timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[John Bender]

Looking for some Jazz Piano piece - this is a good place to ask I think...

YankeeFan - I know you play? tim - you don't but surely know some jazz

Yankee - I have the 6th Edition Real (Fake) Book - is that pretty much the standard? (Why is so much jazz in Eb Major?)

I'm branching out from Blues and Pop music and finally starting to play some jazz and need to get a few pieces together to bring to lessons now that I have II, V, I's taken care of.

 

[timschochet]

In the other thread, the usual suspects are attacking all religion again. I don't mind calling out names, and Cliff Clavin is the biggest culprit.

As a cultural Jew and an atheist, I am going to repeat here what I have stated several times before: the problem is not religion. The problem is radical Islam. And yes, part of the problem is Islam itself, because such a large percentage of it (perhaps 20%) is radical. That doesn't mean that I blame the Muslims who are not radical. But that religion itself is problematic.

Any objective, thinking person should wish that Islam around the world was more like Christianity in the United States. American Christianity is a positive force for good, both here and around the world. Do I agree with religious Christians on every issue, especially cultural issues? Of course not? Am I glad to live in a country filled with religious Christians rather than religious Muslims? You bet your ### I am.

 

[timschochet]

Looking for some Jazz Piano piece - this is a good place to ask I think...

YankeeFan - I know you play? tim - you don't but surely know some jazz

Yankee - I have the 6th Edition Real (Fake) Book - is that pretty much the standard? (Why is so much jazz in Eb Major?)

I'm branching out from Blues and Pop music and finally starting to play some jazz and need to get a few pieces together to bring to lessons now that I have II, V, I's taken care of.

I love Dr. John. Does that count?

Also- Art Tatum may have been the greatest piano player ever.

 

[Gawain]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

This strategy didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq and it's not working now.

If we want to win hearts and minds, we need to invest a ton of money into infrastructure and development on the ground (not money to the ruling political organizations). People who have something more to lose don't protest as much. Or, we need to delineate the for/against groups as much as possible and stop giving any support to those against us and work hard to decay their position.

Your hypothetical fella is the enemy of the USA, he just doesn't make the ten most wanted list.

In all of the specific instances you cite, we chose to support corrupt government because they were supposedly "on our side." That's not what I'm talking about here, but it's interesting that you brought it up, because it demonstrates what I was talking about with regard to linear goals. This has nothing to do with which governments we support or don't support. The struggle between "moderate" Islam and "radical" Islam is between the people, not the governments of those countries, because it is the people and not the governments from which our greatest threat of terrorism comes from (which is why it's so difficult to defeat.)

I disagree with this quite strongly. The governments foster the radicals. For an example that has nothing to do with the USA, look at the Afghan and Pakistan governments approach to the radicals who kill each other over their border dispute. The extremists on both sides are given safe harbor, safe passage and possibly financial support. There is ample proof that most governments in the Arabic countries range between apathetic and active support of groups and people that wish the USA harm.

That being said, there was a hearts and minds campaign directed at the populace of each of the three conflicts I cited that failed. We can prevail by changing conditions on the ground or we can win by being as harsh as our enemies, but we tie our hands behind our back by giving financial support to governments that don't support us and we tie our hands by taking great pains to not offend an enemy that doesn't give a whit for our values.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I admire your determination to stay in your own thread for awhile, but I miss you in threads like the Charlie Hebdo thread. You being sent to your own Elba island is like telling Hugh Hefner that he can suddenly bed only one chick. It has to be tough for a prolific artist like you two to suddenly be relegated to one.

I love the Elba Island analogy. Also the Hef reference.

Honestly the more I do this, the more I'm glad I'm not in that thread. Take a look at the level of discussion this morning in the two threads and tell me there is no qualitative difference. If I were in that thread, I would be dragged down into the muck, as I always was. Pretty soon I would be attacked for causing the muck. No thanks.

Olaf, you have always come across as an intelligent, well educated guy to me (though I strongly disagree with you on several issues). I was rather dismayed to read your seeming support for what the German ultra nationalists are doing. They're not speaking out against radical Islam; they're speaking out against ALL Islam, and trying to get Germany not only to shut off immigration but to deport Islamic German citizens and residents living there. How can you support that?

 

[timschochet]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

This strategy didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq and it's not working now.

If we want to win hearts and minds, we need to invest a ton of money into infrastructure and development on the ground (not money to the ruling political organizations). People who have something more to lose don't protest as much. Or, we need to delineate the for/against groups as much as possible and stop giving any support to those against us and work hard to decay their position.

Your hypothetical fella is the enemy of the USA, he just doesn't make the ten most wanted list.

In all of the specific instances you cite, we chose to support corrupt government because they were supposedly "on our side." That's not what I'm talking about here, but it's interesting that you brought it up, because it demonstrates what I was talking about with regard to linear goals. This has nothing to do with which governments we support or don't support. The struggle between "moderate" Islam and "radical" Islam is between the people, not the governments of those countries, because it is the people and not the governments from which our greatest threat of terrorism comes from (which is why it's so difficult to defeat.)

I disagree with this quite strongly. The governments foster the radicals. For an example that has nothing to do with the USA, look at the Afghan and Pakistan governments approach to the radicals who kill each other over their border dispute. The extremists on both sides are given safe harbor, safe passage and possibly financial support. There is ample proof that most governments in the Arabic countries range between apathetic and active support of groups and people that wish the USA harm.

That being said, there was a hearts and minds campaign directed at the populace of each of the three conflicts I cited that failed. We can prevail by changing conditions on the ground or we can win by being as harsh as our enemies, but we tie our hands behind our back by giving financial support to governments that don't support us and we tie our hands by taking great pains to not offend an enemy that doesn't give a whit for our values.

What would happen if we cut off support of the Pakistani government, to cite just one of your examples? Do you suppose the result would be a more democratic, western loving government would emerge that would clamp down on radical extremism and terrorists?

I think you know very well that the opposite would happen: a radical government would emerge that hated the United States. It would either be the Taliban or it would strongly support the Taliban. Oh yeah, and it would have nuclear weapons too, just as an added bonus.

We have no choice but to throw money at Pakistan. They allow radicals and terrorists in their midst because if they clamp down they fear being overthrown. So we have to put up with that too. That's the reality. It could be far far worse.

 

[timschochet]

My jazz friends are all very snobbish. It's like talking to a Rush fan, but about a dozen times worse. They look down on blues and pop and just about every other type of popular music. And the bebop guys look down on smooth jazz.

 

[Gawain]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

This strategy didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq and it's not working now.

If we want to win hearts and minds, we need to invest a ton of money into infrastructure and development on the ground (not money to the ruling political organizations). People who have something more to lose don't protest as much. Or, we need to delineate the for/against groups as much as possible and stop giving any support to those against us and work hard to decay their position.

Your hypothetical fella is the enemy of the USA, he just doesn't make the ten most wanted list.

In all of the specific instances you cite, we chose to support corrupt government because they were supposedly "on our side." That's not what I'm talking about here, but it's interesting that you brought it up, because it demonstrates what I was talking about with regard to linear goals. This has nothing to do with which governments we support or don't support. The struggle between "moderate" Islam and "radical" Islam is between the people, not the governments of those countries, because it is the people and not the governments from which our greatest threat of terrorism comes from (which is why it's so difficult to defeat.)

I disagree with this quite strongly. The governments foster the radicals. For an example that has nothing to do with the USA, look at the Afghan and Pakistan governments approach to the radicals who kill each other over their border dispute. The extremists on both sides are given safe harbor, safe passage and possibly financial support. There is ample proof that most governments in the Arabic countries range between apathetic and active support of groups and people that wish the USA harm.

That being said, there was a hearts and minds campaign directed at the populace of each of the three conflicts I cited that failed. We can prevail by changing conditions on the ground or we can win by being as harsh as our enemies, but we tie our hands behind our back by giving financial support to governments that don't support us and we tie our hands by taking great pains to not offend an enemy that doesn't give a whit for our values.

What would happen if we cut off support of the Pakistani government, to cite just one of your examples? Do you suppose the result would be a more democratic, western loving government would emerge that would clamp down on radical extremism and terrorists?

I think you know very well that the opposite would happen: a radical government would emerge that hated the United States. It would either be the Taliban or it would strongly support the Taliban. Oh yeah, and it would have nuclear weapons too, just as an added bonus.

We have no choice but to throw money at Pakistan. They allow radicals and terrorists in their midst because if they clamp down they fear being overthrown. So we have to put up with that too. That's the reality. It could be far far worse.

We have a choice, you just don't like what the alternative is.

First off, we don't know what effect our meddling has. Our meddling in Iran led directly to the current regime. Our meddling in Afghanistan led to the current problems (should have left it to the Soviets). To claim that stopping support of Pakistan today leads to a nuke in Calcutta tomorrow is magic 8-balling of the highest degree.

If we leave Pakistan and a totalitarian regime is set up...so what? NK has nukes and all we do is pull The Interview. We ostracize them from our community of nations, we shut down immigration/visitation/travel and we make sure that people who wish us ill will don't enter the country. Or, things get better. We don't know anything other than what we are currently doing is not working.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

Your question really bothers me for a number of reasons:

First, Kristallnacht started after a German Jew, Herschel Grynspan, assassinated a German official in Paris. In responding to the criticism that other Jews shouldn't be blamed for this, Josef Goebbels stated, "There is no such thing as an innocent Jew." So that sort of rhetoric creates a bad vibe for me.

Second, I get very frustrated when I hear this continual complaint that whenever there is an act of terrorism by radical Muslims, the rest of the Muslim world doesn't speak out about it. My dad made the exact same comment this morning. But the reason people think this, (including my dad) is because they never bother to look. One only has to google Muslim reaction to EVERY act of terrorism and it's always the same: dozens if not more Muslim religious and political leaders stating how terrible these acts are, how they don't represent Islam, etc. Article after article. Usually there are protest marches as well. They get reported, but nobody ever seems to pay attention. You ask, doesn't the greater Muslim community have the responsibility to stand up? They usually do, and they usually get ignored.

But let's suppose for one moment that your premise is correct and that they don't , somehow, speak out enough- does that somehow justify discrimination against them? I know you didn't write that, but it seems to be the implication of your remarks.

I think you are confusing my questions as a demand that someone issues a statement. I know someone and more than one someone always issues a statement. My questions was based on the fact that it appears that that is all they do. Similar to your quintessential moderate muslim. Ask him on the street after a school of kids is burned to the ground and he will say the firestarters don't speak for him and he is a peaceful person...... but that evil west and its pushing of its views on us I don't like, yada yada. There is always a statement.

Where is the action? Does there need to be action? And I'm sorry, but what protest marches? Seriously? If the Westboro Church pickets something here you have hundreds to thousands of people going to that location immediately to stand against them. There is even a specific group of bikers who consider it their calling to do. Are there muslims in France right now in front of that building for support and denouncing the attackers with the same vitriol that the anti-american protesters use? Are there political leaders willing to do more than say something in one interview but actually do something about it? Maybe there are. The fact that this question does get brought up alot leads me to believe that its not enough.

But again, the question is what is enough? Is it the responsibility of muslims that don't want to blow up a building to stand up against those that do? Is it my responsibility to stand up against the WBC when they do their thing? It might be. I don't. I don't support them though, nor do I empathize with them or their mission, or their rhetoric and as you said, you simply can't say that about the "moderate" muslim in a lot of places. So where is the breaking point there? It's like any other conflict - if it grows and grows eventually you have to pick a side. You have to make a choice. I think a good argument can be made that we are that point and it is time to choose sides. And I'm not sure we would like the outcome of that choice.

As for your discirmination question, yeah it leads there even though I didn't go there. Initially ,what happens in Europe is not going to be exactly the same thing that happens here. Different laws, cultures, military aims and policies, etc. But what happens here? I really don't know. I'd like to think that we never pass a law that singles out a specific group of people for some form of punishment for being of a certain faith or skin color or for dressing a certain way. I'd like to think that we would never round up people of a certain community and place them in a camp somewhere to protect ourselves from them, whether each individual in that group is an innocent or not. I'd like to think we are better than that. And for the most part we are. But not totally. And we know that too. We have done all those things. And people from both political sides, of all faiths, of all skin colors, have supported that. We've done it before so we are certainly capable of doing it again.

We and I hope we don't.

 

[John Bender]

My jazz friends are all very snobbish. It's like talking to a Rush fan, but about a dozen times worse. They look down on blues and pop and just about every other type of popular music. And the bebop guys look down on smooth jazz.

Funny. So are the folks I know.

I can play circles around people in Blues. Any length solo in any key for as long as the lead guitarist lets me.

I get the McKayla Maroney "not impressed" face when I show the Jazz teacher I'm working with. As if what I'm doing is amateur hour compared to jazz (and it probably is)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But this is really an awfully depressing reality if completely true because then there is no peaceful end in this. There is just going to be growing and growing bloodbaths until something truly tragic to the fabric of humanity starts to happen. And we won't be immune to it at all. Our kids... my kids.... are in for an awful ****ing world if we can't figure this out in the next decade.

Maybe. I prefer to be an optimist. There are two potentially positive possibilities:

1. As technology continues to advance, so does human prosperity. As living conditions get easier for people, then religious extremism (and extremism in general) tends to fade. To put it simply, well fed people don't act crazy. What the world needs is for Islam to be for the Muslim people as Christianity is for most of the Christian world: an essentially secular positive influence on their lives. That will be good for us and good for them. Economic prosperity is the key.

2. For the United States and the west in particular- as soon as we get off oil, Islam will become far less important and far less influential.

Oil money and lack thereof will result in this mess getting worse before it gets better. The rich and powerful in the arab world that control oil have beaten into their people that their struggles are against the decadent west. If we pull out their money and they get poorer and poorer (or at least a lot less rich) they are going to have nowhere to go except take it out on their people more and more. The cycle will repeat and the problem will be worse and worse until it gets better.

Now where is the Constitution stuff?

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, as an aside, I'm glad you wrote "people from both political sides". It's a forgotten fact that the most terrible civil rights violation of the 20th century, the internment of Japanese Americans on the west coast during World War II, was almost entirely enacted by liberal Democrats.

 

[John Bender]

Last hijack question for tim...

Since the Third Reich book was 80 hours, I went past my monthly date for getting a new book.

I need a book, say 12 hours or less that's on audible since I now only have a week until my next book date thanks to Third Reichs length.

got anything? will take whatever.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Looking for some Jazz Piano piece - this is a good place to ask I think...

YankeeFan - I know you play? tim - you don't but surely know some jazz

Yankee - I have the 6th Edition Real (Fake) Book - is that pretty much the standard? (Why is so much jazz in Eb Major?)

I'm branching out from Blues and Pop music and finally starting to play some jazz and need to get a few pieces together to bring to lessons now that I have II, V, I's taken care of.

Yeah, those will certainly get you by. Jazz is a unique art form on the piano. Once you know chord structures in general and have the idea of a melody, then it just becomes "jazz is jazz." For as much as there are written songs, for example, once you get that song down, if you don't play it in its own structure you are still playing jazz.

Jazz only works with minor and flat chords. It's the blues nature of the heart of most music. For the jazz feel you need to use flats. If you were only in major chords there is no soul to the music. Check our Chick Correa. Awesome pianist.

 

[timschochet]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion. It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But this is really an awfully depressing reality if completely true because then there is no peaceful end in this. There is just going to be growing and growing bloodbaths until something truly tragic to the fabric of humanity starts to happen. And we won't be immune to it at all. Our kids... my kids.... are in for an awful ****ing world if we can't figure this out in the next decade.

Maybe. I prefer to be an optimist. There are two potentially positive possibilities:

1. As technology continues to advance, so does human prosperity. As living conditions get easier for people, then religious extremism (and extremism in general) tends to fade. To put it simply, well fed people don't act crazy. What the world needs is for Islam to be for the Muslim people as Christianity is for most of the Christian world: an essentially secular positive influence on their lives. That will be good for us and good for them. Economic prosperity is the key.

2. For the United States and the west in particular- as soon as we get off oil, Islam will become far less important and far less influential.

Oil money and lack thereof will result in this mess getting worse before it gets better. The rich and powerful in the arab world that control oil have beaten into their people that their struggles are against the decadent west. If we pull out their money and they get poorer and poorer (or at least a lot less rich) they are going to have nowhere to go except take it out on their people more and more. The cycle will repeat and the problem will be worse and worse until it gets better.

Now where is the Constitution stuff?

It's coming.

 

[timschochet]

Last hijack question for tim...

Since the Third Reich book was 80 hours, I went past my monthly date for getting a new book.

I need a book, say 12 hours or less that's on audible since I now only have a week until my next book date thanks to Third Reichs length.

got anything? will take whatever.

The Water Is Wide by Pat Conroy

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, before I get to Section 9, did you want to answer my last question regarding Section 8? (As to Congress's power regarding naturalized citizens and whether or not a President can override that through executive order, as is being charged currently.)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, before I get to Section 9, did you want to answer my last question regarding Section 8? (As to Congress's power regarding naturalized citizens and whether or not a President can override that through executive order, as is being charged currently.)

What was your question (because this makes no sense)?

The executive is tasked with enforcing the laws passed by Congress. The executive has the power to issue executive orders to do that and run the government on a daily basis as any chief administator would do. So in that, yeah, President Obama is acting initially on pretty solid Constitutional grounds. But again, I don't understand your question.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And not for nothing tim, but if you jump to Section 9 of Article I without going into Section 8 a little more I think you miss out on the possibility of some conversations that you would probably enjoy. You didn't even mention, nor did anyone, the "necessary and proper" clause. It's one of the devil in the details of what gives the federal government so much power.

 

[msommer]

One of the worst aspects of this, for me, will be the innocent Muslims in France and the rest of western Europe who will be subjected to mistreatment. Already in the main thread about this subject, at least one poster (Olaf) is supporting what I regard as a hateful and bigoted anti-Muslim protest that is taking place in Germany.

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

FYI Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi, Qatar, UAE are part of the coalition against ISIS. It has been rumoured that Iran has attacked them by air as well

ETA: I think I read that Jordan had attacked ISIS positions as well when one of their planes went down recently

 

[CBusAlex]

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

By this logic, are there ever innocents in any conflict? If the Hutus aren't standing and fighting against the atrocities committed by their leaders, does that justify the Tutsis razing villages and slaughtering women and children, since those civilians aren't really "innocent" enough?

 

[timschochet]

And not for nothing tim, but if you jump to Section 9 of Article I without going into Section 8 a little more I think you miss out on the possibility of some conversations that you would probably enjoy. You didn't even mention, nor did anyone, the "necessary and proper" clause. It's one of the devil in the details of what gives the federal government so much power.

Can you expand on this in more detail? I admit I don't understand it. I might be able to offer more coherent thoughts after one of your splendid explanations (no sarcasm; they really are splendid.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

By this logic, are there ever innocents in any conflict? If the Hutus aren't standing and fighting against the atrocities committed by their leaders, does that justify the Tutsis razing villages and slaughtering women and children, since those civilians aren't really "innocent" enough?

I agree unfortunately this (OP) is the kind of thinking that terrorists apply to us.

I do think we have a mighty, power full voice in the world and that is what we should use. We should speak for what we believe in and act on that.

However none of the conversations discussing whether muslims everywhere or anywhere might support ideas that we hold wrong, or that they might even support terrorist actions, should justify discussions of xenophobic reaction, deportation, violence or war.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You see Saints, I get your frustration at what Obama did after Benghazi. I understand why you're upset that he blamed the video, and why that especially rankles after what happened this morning (yet another attack on free speech.) While I never bought into any of the conspiracies regarding Benghazi, I empathized with the anger that created those conspiracy theories. In western civilization, and in this country especially, it's intolerable that we should clamp down on free speech in order to appease radical Muslims who might resort to violence against us if we don't. And for our most visible figure (the President) to seemingly endorse such a view- it's outrageous. I get that.

But-

Let's not forget what the real purpose is for Obama doing this. It's the same purpose that Bush had when, within days after 9/11, he praised Islam as a religion.

It's the same purpose that the State Department has had for decades now, ever since the advent of modern radical Islamic terrorism: we need to separate the moderate Muslims from the radicals. We need to find a way to make the moderates more popular, and the radicals less popular. That is the ONLY way to ultimately win the war against radical Islam.

Now, a "moderate" Muslim living in Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan is a very relative thing. He does not believe in democracy, or freedom of speech, or western values. He believes that homosexuals should be killed and women should be slaves to men. He believes that Israel should be destroyed. He dislikes the west and especially the United States, and looks on sympathetically whenever we are attacked. But- he does not personally attack us. He doesn't join the radicals. He wants nothing to do with violence; he wants to live his own life, protect his children and family, etc. This is the moderate Muslim. I can't say I like the guy, but we need more of him. The one thing that we DON'T want to do is radicalize this guy. If we send in a drone and it kills his family, he's going to join the radicals and help swell their numbers. If our President or leaders behave like ALL of Islam is the enemy, then we risk sending this guy to the radicals.

Keeping that "moderate" Muslim at home, keeping him away from the action- that has been the entire purpose of our foreign policy, and it is why Obama says the stuff he does and why he hesitates to say other things. Now you can disagree with this approach, but I'm not sure I can think of a more viable alternative.

About Benghazi - I think the "conspiracy" discussion belongs somewhere else, and I think you see where I'm coming from, glad to hear that.

About Bush - actually what I recall most about this aspect of Bush's administration was his pushing for democracy and civil rights in the mideast. For once we opposed dictators, we spoke for women, we called for the vote everywhere. I don't remember much praising of islam, in fact I can't remember any. I do recall us seeking some kind of secular existence for muslim states while recognizing that they were absolutely bound and determined to fit that within islam.... which as we know is impossible. People can be islamic and democratic, they cannot be democratic when the democracy is governed by islamic principles stated as such. The USA is arguably a Constitution founded on "Christian" and "Judaic" ideals as created by men brought up in that rubric, but we clearly state in Amendment No. 1 that we are not a state of Established Religion.

About your final point. - In the mideast at least because there has been little to no history of secular states, no existence of democracy allowing for political institutions, the mosque has often been the place for political activity, for learning, for thought, for speech. While blacks in the USA also had this in their own churches their political thought and drive was always to the best, most beneficial notions of Christianity, peace, freedom, love, patience, kindness, turn the other cheek forbearance. Ultimately they hoped for assimilation and integration. I think if you look back in pre-WW1 Europe that also existed in Judaism. - If there is a distinction to be found in islam it may be that those notions do not seem to be taking hold, they do not appear to be the main drive in the mosque. There is definitely that call towards each other, other muslims, but not towards the west, not towards Christians and definitely not towards Jews. - I think this leaves us with a very serious ideological and theological problem. It is compounded by the fact that the modern muslim world does not permit any kind of exegesis of the koran that challenges the fundamentalist, literal orthodoxy. Just look at the extreme superstition associated with not allowing images of Mohammed. That notion especially is positively backward. Given that particular challenge I have no idea how this veil will be pierced. I think the best that can be done is a statement of stalwart strength that we, the west, will not be moved, cowed or bent away from our values, just as Cameron stated.

 

[timschochet]

Excellent, thoughtful responses here by Saints and Yankee as usual. Obviously what to do about radical Islam is a complicated difficult subject. The only good thing to come out of this morning's attack is that I sense the western world is becoming a little more unified that there can be no justification, no excuse for such behavior. However much we may disagree about what happens next, at least most of us begin at the same starting point.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

 

[timschochet]

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time," Obama said.

He offered US government help in tracking down the culprits, and added: "Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended.

"France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers."

Anything to criticize here, Saints?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Slightly devils advocate and solely to discuss a topic for the purpose of discussion only....

... what exactly is an innocent Muslim at this point? There are always innocents in any dispute of any kind that spills over the public. Most of our country didn't really care about the Revolution, there were people in the south that didn't like slavery and people in the north that did and they also split that way when it came to southern secession. There were Germans who didn't want to kill anyone, let alone an entire race. There are Jordanians who don't hate jews and want to exist peacefully with them. And on and on and on.

But when does the larger group start to be burdened with the responsibility to stand up to the people that represent it in such an awful way? Is the greater Muslim community working daily and publically and loudly to stand against the ISIS's and other terrorists that act in their name and the name of their God? I'm sure there is some. Frankly, I'm sure there is a lot. But it's not nearly enough. At what point - is there even a point - where innocent muslims don't exist unless they stand against their own people and fight them for the survival of their religion and their purpose in this world? If they just stand by and do nothing are they part of the problem? We argue that some of those very same Germans who really didn't hate jews but did their job anyway were.

We all empathize with innocents - because there are always more of them for the most part than any other group in a firefight that covers the globe. But doesn't the greater muslim community have a responsibility at this point to stand up and say no more? If they don't, then at what point do they become supporters through ommission instead of commision? And if they do, are they doing enough now and can they be doing more? And if they can be doing more, why aren't they?

By this logic, are there ever innocents in any conflict? If the Hutus aren't standing and fighting against the atrocities committed by their leaders, does that justify the Tutsis razing villages and slaughtering women and children, since those civilians aren't really "innocent" enough?

I don't know. Balance of power matters of course. Don't mistake my post. I don't believe the totality of what i wrote but i can argue both sides.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And not for nothing tim, but if you jump to Section 9 of Article I without going into Section 8 a little more I think you miss out on the possibility of some conversations that you would probably enjoy. You didn't even mention, nor did anyone, the "necessary and proper" clause. It's one of the devil in the details of what gives the federal government so much power.

Can you expand on this in more detail? I admit I don't understand it. I might be able to offer more coherent thoughts after one of your splendid explanations (no sarcasm; they really are splendid.)

Section 8 empowers congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the rest of the section and by default all of article 1. So the question is what is necessary and proper?

 

[timschochet]

And not for nothing tim, but if you jump to Section 9 of Article I without going into Section 8 a little more I think you miss out on the possibility of some conversations that you would probably enjoy. You didn't even mention, nor did anyone, the "necessary and proper" clause. It's one of the devil in the details of what gives the federal government so much power.

Can you expand on this in more detail? I admit I don't understand it. I might be able to offer more coherent thoughts after one of your splendid explanations (no sarcasm; they really are splendid.)

Section 8 empowers congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the rest of the section and by default all of article 1. So the question is what is necessary and proper?

OK. Do we have any indication from the writings of the Founding Fathers (the Federalist papers or otherwise) in which they stated what is NOT necessary and proper?

Next, can you offer a historical or modern example of a law that you personally believe to be unnecessary or improper based on your interpretation of this section?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And not for nothing tim, but if you jump to Section 9 of Article I without going into Section 8 a little more I think you miss out on the possibility of some conversations that you would probably enjoy. You didn't even mention, nor did anyone, the "necessary and proper" clause. It's one of the devil in the details of what gives the federal government so much power.

Can you expand on this in more detail? I admit I don't understand it. I might be able to offer more coherent thoughts after one of your splendid explanations (no sarcasm; they really are splendid.)

Section 8 empowers congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the rest of the section and by default all of article 1. So the question is what is necessary and proper?

OK. Do we have any indication from the writings of the Founding Fathers (the Federalist papers or otherwise) in which they stated what is NOT necessary and proper?Next, can you offer a historical or modern example of a law that you personally believe to be unnecessary or improper based on your interpretation of this section?

I can but I'm on my phone. But play with the idea in your head for awhile. Isn't anything necessary and proper? The post office needs roads which need laws which need safe drivers which need to be of a certain age... and so on. Look at it this way... name a law that isn't necessary and proper at least tangentially to Section 8.If you're honest is going to take you a long time.

 

[timschochet]

Well I see your point. But it seems to me that ultimately any government intrusion that the people find to be excessive is solved by elections, no? So even if a Congress were to run amok with these laws, we have the ability to solve it by throwing them out.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Or we set up a system where the fed is tempered by other sovereign governments. Let's call them states. They help control Congress through their own body.

Good thing too. Imagine if that wasn't the case?

 

[timschochet]

Or we set up a system where the fed is tempered by other sovereign governments. Let's call them states. They help control Congress through their own body.

Good thing too. Imagine if that wasn't the case?

My understanding is that with the formation of the United States, the states are no longer sovereign. Is this not the case?

Overall, my main problem with your thesis is that in most of the historical cases where there has been a conflict between the states and the federal government, I tend to side with the federal government. And this continues today. I guess that what makes you a conservative and myself- well, not a conservative in this instance at least.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You are massively wrong. The sovereignty of the states is very much the heart of the discussion we are having and something that controlled the entire conventionand with it defines the document.

 

[timschochet]

You are massively wrong. The sovereignty of the states is very much the heart of the discussion we are having and something that controlled the entire conventionand with it defines the document.

Then maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What does the word "sovereign" mean in this context? I thought it meant that each state is it's own entity and not subject to a central power. Isn't that the Confederate argument?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

Egypt just banned the movie "Exodus" because of its depiction of Moses (an islamic prophet) and other alleged "historical inaccuracies."

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

Egypt just banned the movie "Exodus" because of its depiction of Moses (an islamic prophet) and other alleged "historical inaccuracies."

OK. Is this relevant to the speech I referenced? Should we simply ignore or disregard this speech because they're banning movies?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time," Obama said.

He offered US government help in tracking down the culprits, and added: "Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended.

"France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers."

Anything to criticize here, Saints?

He hit all the check-boxes for sure.

universal values

Well... not quite universal, now are they? Humanist values is more like it. - I think he means they apply to all peoples, agreed.

hateful vision of these killers

Nailed that one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

Egypt just banned the movie "Exodus" because of its depiction of Moses (an islamic prophet) and other alleged "historical inaccuracies."

OK. Is this relevant to the speech I referenced? Should we simply ignore or disregard this speech because they're banning movies?

“Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, and pointed to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

He also said above in the embedded link you provided.

It was a good post and I love the speech. My point was that even as he was saying that Egypt was banning a movie. Take it a contradiction or a measure of the challenge or maybe the General's own hypocrisy if he was involved in the ban (no idea).

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I also want to agree with you about something else you pointed out this morning. A couple of atheists in the other thread, intent to blame this on ALL religion (the way they always do) made the argument that there are never terrorists associated with atheism. Well, as a matter of fact, there have been, and in western Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades

As I noted earlier, the connection between atheism and Communism is not really relevant IMO. But for the sake of accuracy, it would be wrong to assert, as somebody did in the other thread, that all terrorists throughout history have been religious.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

Egypt just banned the movie "Exodus" because of its depiction of Moses (an islamic prophet) and other alleged "historical inaccuracies."

OK. Is this relevant to the speech I referenced? Should we simply ignore or disregard this speech because they're banning movies?

“Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, and pointed to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

He also said above in the embedded link you provided.

It was a good post and I love the speech. My point was that even as he was saying that Egypt was banning a movie. Take it a contradiction or a measure of the challenge or maybe the General's own hypocrisy if he was involved in the ban (no idea).

I don't think he's a hypocrite. The speech was an extraordinary step in the right direction. Let me make an analogy: Khrushchev's Secret Speech of 1956. Khrushchev was STILL a Communist after making that speech, still believed in a Communist dictatorship, still created the Berlin Wall, etc. But- he condemned Stalinism. That was something. This is something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yankee, take note- from the president of Egypt's speech from 4 days ago:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

This was an extraordinary speech, and it's being ignored by our media. I would venture to say that no modern Islamic leader has had the courage to make this sort of statement. I fear he may be targeted for death as a result- we'll see.

Egypt just banned the movie "Exodus" because of its depiction of Moses (an islamic prophet) and other alleged "historical inaccuracies."

OK. Is this relevant to the speech I referenced? Should we simply ignore or disregard this speech because they're banning movies?

“Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, and pointed to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

He also said above in the embedded link you provided.

It was a good post and I love the speech. My point was that even as he was saying that Egypt was banning a movie. Take it a contradiction or a measure of the challenge or maybe the General's own hypocrisy if he was involved in the ban (no idea).

I don't think he's a hypocrite. The speech was an extraordinary step in the right direction. Let me make an analogy: Khrushchev's Secret Speech of 1956. Khrushchev was STILL a Communist after making that speech, still believed in a Communist dictatorship, still created the Berlin Wall, etc. But- he condemned Stalinism. That was something. This is something.

Well I said I wasn't sure if he was involved in the decision.

I don't know if it's Krushchev exactly, but I agree it's a great speech from the looks of it and it would be a massive wind-down as the General points out.

One thing different from 50s USSR though is that Kruschev had control over the bureaucracy and state media etc., the mullahs and imams of Egypt are all in their individual mosques, they don't just jump when teh General speaks. But I agree great stuff.

 

[timschochet]

Mike Huckabee announced today he is "exploring" running for President. Actually he's running; he resigned from Fox last week.

This actually helps Jeb Bush, because it sets up nearly the exact same situation we saw in 2012- several conservative candidates all running against each other, all trying to get their share of the base, one establishment candidate with all the money. By the time the conservatives manage to unite behind one guy, the establishment candidate wins. That's how Romney did it, and McCain- both guys completely unpopular with the base, yet the base couldn't come up with one guy to defeat them. Conservatives have been unable to unite behind a single candidate since Ronald Reagan, and that's why, with the sole possible exception of George W. Bush (who campaigned as a Christian conservative) there hasn't been a true conservative nominee.

I didn't think Jeb Bush could make it past the primaries. But everything things to be moving in his favor.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Damn the GOP establishment is soo smart. Per Politico, the major contributors are putting pressure on the other "establishment" potential candidates (Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Walker, Romney etc) not to run by telling them all the money is going to Jeb Bush, and I'd they DO run they'll fare no better than Tim Pawlenty.

Assuming this works (and why shouldn't it?) that will leave Bush vs. all the conservatives (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul, etc) who will split each other's vote. And Jeb will win. That's how it works. The establishment, though weaker than ever, will still prevail.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ugh. I really don't want JEB to be the nominee. Really really don't. Still got my money on Kasich but you are right to a degree. If this pressure is real and it does happen, it will be almost impossible for a lot of these candidates to make headway unless there is an x factor that happens.

But, in a historical sense, if Jeb does run and he wins.... the Bush family overtakes the Kennedy's as our royalty from a political standpoint.

Prescott Bush was a Senator

Prescott Bush Jr. was a politco though not elected anywhere

George HW Bush, Vice President, President, Congressman, Director of the CIA, and held some other appointments and was an abassador once I think.

Barbara Bush is from the Pierce family who can trace its roots in a straight line to President Franklin Pierce before the Civil War

George W Bush was a governor and President

Jeb was a governor and then a President under the hypo

Jeb's son George just got elected to his first statewide office in Texas and will rising in the ranks over the years and is probably on a Senator track

And there are a crap ton of CEO's higher ups and bigwigs to use ridiculous jargon for the family. Counting the Pierce bloodline that runs to GWB and Jeb, you will have 4 Presidents, a Vice President, 2 Governors, a House member, Director of the CIA, ambassadors, state level guys and a myriad of powerful elites.

The Kennedy's had/have:

Joe was a massively powerful businessman

John was a Senator and President

Teddy was a Senator and presidential contender

Robert was a presidential contender and Attorney General as well as a Senator

Patrick Kennedy was in Congress for a long time

Kathleen Kennedy was a LT. Gov.

Joseph Kennedy was in Congress for a decade

And there are other state level offices throughout the family and obviously massively powerful business people. You can even throw in the Terminator and his term as Governor of California if you want as part of their tree. They only had 1 President, but several Senators, federal officers, congressmen, state level people, Governor and the business community.

The Kennedy's have been our default royal family for a long time. There was a Kennedy serving in our government for something like 70 years straight until Patrick left Congress. Just a massively powerful family. But the Bush family while maybe holding a fewer number of elected offices have held more "bigger offices". You could make the case now that the Bush family is the equal of the Kennedy family but if Jeb were to be elected, then there is no doubt.

As an aside the Adams' lineage isn't nothing either. John was our greatest diplomat, Vice President and President, his son John Quincy was President, diplomat, Senator and congressman (and might just be the most underrated important figure in our early history) Samuel Adams was a cousin and leader of the revolution and served in various offices in colonial times. Not too shabby overall. Of course, you can do the 3rd counsin 5 times removed tree report and find out that John Adams shares a blood line with William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, Winston Churchill, Marylin Monroe, several monarchs and some of the greatest writers in world history. But you can do that with any powerful family that traces it roots to colonial times given the nature of the world then. Still, if you want to debate the merits of our default royal families, you have Kennedy, Bush and Adams when it comes to politics. Jeb could be a really interesting addition to the Bush line.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. Damn the GOP establishment is soo smart. Per Politico, the major contributors are putting pressure on the other "establishment" potential candidates (Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Walker, Romney etc) not to run by telling them all the money is going to Jeb Bush, and I'd they DO run they'll fare no better than Tim Pawlenty.

Assuming this works (and why shouldn't it?) that will leave Bush vs. all the conservatives (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul, etc) who will split each other's vote. And Jeb will win. That's how it works. The establishment, though weaker than ever, will still prevail.

Maybe I'm wrong for this but I would very much like to see Rubio run.

 

[msommer]

About your final point. - In the mideast at least because there has been little to no history of secular states, no existence of democracy allowing for political institutions, the mosque has often been the place for political activity, for learning, for thought, for speech.

"And just like that - poof - Turkey never existed"

 

[timschochet]

Yep. It's absolutely astonishing (the Bush family). Especially if you consider that most Republicans, according to the polls, have no love or reverence for them (certainly nothing close to the near worship that many liberals seem to have held for the Kennedys.) Personally I've never met a conservative or Republican who had anything but tolerance for any of the Bushes, and sometimes even tolerance isn't there. If Jeb Bush pulls this off he will do so as a pro- immigration reform guy- which is considered this year by conservatives to be their litmus test. IThis would be a remarkBle result.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ugh. I really don't want JEB to be the nominee. Really really don't. Still got my money on Kasich but you are right to a degree. If this pressure is real and it does happen, it will be almost impossible for a lot of these candidates to make headway unless there is an x factor that happens.

But, in a historical sense, if Jeb does run and he wins.... the Bush family overtakes the Kennedy's as our royalty from a political standpoint.

Prescott Bush was a Senator

Prescott Bush Jr. was a politco though not elected anywhere

George HW Bush, Vice President, President, Congressman, Director of the CIA, and held some other appointments and was an abassador once I think.

Barbara Bush is from the Pierce family who can trace its roots in a straight line to President Franklin Pierce before the Civil War

George W Bush was a governor and President

Jeb was a governor and then a President under the hypo

Jeb's son George just got elected to his first statewide office in Texas and will rising in the ranks over the years and is probably on a Senator track

And there are a crap ton of CEO's higher ups and bigwigs to use ridiculous jargon for the family. Counting the Pierce bloodline that runs to GWB and Jeb, you will have 4 Presidents, a Vice President, 2 Governors, a House member, Director of the CIA, ambassadors, state level guys and a myriad of powerful elites.

The Kennedy's had/have:

Joe was a massively powerful businessman

John was a Senator and President

Teddy was a Senator and presidential contender

Robert was a presidential contender and Attorney General as well as a Senator

Patrick Kennedy was in Congress for a long time

Kathleen Kennedy was a LT. Gov.

Joseph Kennedy was in Congress for a decade

And there are other state level offices throughout the family and obviously massively powerful business people. You can even throw in the Terminator and his term as Governor of California if you want as part of their tree. They only had 1 President, but several Senators, federal officers, congressmen, state level people, Governor and the business community.

The Kennedy's have been our default royal family for a long time. There was a Kennedy serving in our government for something like 70 years straight until Patrick left Congress. Just a massively powerful family. But the Bush family while maybe holding a fewer number of elected offices have held more "bigger offices". You could make the case now that the Bush family is the equal of the Kennedy family but if Jeb were to be elected, then there is no doubt.

As an aside the Adams' lineage isn't nothing either. John was our greatest diplomat, Vice President and President, his son John Quincy was President, diplomat, Senator and congressman (and might just be the most underrated important figure in our early history) Samuel Adams was a cousin and leader of the revolution and served in various offices in colonial times. Not too shabby overall. Of course, you can do the 3rd counsin 5 times removed tree report and find out that John Adams shares a blood line with William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, Winston Churchill, Marylin Monroe, several monarchs and some of the greatest writers in world history. But you can do that with any powerful family that traces it roots to colonial times given the nature of the world then. Still, if you want to debate the merits of our default royal families, you have Kennedy, Bush and Adams when it comes to politics. Jeb could be a really interesting addition to the Bush line.

I seriously think that if Bush or the Clintons win and say they get 2 terms which is a good bet for any president good or bad these days, we are looking at 42 consecutive years of Bushes and Clintons in the WH as President, VP or SOS.

To me this is a disaster and it bodes something wrong with our democracy.