrive.
So far, everything has germinated.
Did you know that you can buy dry chile pods at the grocery store? Around here quite a lot of variety. I had Arbole (tree) chile pods that I used to add heat to tamale sauce.
To make the sauce you must shake out the seeds from dry chile pods. This provided thousands of unwanted seeds.
Since the pods were not roasted the seeds were still viable. I tested this theory by planting a dozen. They all germinated faster than the seeds that I bought outright for jalapeño and for cayenne.
That's three types of small chiles. They all germinated. The arbol are tallest of all. Amazing innit? Come on, be amazed as I am amazed.
This is fun and games that the whole family can enjoy. The wonder of observing plants come up through the dirt.
They're all on life support system of shop lights clamped to dining room chairs. What the heck. There is nobody around her to yell at me.
I made a huge mess from breaking apart styrofoam used to package the mountain lion statue. I showed the statue to six people and they all asked me if it was a real cat that was taxidermied. That's how real it looks. The styrofoam bits went all over the whole place, adhering by static electricity to my arms, my pants, the chairs, the carpet everything. The bits clogged the tube of my portable Oreck vacuum and overheated the motor that abruptly stopped.
It took so long to pick out the tube that the motor cooled back down and started right up again. Phew. I'm still seeing little white dots here and there. It will be months before I get them all up.
The styrofoam is kept to put in the bottom of large containers so I won't have to use so much dirt.
You would be shit out of luck in Brooklyn Chip.
Comrade De Blasio just banned Styrofoam containers in the city.
You would have to use something else. Maybe the dreams of living in a free society.
Comrade De Blasio just banned Styrofoam containers in the city.
♪ Sty-rene good night
Styrene good night...
Goodnight syrene, goodnight styrene
I'll kiss you in my dreams...♪
Look forward to MSM stories about Frenchies reaching out to Muslims and assuring them that they "they feel their pain" and that everyone is in this together and standing against "Hate" and for diversity.
Michael:
FWIW, what I most watch out for is those who demand *both* to define what is slander to themselves AND also what is slander to others;--in others words, those who want to game both parts of that particular strategy/set of tactics. It's about complete control, that approach, forcing/bullying others into ceding control, and I reject that approach, full stop. (No matter the goal.)
You don't do that, Michael. This is why, in part, I do have such respect for you.
I do, however, think that we part company on the notion I addressed above. I'm pretty fundamentalist about that (no one ought get to decide *both* for themselves what is offensive and also what ought be offensive to others), and you (at least, I think: Am I wrong? Could be. Am I) are not.
Wish we'd had a chance to talk about that.
William: I think now, as I did then, that the videographer to whom you refer was used as cover, by people who not only refuse to make distinctions, but also insist on deciding for everybody what ought be believed, and by everybody I mean both or themselves and also for others.
(See my reference in previous comments to a notion I find most offensive.)
rcommal:
If we measured, the difference between what we each said would be scant millimeters.
Now there's a science project for someone's reasoning class.
Post a Comment