Links With Your Coffee 02-22-07
- Iranian official offers glimpse from within: A desire for U.S. ally
- The Mutt’s Nuts
- It's all right to attack a politician's religion
- Look behind you, Sen. Buttars
- Tell Democrats to Freeze Out Fox News
- Science vs. Faith
That despite disagreement over Iran's nuclear program, despite accusations that Iran is supporting anti-American killers in Iraq, despite even the 1979 hostage crisis, Iran and America are "natural allies" and the time has come to restore relations.(tip to MM)
"We are natural allies. Why?" he said. "Because now the major threat for both Iran and the U.S.A. is al Qaeda."
He said al Qaeda had attacked the "symbol of our faith" when it struck the Golden Dome mosque -- the Al-Askariya Mosque -- in the Iraqi city of Samarra last February, setting off much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the war-torn nation over the last year. Similarly, he said, al Qaeda struck the "symbols of American power" on 9/11.
"Why is the U.S. forcing us to enter a struggle with them that is only in al Qaeda's interest?" he said.
The current censorship debate is, as usual, fueled mainly by people who haven’t read the book - The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron - and have no intention of reading it.
Dana Nilsson, for example, a teacher and librarian from Durango, Colorado, does not seem to have noticed that the objectionable word in the book - scrotum - applies to the anatomy of a dog. “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship,” she writes. "But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature . . . At least not for children."
Is it bigoted to oppose a politician because of their religious beliefs? This question will keep slapping us across the face in 2007. We have a Mormon running for the White House - with a credible chance of clutching the Republican nomination. We have an Opus Dei cultist in the British cabinet trying to block moves towards full equality for gay people. And we have all spent so long wading through multicultural mush about how we should respect religion that we have lost the capacity to respond.
Oh my, it's Utah's pride and joy
The Nevada Democratic Party is working with Fox News Channel to host a debate with all the Democratic Party presidential candidates in August. This is, to put it mildly, insane. Fox News is a partisan Republican propaganda outlet, not a news station, and it is irresponsible for any candidate or party official to lend it the immense credibility of a presidential forum.
Comments
Re. "Democrats to freeze out Fox News," hey thanks, guys -- but it's too late. It always boggled my mind that politicians, celebrities etc. would go on this network (unless they were right-wing assholes) -- is attention THAT addictive? I mean, I'm a regular person; I'm a nobody -- and although I might get all excited and wobbly in the knees if a Fox News microphone was stuck in front of my face, I like to think that I would have enough integrity to tell 'em to go fuck themselves. If this world was even half decent, Fox News would be dead, simply because decent people would have refused to have anything to do with them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- there's not that much difference between democrats and republicans...
Re. "It's all right to attack a politician's religion" -- hey, how come the Mormon is described merely as a Mormon, whereas the Opus Dei chap is a "cultist"? There's some cultural bias there, dude. Opus Dei is nuts of course -- as is the Catholic church, the Mormons, every other branch of Christianity, and every other branch of religion. But it isn't any nuttier than Mormonism.
on the words of the anonymous "iranian official"- if i just come out and call this guy a weasle, someone will accuse me of supporting war between iran and the u.s. so i guess i won't. but if he wants me to believe the ayatollahs-behind-the-curtain are hiding back there, wringing their hands and lamenting "oh, no, ahmadinajad is talking shit again"- sorry, forget it. they helped hizbullah because they are the "enemy of their enemy"? how is israel irans enemy? only because theyre friends of the REAL enemy- america, the great satan.
you can be against war and still not be a fool.
on "politicians religion"-great article, i would love to take it on point for point. for instance:"Find me a Muslim who believes that the followers of Wicca really do have a spiritual connection to the trees and plants." see, i could easily rip that statement a new one. but i've already posted too much today, and as i've just recently looked up the meaning of this word "troll", i wouldn't want anyone to think i was one of THOSE.(what the hell is that, anyway? i still don't understand. someone who tries to fuck with other peoples heads to combat the overwhelming emptiness in their own soul? doesnt' that describe everyone here?)
norm, the problem is your blog is too RICH. there's so much fascinating stuff here, issues that i care about and have dedicated a great deal of thought to. you're placing a stumbling block before the blind, and unbeatable temptation to the curious. well, thanks for it, anyway.
Sorry, this might be a bit of a sidebar...
Jonathan Becker, I'm a nerd. I recently accused someone on this board of being a troll (or a victim of a troll), so I'm figuring -- maybe I can explain this TROLL thing...
A troll is someone who makes outrageous posts, just to get a reaction out of people. The two aspects you mentioned: "to fuck with other peoples heads to combat the overwhelming emptiness in their own soul" -- the first one is accurate, but the latter one is a little off -- yeah trollers want to fuck with peoples' heads, but to ascribe this to an "overwhelming emptiness in their own soul" is well -- far too accusatory to be constructive. A troll can simply be a bored teenager.
jonathan becker, about the iranian article, whats your point? just that we should be skeptical about iran? we should be skeptical about everyone, even our allies, even israel. you comment against the article, but you dont say specifically what you disagree with, your comment seems more like a visceral disgust towards iran than anything substantive. the point is that we have many common goals, stability being a prime one, and therefore theres no reason for us to go to war. there is ample opportunity to de-escalate this situation and engaging with iran hurts noone.
and i would also question your logic about enemies. israel is iran's enemy because america is iran's enemy. why is america iran's enemy? just because we are "the great satan"? you are essentially saying iran has a reason to hate israel but no reason to hate america. if there is no reason, then there is no solution but war as we are natural enemies. it almost sounds like youve accepted the axis-of-evil type language. i have no clue why either side would want war.
Although I can't speak for him, I share his sentiment so I can say for myself: the point is that it seems more than a bit specious to take the words of one person as some definitive proof that Iran is not a threat, not an enemy, not an active concern.
Iran has even admitted to operating in Iraq. The whole summary of that article is overtly dishonest.
Beautifully put. Excellent article on Religion and politics (JohannHari).
Thanks Norm.
sdgaa, i don't feel disgust toward iran, visceral or otherwise. as i've pointed out elsewhere here, i think the gap between people and leadership there is among the sharpest i've ever seen. my comments here were about the one govt. official quoted in the article who i feel is being less than an honest representative of the feelings of his govt., let alone his people.
as far as common goals, i can only think of two: the smooth operation of the oil buisiness, and the destruction/subjugation of iraq. his talk about al qaeda being an enemy, let alone a common one, is just stupidity-or to be more exact, an assumption of stupidity (justified perhaps) on the part of the american govt.
the "logic" of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and its reverse, with its implications, is not mine but that of the arab and muslim world, from which this unquestioned bit of folk wisdom originally sprang.
as far as i can see, iran has no reason to consider israel an enemy, other than its status as an ally of the u.s. there is no love lost between the iranians and the palestinians, as indeed there is no affection for the palestinians anywhere in the larger muslim world, other than as an effective stick with which to chastise israel, which has "stolen" and occupied "muslim" lands.
dzwonka, thanks for the troll explanation. i think it was your accusation, combined with norms "outing" of avg. joe, that inspired me to look it up. and you're right, the "definition" i gave is my own personal "amateur psychologist" take on the phenomenon and probably isn't constructive.
while i've got you "on the line", allow me to compliment you on your writing. i'm a sucker for that combination of argumentative skill and humor. who knows, maybe YOUR'E a troll- but who cares, when you can write like that? :) maybe you could help me with my debilitative addiction to quotation marks...
Anonymous, Pentagon disputes the claim that Iran is operating within Iraq as a foreign policy.
Pace Demurs on Accusation of Iran General Says He Knows Nothing Tying Leaders to Arms in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 13, 2007; A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201537_pf.html
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq...