11/30/2005
11/29/2005
11/28/2005
11/23/2005
11/20/2005
11/15/2005
Let's not get rediculous now...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10044207/
Number one: In the lyrics I saw, there is no wording to suggest slavery. Slaves weren't the only ones to pick cotton, you know.
Number two: Even if it is a 'slave song,' that doesn't mean that they shouldn't perform it. These songs are still around for people to listen to for a reason. They're cultural. They're part of African American heritage--the fact that slavery is as well is terribly unfortunate, but it doesn't invalidate these songs. And aside from all that, they're nice songs. Especially since they contain elements inspired by the situation of African Americans at the time. Elements of hope. Of finding happiness where happiness was difficult.
These parents are just looking for something to complain about; they want to be activists. And because of that, their children don't get to sing a song that is probably very good, and that they probably worked very hard on.
Number one: In the lyrics I saw, there is no wording to suggest slavery. Slaves weren't the only ones to pick cotton, you know.
Number two: Even if it is a 'slave song,' that doesn't mean that they shouldn't perform it. These songs are still around for people to listen to for a reason. They're cultural. They're part of African American heritage--the fact that slavery is as well is terribly unfortunate, but it doesn't invalidate these songs. And aside from all that, they're nice songs. Especially since they contain elements inspired by the situation of African Americans at the time. Elements of hope. Of finding happiness where happiness was difficult.
These parents are just looking for something to complain about; they want to be activists. And because of that, their children don't get to sing a song that is probably very good, and that they probably worked very hard on.
11/13/2005
A somewhat enlightening look at torture in the Iraq War
While not exactly a friendly gesture, the methods of 'torture' employed in U.S. facilities in Iraq are not what most people think. When people think of torture, most think of dismemberment, physical pain, etc. etc. This is not what is being used.
The 'torture' that we've heard so much about, apparently, consists of: being restrained in a chair for a couple of hours; prolonged exposure to unpleasant odors; exposure to unpleasant climates; and the like. Some of it is used as punishment for misbehavior--like injuring guards. Some of it is used to get information--information, by the way, that saves the lives of U.S. soldiers. While some forms of torture, particularly those that cause physical harm, are certainly not to be condoned, some other methods, methods that many of us wouldn't even think of as torture, are a tool. A tool to deter misbehavior, or to acquire information that will protect Americans. Before condemning it, we should try to realize the reality of it.
Furthermore, I would like to point to some history and a very important presidential decision. After the end of WWII, some questioned (and still do) the ethics of Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It was not an easy decision for Truman to make, and he mulled it over thoroughly. In the end, his reasoning was the following: 'As the President of the United States, I am bound to protect the lives and rights of Americans, and if it saves even one American life, I have to do it.' Think about that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/
The 'torture' that we've heard so much about, apparently, consists of: being restrained in a chair for a couple of hours; prolonged exposure to unpleasant odors; exposure to unpleasant climates; and the like. Some of it is used as punishment for misbehavior--like injuring guards. Some of it is used to get information--information, by the way, that saves the lives of U.S. soldiers. While some forms of torture, particularly those that cause physical harm, are certainly not to be condoned, some other methods, methods that many of us wouldn't even think of as torture, are a tool. A tool to deter misbehavior, or to acquire information that will protect Americans. Before condemning it, we should try to realize the reality of it.
Furthermore, I would like to point to some history and a very important presidential decision. After the end of WWII, some questioned (and still do) the ethics of Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It was not an easy decision for Truman to make, and he mulled it over thoroughly. In the end, his reasoning was the following: 'As the President of the United States, I am bound to protect the lives and rights of Americans, and if it saves even one American life, I have to do it.' Think about that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/
And they were sayin' the riots in France were calming down...
Rioters attack police, begin violence in a major city, and talk of riots in Paris.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051111094509990003
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051111094509990003
11/11/2005
11/10/2005
11/08/2005
Long awaited, here it is...
Now no one can hold torture against us.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=dbad7e15-be6e-491c-8dc0-5888a099211d&f=copy
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=dbad7e15-be6e-491c-8dc0-5888a099211d&f=copy
Prank gone wrong, or just a hoax?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9971337/
Someone said he's made this claim before? Well what incentive would they ahve to lie about it?
Besides: a suit for pain and humiliation I can see, because they allegedly ignored him for fifteen minutes--although, wouldn't you have thought it was a prank too? And what made him think he was having a heart attack? But my point is, HOW THE HECK CAN HE SUE FOR FINANCIAL LOSS?
Someone said he's made this claim before? Well what incentive would they ahve to lie about it?
Besides: a suit for pain and humiliation I can see, because they allegedly ignored him for fifteen minutes--although, wouldn't you have thought it was a prank too? And what made him think he was having a heart attack? But my point is, HOW THE HECK CAN HE SUE FOR FINANCIAL LOSS?
11/06/2005
Some feelings on the Paris riots
As with every conflict, there are two sides to this. The French government needs to change. It has needed to change for a long time. But the way that the rioters are going about it is all wrong. They are hurting people, killing people. They should take a clue from Dr. King, from Ghandi, from Thoreau. Don't just sit back and take it, but don't act violently either. Nonviolent resistence. Peaceful, but nonetheless proactive action.
The riots are spreading, surrounding Paris, moving into Paris and into the countryside. The government feels threatened. This could be the beginnings of a revolution--after all, the French have a habit of being violent in their revolutions.
One may also note that some are calling for the creation of militias to fight the rioters. This also may lead to revolution. The citizens are dissatisfied with the actions taken by the government to quell the riots. Perhaps the militias, if created, could end up siding with the rioters against the government. Or perhaps they may succeed in quelling the riots, but then decide to take on the government. Perhaps Martial Law could be declared. This happened during an earlier revolution in France's history, a coup d'etat in which Napoleon took power. Declaration of Martial Law also led to the Nazis taking power in Germany about 70 years ago. Now, of course, this may not be a good thing. The results of a revolution, in fact, may be disastrous. But they might not--even if Martial Law is declared, because the loss of civil liberty experienced therein may incite a more democratic revolution.
If it really is a revolution--and despite the violent means seen thusfar, the French government really does need a massive overhaul, as do many other European governments--if this really is a revolution, then it's something rare. A major revolution in a developed country has not occurred for many decades, except, perhaps, for the fall of Communism in Russia. If things change in France, it could mean change everywhere. It could spread across Europe. It could spread across the globe. And even if it doesn't, it will change the way that we interact with France, and any other country that undergoes this change. But honestly, even our own government could use some change.
The riots are spreading, surrounding Paris, moving into Paris and into the countryside. The government feels threatened. This could be the beginnings of a revolution--after all, the French have a habit of being violent in their revolutions.
One may also note that some are calling for the creation of militias to fight the rioters. This also may lead to revolution. The citizens are dissatisfied with the actions taken by the government to quell the riots. Perhaps the militias, if created, could end up siding with the rioters against the government. Or perhaps they may succeed in quelling the riots, but then decide to take on the government. Perhaps Martial Law could be declared. This happened during an earlier revolution in France's history, a coup d'etat in which Napoleon took power. Declaration of Martial Law also led to the Nazis taking power in Germany about 70 years ago. Now, of course, this may not be a good thing. The results of a revolution, in fact, may be disastrous. But they might not--even if Martial Law is declared, because the loss of civil liberty experienced therein may incite a more democratic revolution.
If it really is a revolution--and despite the violent means seen thusfar, the French government really does need a massive overhaul, as do many other European governments--if this really is a revolution, then it's something rare. A major revolution in a developed country has not occurred for many decades, except, perhaps, for the fall of Communism in Russia. If things change in France, it could mean change everywhere. It could spread across Europe. It could spread across the globe. And even if it doesn't, it will change the way that we interact with France, and any other country that undergoes this change. But honestly, even our own government could use some change.
_______________________________
The following has been edited in after the submission of a comment:
While it is possible that these rioters are simply seeking attention, seeking to be part of a cause--which also seems to be somewhat of a French tradition--it seems to me that there's a fair chance that it could be more than that. Now, my idea of revolution was really just a postulation. I don't particularly expect it, but it's a possibility. But the riots are so widespread, so serious in nature. And they are spreading to other areas very quickly. This kind of thing doesn't seem to happen very often. I could be wrong, though. There were riots in Paris in the 1970's, also involving mostly young people, and they did not result in revolution.
It's just a theory...
Or perhaps wishful thinking...
11/05/2005
The French are NUTS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9891709/
Nine days of violent riots? Beatings? Arson? But I thought that the French were supposed to be so much more civilized...
That doesn't sound civilized at all.
The violence grows and spreads more and more each night. Rioters in different areas are communicating, warning eachother of police movements, by cell phone. People in some areas want to start militias, and the French government is starting to feel threatened. And most of it is taking place in poor suburbs around Paris--but I thought that French economic policy was too perfect to have poor...
What's in the days to come?
Nine days of violent riots? Beatings? Arson? But I thought that the French were supposed to be so much more civilized...
That doesn't sound civilized at all.
The violence grows and spreads more and more each night. Rioters in different areas are communicating, warning eachother of police movements, by cell phone. People in some areas want to start militias, and the French government is starting to feel threatened. And most of it is taking place in poor suburbs around Paris--but I thought that French economic policy was too perfect to have poor...
What's in the days to come?
11/03/2005
Sheesh...
And the French are always thumbing their noses at us for being stupid and barbaric...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9891709/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9891709/
Wow
The Catholic Church, and a truce with science...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/
(and by the way, this is my 300th post!)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/
(and by the way, this is my 300th post!)
Poor doggies...
Can you tell that I have a soft spot for our canine friends? They're still finding these poor critters in Louisiana, left behind after Katrina...
Did you know that pets can suffer PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) too?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9900273/
Did you know that pets can suffer PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) too?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9900273/
