The Smiley Smile Message Board

Good God , just logged in and the Sandbox/Whole board  is on melt down talking USA Politics !!!!

Does anyone want to talk about our beloved band THE BEACH BOYS ??  ::)

Beach who?

Moved to the Sandbox because people are already talking about the Beach Boys in dozens of threads in the General On Topic Discussions subforum.

SORRY , Good Point  :lol

boys

The Beach Boys of Summer?

What? Those white-rapper guys from Baywatch Nights???

An entire board devoted to... them????

I like The Beach Boys of Summer. A Beach Boys/Don Henley tribute band! What's not to love?

depends.

How about all The Beach Boy's and The Eagle's lawyers start a band???

I hate American political extremeists

Liberals sure corner the market on hate.

Welcome to Smiley Smile's version of the Shut Down (Cabinessence) board's Flux thread.

One of the primary reasons Shut Down was brought to its knees.    And is all but dead now.

Maybe hate was to strong a word.

They also corner the market on backpedalling.

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLnvArfgYmA065pArQbUjd_IWopw8jiMyvxyFjtQLXO86D3Qj6Cv8j_ieiKg)

I thought it was brought to its knees because the moderators loved censoring comments that didn't mesh with their own viewpoints?

I just experienced that on the FB BeachBoys/Brian Wilson page. And got barred!! Hahaha

YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION? BANNED!!!111oneone

Funny stuff really! Something about Brian and Mike during Surfer Girl in the lost Concert..

ambiguous modifier in the thread title here. is it "(Non-USA) Politics" or "Non-(USA Politics)" ? I was thinking it would be the former but it seems it's the latter. I actually think it would be really funny to read a bunch of people from a different country arguing about politics. because, it would be exactly the same as Americans arguing about politics, but with unrecognizable (to an American) names.

I'd actually like to argue about British politics on the board, but.... is anyone actually a Tory here?

Libya and Egypt - discuss.

shades of Iran 1979 with hopes of democracy overtaken by Islamic fundamentalism.

That is a good point, there is a much deeper issue at work here which needs to be addressed and confronted rather than coddled and appeased. IMO.

What disturbs me are the efforts not exactly to justify but to pin some measure of blame for what is now the death of the US envoy to Libya, three diplomats, and I believe one American worker on a film perceived to be anti-Islamic.

I may live in a bizarro world of my own beliefs, but I can't justify a movie of any kind being used as a justification or as a valid reason for murdering someone who had no direct connection to that movie in cold blood in an act of mob violence. Yet there seems to be just as much focus on the movie, who made it, what it suggests, what it shows, who is promoting it, etc. as on the ultimately innocent people (international diplomats, protected under international diplomatic law, no less), as there is on the killings or on the mob itself.

There is no justification for that kind of mob murder of foreign diplomats, just as there was no justification for what happened in and around Iran in the late 70's.

We should be monitoring the reactions to these killings closely, especially those reactions and responses coming from the UN and the US. They could be very revealing.

You're absolutely right.

In the 1800s to early 1900s, death of a diplomat would mean war. I just say cut foreign aid since they really don't like the "great Satan" aka USA.

I'd say the same about radical Muslims that I would about radical Christians, radical Jews, and ZIonists...f*** 'em all.

We shouldn't even be giving anyone foreign aid to begin with.

This is turning into a USA politics thread anyway!

While it may seem sort of superficial, I sometimes wish our Congress and President had loud and rowdy Q and A like Parliament has with the PM. Polite applause is just plain boring. I want to hear yelling and booing and see Senators and Reps. throw stuff across the room at each other!

I think people focus on the movie because it seems it was designed to incite the kind of violence that ended up happening.

That's obscene. The United States achieved its world superpower status by controlling more than half of the world's resources in the years immediately following WWII, as a result of re-constituting Europe and Japan under the old order (to the extent of re-instating pre-war fascist regimes) under US control and also by either invading countries or supporting particular regimes to make countries friendlier to US investment, which typically led to these countries being left in shambles. Now that the US place in the world's hierarchy has been cemented after years of global dominance, exploitation, and destruction, they should cut off foreign aid? Christ they should be paying reparations through the nose to Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, East Timor, Vietnam, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

History has proven that innumerable sums of "foreign aid" have merely ended up in the pockets of rich people in poor countries. So if it's obscene that I'd rather see no foreign aid rather than that money used by dictators in third world countries to kill and starve their people, then so be it.

No, history has not "proven" that. Yes, foreign aid does often go to dictators in third world countries to kill and starve their people, but that's by design. Foreign aid has primarily been used to repress outside populations so that they cannot nationalize their resources and these dictators are typically friendly to outside investment because it often results in large amounts of money being distributed to the upper strata of the social hierarchy. Just because major world powers (not just the US) want their foreign aid to do this, doesn't logically follow that all foreign aid does this. In fact, foreign aid can and has been used to do things like relieve famine and stop it from spreading, and promote democracy as well. This is why when Somalia, for just one example, banned foreign aid, famine spread significantly throughout the country.

Democracy is the short road to tyranny. I'll have none of it. It's the tyranny of the majority. That's an even better reason to want to end foreign aid. We send $3 billion a year to Israel so they can be an apartheid state. Is that right? Even when we bitched about South Africa for how many years? We send $3 billion a year to Egypt, a country with a population hellbent on destroying Israel. Is that right? We've coddled Saudi Arabia for years when they do nothing but ignore human rights. We keep sending money to Bahrain while their government is actively killing protesters.

Please...tell me more about how great foreign aid is.

I'm talking about direct democracy which is not "the tyranny of the majority" or 50+1 or whatever groundless straw man is being put forth these days. The democracy that you're talking about is not democracy, and it is certainly not the democracy that I'm talking about. I'm talking about genuine democracy but it is more than telling that the ultra-authoritarian Libertarians have spun out the notion that all democracy is bad since after all if you are in favor of pure unfettered corporate tyranny, the idea of democracy is poison.


No. Did you read what I wrote above?


Again, read what I wrote. Right now you're talking to an illusion that you have spun out of your own head.

That is too much of a stretch, and for all the world it sounds as if you're placing blame on the film...and even if it's one half of one percent of blame, there is no logical justification to relate the killing of anyone to anger over a g*ddamned movie, and a piss-poor movie at that, one which no one had paid attention to when it was first made available to watch but suddenly became the reason for murders and riots after a YouTube excerpt was translated into Arabic.

So, let's tally it up: We have a prominent author named Rushdie who was sentenced to die for his book about Islam, we had at least one cartoonist who was sentenced to die because of a cartoon he drew, we have several lecturers and lesser-known authors sentenced to die because of their words and public comments, and now we have a low-budget film to add to that list of those who are apparently not allowed to make satire or negative commentary against Islam or else they'll have a "fatwah" issued against them by the radical wing(s) of that religion and will have followers committed to carrying out the death sentence on those "infidels" who dared to write, speak, draw, or release a critical or satirical film about Islam.

Seriously, the film and not the actual murderers? So much for free thought.

At some point the blame CANNOT be shifted away from the people who were responsible for the murders. I knew there would be some efforts to try not to "blame" the actual killers, it's so expected among some segments of the political spectrum that it's laughable.

Does the "blame the movie" point of view hold up in the face of new information (since yesterday afternoon) that the Obama administration is now looking at the possibility that the film issue was a distraction or even a red herring, and that the actual attack in Libya and the plot itself was timed to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11? And that the persons who plotted and executed the attack were from Al Qaeda?

If that turns out to be the case, the movie itself becomes irrelevant, and those who are hesitant to point any finger of blame may need to find another scapegoat to explain away the blame of this. Or they may just have to confront their own personal issues and be forced to place blame where it belongs rather than on something such as a cartoon or a film.

If someone shouts fire in a crowded room and it causes a riot in which a couple people are trampled to death, is the person who shouted fire entirely blameless?


The film came from our part of the world and it was meant to represent the point of view of a religion from our part of the world. Hence, it is far more our responsibility than the reaction.


This film was produced with the understanding that there would be murders. Doesn't that suggest some responsibility?


Yes. If.

Is this just some sort of attempt to garner support for an attack on the radical Islamic world? Because before the big problem here was that they were reacting to a film - that's what made this so ridiculous. Now, you're saying that the film may have been a red herring, but you're continuing with your argument. So what are you saying ultimately?

I'm saying don't blame the film, because it's justifying even in a miniscule way any type of violence or threat of violence in the name of religious zealotry over someone's right to create a work whether it's of high quality or of very low quality as this film in question. You are opposed to carrying out violence in the name of an organized religion, aren't you? You are for the freedom of filmmakers, artists, authors, poets, musicians, etc to create works of art no matter how much we agree or disagree with the content?

Many people a few decades ago thought an artist displaying a Crucifix inside a jar of urine and labeling it "Piss Christ" was obscene, blasphemous, and had no right to be considered or labeled as "art" and put on display...yet many thought the artist ultimately had the right as an artist to create and display that work of art. But this "filmmaker" who made this film in question somehow doesn't have the same right to make a satire, or that he should be somehow charged with a crime, banned, or whatever else because Muslims find his film insulting?

Go ahead, then, side with those hard-right Christians who were protesting the "Piss Christ" display, only be honest and open about it and say that you take the same ideological side with the Muslims against this film and its creator as you would with the Christians and the "moral majority" who were opposed to "Piss Christ". The only difference is I cannot recall any mob violence or death sentences happening after the urine art incident.

Do you blame McCartney for Helter Skelter and its connection to the Manson family killings? I guess he shouldn't have written the song, he gets some blame because Manson heard a call to arms rather than a song about a sliding board in England.

Do you blame those metal bands in the 80's when parents were going public with claims that the music was what led to their kids' suicides and other ills? I guess they shouldn't have written songs like "Number Of The Beast" because they knew kids would hear it and be driven to commit suicide based on the satanic lyrics.

Was the death sentence against Salman Rushdie his fault, was he to blame because he knew his book would lead to a death sentence? How about that cartoonist, is satire allowed but not against a religion like Islam?

Or all is this different because it's Islam being discussed and not another religion which is allowed to by criticized, satirized, or in any way disagreed with?

I'm wondering if the South Park creators who wrote and staged the successful Broadway satire "Book Of Mormon" would consider doing a similar "Book Of Islam"...probably not, because if there were any murders or riots as a result, they wouldn't want to get blamed for it. And who wants to walk around with a "fatwah" on their head anyway? Easier to mock a set of values where the followers have a sense of humor and a tolerance for satire and disagreement.  :)

I don't know what you mean by "blame the film" - a film is not a moral agent. Furthermore, when you suggest that something is, in part, responsible for particular actions, that in no way justifies those actions nor does it suggest in any way that it is entirely responsible.


Of course.


Of course. In fact, especially if I disagree with the content since everybody is in favor for freedom of artistic works they agree with.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that making a film with the intention of creating violence isn't utterly irresponsible, completely sickening, and worthy of enormous critique.


I'm not sure what you are talking about, since I never said that. All I will say is that the filmmaker did not make a satire.


I don't.


The difference is that McCartney didn't write Helter Skelter with the intention of inciting violence. Are you seriously pretending there's no difference?


If they wrote songs knowing it would drive kids to commit suicide, and they released it, then, yes, they should be blamed. But, is that what happened?


Did he write the book in order to create a fatwa on his head? Show me the evidence.


Did he produce his cartoon with the intention of inciting violence too?


Please explain to me how this is a satire?


Isn't it tiring to make up questions based on groundless perceptions?


No, but it's definitely more responsible to mock the values of your own society rather than others. Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope didn't focus their attention on imperial England's subjects because they understood the value of satire and that if you want to make social corrections, you look in the mirror before looking elsewhere lest you want to be a total hypocrite and open up your own work for justifiable ridicule.

Not as tiring as expecting me to channel Salman Rushdie or that cartoonist and get into their head so we can state as "fact" what their intent was when they wrote the book or drew the cartoon, for the purpose of proving someone "right" or "wrong" in this discussion.

As far as the rest, I give you credit for sticking to your side of the story.

As far as "Piss Christ" versus the film, are you personally sickened by the act of that artist displaying what followers of Christianity hold as an important and meaningful symbol of their faith in a jar of urine, assuming it was done to incite anger and disgust? Or is that on a different level? If we want, let's list all the similarities...starting with someone creating a work to be displayed or viewed in public which might be considered offensive or obscene by followers of that religion.

I'm just asking you to come clean on this issue, or at least more clean than the moral grey area which seems to be straddled here whenever Islam is the religion versus another. Because if there is even a sliver of blame, implied blame, or anger at the filmmaker for making this film, then it puts anyone doing that on EXACTLY the same side of the debate as those Christians who were outraged at their religious imagery and symbols being disrespected in a public display, yet who were at that time mocked and derided for doing so, by the anti-censorship advocates who were supporting that artist's right to create and display his art.

If you cannot see the parallel nature of those opposing that display and those opposing this film, it's a lost cause and not worth pursuing because no one can make someone see who insists on keeping their eyes closed.

And at some point, the greater issue of adhering to political correctness over expressing the opinions that certain aspects of a religion or a society are harmful and destructive to a number of people living within that society needs to end in order to actually "progress" in any meaningful way.

I'm speaking specifically of certain elements in societies ruled by Islam and under Islamic law which considers homosexuality a crime punishable by death, the public expression of a religious faith other than Islam a crime punishable by death, the incorrect length of a man's beard a crime punishable by beatings, maiming, and worse, and the overall view of women in the society as subservient to and owned as property by men in that society, which basically strips those women of even the basic right to education or independent living, or the right to say "no" to a man.

Let's start applying the standards which we apply when criticizing much lesser facets of those same issues in America and Europe to those countries and societies governed by Sharia law, ruled under strict literal interpretations of Islam and Islamic Law, and countries where the fear of the US somehow getting tagged with a "national religion" is reality, and those charged with spreading the word of any religion or belief other than the governed rule of and by Islam can be and are put to death as infidels.

I'm all for speaking out for human rights and equality, around the globe - let's start applying it more liberally and not being so hypocritical as to make a major case out of a minor issue in the US perceived as a slight while entire populations live under the rule of religious zealots (and hypocrites) who take the notion of totalitarianism to obscene heights we could not imagine in the countries we live, yet are not exposed nor publicly criticized near as much as certain media-fueled events are blown out of proportion for political gain, especially in the US.

Political correctness bothers me as much as the notion of moral relativism.

I'm not expecting you to "channel" anybody but to take people at their word. In this case, we know that a spokesman for the team responsible for this movie has said: ""We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen." On the contrary, Rushdie said: "I honestly never expected anything like this". No channelling necessary.


Inciting violence is quite a different thing altogether than inciting anger and disgust, don't you think? It's the fact that these people knowingly incited violence that is sickening. Knowingly inciting anger is different.


Of course it is. Being compelled to disgust is on a different level than being compelled to violence, yes.


It certainly doesn't put me on the same level since I'm not outraged that the maker of the film decided to take cheap pot shots at another religion. I'm not even outraged at anything. I will say that as an atheist, I typically find most anti-religious screeds whether they are anti-Islam or anti-Christian or whatever, to be fairly weak because they are usually class based. They usually come from someone from a more educated class critiquing people who come from a less educated class.


I'm sorry are you dealing with my argument or the arguments of others? And why am I to answer for the arguments of others?


Right, and what should the oh-so-superior we do about that? Write hilarious short fiction for the New Yorker and then pat ourselves on the back?


No, how about we do what an actual moral person would do and apply the standards that we apply to others to ourselves first. It's not our arrogant responsibility to apply standards that we think are right to other people. That's just classic imperialism.

This is one of the worst elements of contemporarly liberalism, incidentally - the notion that we know what real progress is because we're doing it and that therefore gives us to right to criticize others because they aren't living their lives like we are.


To what end? What do you hope to achieve by this "speaking out"?

My two cents, There is a lot of unrest in the Islamic world right now with the Arab spring. (winter if the islamists win) So provoking them with purposely offensive movies about their religious leader is going to cause trouble. What happened was horrible and I hope the people who killed the diplomats are brought to justice.

To what end do you post comment after comment criticizing and critiquing the US? To what end is Occupy staging protest after protest against a giant of a system which many would say cannot and will not be changed anytime soon, is it an underlying Don Quixote complex at work on all our idealist sides, we're all chasing windmills? Isn't speaking out against anything you or I perceive as wrong accepting a certain level of blind idealism and naivete which makes us think we, the small individual out of millions, can affect a change at all? I'm asking, what is *your* end game in endlessly critiquing, criticizing, and condemning US society, the US economic structure and policies, certain US politicians and political groups and parties, the social structure and class structure in America, etc etc etc? It's never-ending, there is always something in these political discussions to criticize the US. If you don't see that as you're writing them, take a look back at the recent past. You wouldn't feel and write as passionately and as often if you weren't hoping your statements had even a slight effect on the concerns you're pointing out. Why is it any different to think someone pointing out the disgraces and abuses against human rights under "Islamic law" isn't looking to open some minds and affect a change in some tiny way? Where are your passionate criticisms of the abuses under Islamic law, or don't they exist?

Another question is why all the animosity toward the so-called "Christian right" in America and almost no mention of nor criticism of those in Islam who are overstepping all logical bounds of that religion and its principles? Have you been openly critical of Islam as you have of other religions, specifically the American "religious right"? If not, why not?

I'm genuinely interested to know, because quite frankly I'm at the point of saying how dare you question my motives and ask "what do I hope to achieve" or anything of the sort while you casually fire off post after post trying to do something or achieve some larger goal by never failing to have a post ready to go which is critical of the US. So what is that "end game", where is the goal?

For the record, I have no time for religious zealotry or even over-enthusiasm in promoting or advocating a religion or religious choice over another. It bothers me to see it play out regularly and across faiths. But let's have criticism applied liberally and wherever criticism is due. In this case, a most egregious offender is that of the radical interpretation of Islam and those who apply it.

I'll gladly reply to the goal/end game issue, first: What I hope to achieve is exposing some of what I see as blatant hypocrisy and selective outrage being applied, and ultimately this: A lot of energy and anger being misdirected toward miniscule or minor issues which are politically expedient and easy to publicize and win political gains from yet have little or nothing to do with the bigger picture.

Perhaps it is my view of human nature and certain world issues and affairs in general, but ignoring the cancer of applying moral relativism to explain away such things, can we talk like people having a casual conversation and agree that there is a huge difference between a society which is known to have a death penalty for homosexuality versus a corporate executive giving an interview where he states his views on gay marriage?

In my view, the latter got a lot of play because it was convenient, it happened in the US, it was a Christian interview show where Christianity was discussed, and it was an easy sell for the media to latch on, and that means on *both* sides of this non-issue regarding a fast food restaurant.

The former, that little inconvenience about the more radical and literal followers of Islam viewing homosexuality as a crime punishable by death, gets little or no attention. I think it should, again despite being asked and challenged about it, *yes*, I do feel strongly about human rights and equality.

I think while thousands in the US were arguing about a f***ing chicken restaurant, there are much more serious issues affecting many more people than what a guy says about gay marriage, yet I'll ask the age-old question: "Where Is The Outrage?"

And the Democratic party suggesting there is a "war on women" being waged by their opponents, and making it a keystone issue of the campaign...does it compare in any way to strict Islamic laws about the role of women in that religion and in those societies?

We are so f***ing spoiled in America, our issues are whether to pay for contraceptives, abortion rights, and the corporate "glass ceiling" effect, while women under strict Islamic law have to remain submissive to men, have no choices nor any sense of a right to do much of anything independent of a man including the choice of consensual sex over rape, and when in public have to remain covered with various clothing wraps and are required to walk several steps behind their man.

Does it take a doctoral degree to realize something isn't right about any of that? Yet we have little or no focus being put on *those* issues which affect a larger number of people in the world in favor of the nit-picking crap we get bombarded with along the lines of Chick-Fil-A and women breastfeeding in public.

My honest opinion, admitting it's mine and mine alone: There is a fear and unwillingness from people to openly criticize those radical and ridiculous elements following the Islamic faith for fear of some backlash...not sure if it would be political and being hung with the "intolerant" tag, or the fear of being perceived as one who attacks certain followers of Islam when that isn't allowed in the world of political correctness, whereas open criticism of a number of other religions is not only accepted but expected.

I would think the fear of speaking out against those who are abusing the tenets of an organized religion lest you receive a death threat or fatwah against you would be of great concern to those interested in protecting the rights of expression and speech in a free society.

I interrupt the discussions to post breaking news that a Libyan security official has issued a statement saying the attacks on the embassy and the deaths were part of a planned, two-step attack planned by heavily armed militants to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, and that the outrage over the film and resulting protests were designed as a cover to hide the motives of the attack. The US has not confirmed these statements, but was investigating this same angle as of yesterday.

So it appears the outrage over the movie was phony, and done by design to hide a military-style strike on the US embassy in Libya.

Now after all the hand-wringing and finger pointing, perhaps we can start blaming the militant Islamic terror groups responsible for the deaths.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21535538/film-protests-were-cover-two-part-militant-attack (http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21535538/film-protests-were-cover-two-part-militant-attack)

Well I've said it before but I suppose it bears repeating:

It is a central anarchist principle to interrogate power and authority, holding it accountable to the people, and finding out whether or not it provides the burden of proof to justify its existence. Now, if this is a central principle then it makes sense first to concentrate on the power you can do something about, and second to concentrate on the power that is dominant. In terms of the latter, it seems to me that the dominant power of our times emanates from the capitalist structure and it also is apparent that the most powerful country in the world both in terms of wealth and strength is the United States. In that sense, there is a certain moral obligation to make that a focus of my attention if I am at all serious about interrogating power.

Now I don't interrogate power and authority because I think it's fun, I do it because I think that the existence of power and authority is what creates most of the world's problems and the more power and authority there is, the more problems there will be. Take for example, what we're talking about - Libya. Well, Libya is an interesting case. The UN drafted a resolution that called for a no-fly zone and for protection of the Libyan civilian population. The resolution was rejected by England, France, and the United States, who directly established themselves as de-facto members of the anti-Gadaffi rebel group in the civil war and they did so for the reasons that have always motivated Western interests in Libya - their oil and water reserves. Their breach of the resolution ultimately worked to undermine the option for negotiated settlement and by all accords could have easily led to a rise in sectarian violence given that Libya is very much a tribal society. And that, indeed, may be what's happening. Ongoing Western involvement in Libya, which has always been relentless, could possibly lead to further sectarian violence. If we're serious about wanting to end violence then we have to actually examine the history of the area and I'm afraid doing that displays the rather negative influence of the Western world in the region.

Again, if you are serious about wanting to solve problems then you take on the problems you can solve, not waste time trying to take on problems you can't solve. Remember too that people are always reluctant to look in the mirror because they don't feel they have to, because the tacit assumptions they make are so deep-seated that they can't understand them as anything other than natural, rather than ideologically driven. So, if people want to find information about the problems with Islamic culture, they don't have to look very far. Not only is anti-Muslim racism the most acceptable racism in the West right now (to the extent that people's racist comments don't even register as racism) but one is simply inundated with news about the wrong-doings of the Islamic world. So for example, compare this particular story right now about the murder of the US ambassador with the story of Obama committing a war crime and violating constitutional law, murdering three Americans, Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman in drone strikes in Yemen. And according to new reports, there were 29 more people killed in drone attacks in Yemen last week. The latter was virtually a non-story in comparison but far more heinous than the one constantly being reported now. Given the outright disparity between the bad things they do, which are constantly brought up, vs. the bad things we do which are almost entirely unknown, it seems to me that anyone living over here who knows about these things has the upmost obligation to make known the stories that are not only silenced but also the incidents that we are responsible for, which are not coincidentally, always the same thing. To that end, critiquing the Islamic world has, to me, always seemed to be both trivial and self-serving. I have less control over it and I don't commonly talk to people from there, so talking about is nothing more than a self-serving exercise. I might as well spend my time criticizing Genghis Khan - it would be just as productive. To that end, I also find critiquing it to be a waste of time since information is readily available and this is why charges about being "fair and balanced" have always struck me to be the height of absurdity.


Because these people are protesting not only what is being done with their tax dollars but how their tax dollars are being used in a way that directly impact on their lives to the extent that they are disenfranchised from the political system. And whether or not "many" say this is of no concern - "many" have always said things like that and have frequently been wrong. I mean, that was the common belief about slavery, women working, black people voting, etc. It gets said all the time but that doesn't make it right.


A small individual on his or her own cannot affect change it all. These things must be done through communities and they are done frequently and are very effective. The world is a completely different place than it was forty, fifty, sixty years ago. Look at the United States at the beginning of the 20th century vs. the end and see the amount of remarkable progress that was made there in a hundred years. And it's because people worked very hard to make that change. And they achieved those accomplishments because they focused on the things they had control over.


Who are you talking to? I haven't said a single thing about the religious right. In fact, the last post I gave I wrote that "I typically find most anti-religious screeds whether they are anti-Islam or anti-Christian or whatever, to be fairly weak." So, I'm not sure who you are addressing that to but it certainly isn't me and certainly can't be based on anything I have actually said.

Since the rest of your post doesn't actually respond to any of my points or asks questions I have sufficiently answered elsewhere, I hope this is enough for now.

Actually, it is not enough because those few statements above are about as cynical and as nihilistic as I've seen coming from these discussions.

Is it part of your political philosophy which led to this defeatism? A small individual cannot affect change at all...how sad. Would the world attention have turned toward China if that one man wearing the backpack had not stood in front of that tank column and a photographer not have taken the photo? So in essence you have the "small" efforts of two men whose names most folks don't even know bringing attention to something which would have been tanks running roughshod through a country. They acted, the world saw it, it was a very "small" individual act that led to a spotlight being shone on some pretty unsavory things.

So be cynical, it's you're right and no one is denying it.

Just don't play the racism card to explain away some problems which should receive more attention.

Then I guess according to your defeatist logic, all of the attention on Darfur, Tibet, other parts of Africa, China's human rights offenses and their abuses and persecution of groups like the Falun Gong...is it not worth it to call attention through public protests, speeches at the UN, etc.?

Tell Richard Gere, George Clooney, et al not to waste their time because they're small individuals who can't affect change.

I'm just curious why similar attention isn't brought out and the light shone on regions living under Islamic law where human rights abuses on a level with or equal to those happening in more publicized cases.

Are people in general who do not closely follow world affairs aware of what life in these Islamic-ruled countries is like? It's not "imperialistic" to suggest there is something wrong with societies that openly discriminate based on gender, sexuality, and religious beliefs and persecute violators with penalties including execution.

The racist charge is so old there is no glue left on it to stick to anything. In one way, you're correct, it isn't 40 years ago and people who care are more aware and less naive today to accept labels and baseless generalizations.

Apart from all of that, it saddens me in a way to see some of those on the political side which is known for upholding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of artists to produce and display art without censorship and codes of speech suggesting the filmmakers of this thing supposedly causing an uproar now calling for some arrest, investigation, or prosecution in the matter.

Such a call is nothing but hypocrisy. Period.

If those suggesting these low-rent filmmakers be subject to charges of some kind, then I guess they were the same ones calling for censorship, banning, fines, arrests, etc in years past when various pieces of art, music, literature, etc were targeted and blamed for all kinds of maladies and criminal activities.

Don't defend a musician's right to perform a song titled "f*** The Police" or "Cop Killer". Don't defend an artist's right to display a religious symbol in urine, or create art considered obscene, pornographic, or in any way "unacceptable" to a group or groups. Don't defend a filmmaker like Scorcese's right to make a film like "Last Temptation Of Christ" which inflamed and offended numerous Christians due to imagery they found to be bordering on blasphemy, or any random independent filmmaker whose content comes under fire from various moral majority type groups.

Don't do that, don't defend all of those artists no matter their skill or experience, no matter the "quality" of their product...don't suggest freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent and disagree with accepted opinions...and then turn around and suggest a piece of sh*t low-budget film and its creators are responsible for the violent reactions of some and should be charged criminally as a result.

If anyone suggests that, they are in the same group as those who would blame rap music for various problems in society and seek to restrict or ban it entirely.

That is pure hypocrisy.

And if that is the case, perhaps we as a society should then look into some kind of charges or at least a civil lawsuit for creating and releasing a film like the current "Batman" because it led a guy to dress up as a main character and proceed to enter a theater showing the premiere of the film and murder members of the audience, while declaring "I am the Joker".

I hope it hasn't gotten this bad where those most often on the side of defending artistic freedom and expression are now doing a complete 180 degree turn and suggesting punishing the filmmakers and blaming the film for how groups of stupid, violent or in some way deranged people reacted.

I don't recall there being a race of people called "Muslim", most often it's used to identify a set of religious beliefs, like "Christian", "Jewish", "Buddhist", etc.

An individual could accept the beliefs of a religion like Islam and therefore convert as a believer in and follower of that religion, therefore that individual would become a "Muslim".

I don't think it's possible to convert to another race.

So how is it possible to equate the term "anti-Muslim" with racism or race in general? 

Since you can't actually come up with an example that involves only one person, I can assume the point is moot.

That being said, we might be quibbling over a definition of change. By change I mean, destroying the institution of slavery, giving women the vote, shifiting a country from totalitarian tyranny to participatory democracy, etc. These things cannot be done by one person alone - it takes an enormous effort carried out by many people. If you consider it nihilistic and cynical to highlight the fact that people get things done when they work together, that's fine but personally I disagree.


Excuse me, but isn't somewhat problematic to believe that change occurred when "we" became active participants in the struggle in China? Jesus Christ, there were half a million dedicated activists involved in that struggle but you're saying that that doesn't count as leading to change because they didn't make people in the Western world aware of the problem? Again, this is a textbook example of Western self-centeredness to suggest that effective change can only occur once we take notice of it. Until that happens, the dedicated work of hundreds of thousands of people working together is meaningless. That "one man wearing the backpack" was part of a much larger struggle that involved many people who were dedicated to solving problems that were happening in their country. The "man in the backpack" along with the hundreds of thousands of other activists were taking matters into their own hands to create change for themselves in their community - they weren't trying to manufacture images so that the Western world could swoop in with their all important sympathy. Sorry if you think that I am dismissing this one man but your example serves to largely dismiss the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people involved in a popular struggle.


When did I do that?


Of course it's worth it.


I was unaware that they were working entirely by themselves without anybody's help.


It's brought out all the time.


No, but it is imperialistic to believe that it is our responsibility to do something about it.


Since I didn't make a racist charge, we can put this one to bed.

Again, who are you talking to?


Who here is suggesting that?


Saying what is perfectly true - that this film bears some responsibility for the violence that is currently occurring (as per their own admission) - is not synonymous with saying they "should be charged criminally as a result." If they were charged, I would defend them. Not that I care. I don't particularly think the issue of the film is that important. This whole conversation started because I merely offered a suggestion to you as to why people are focusing on the film and apparently even offering a suggestion is so offensive to you, that your response was to throw a tantrum in which you did nothing but ask me a series of questions based on groundless assumptions.

I agree, the terms are tricky but I basically agree with Alan Johnson's analysis in World Affairs. He noted:

When any religion is treated as a fixed dogma, conceived in wholly negative terms as alien and threatening to “us,” and as reflecting the essence of its adherents, then the line between criticism of religious belief and racism can blur, and we may slide into excluding and denigrating an entire group of people.

To talk about Islam in this way — as some European commentators and politicians do — risks fostering what Alan Posener, replying to Pascal Bruckner, has called “a kind of xenophobia wrapped in religious terms.”

I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense (bullsh*t, in other words) coming from Mr. Johnson, totally ignorant of not only facts but ignorant of human physiology and biology in general to suggest religion and race are in any way relative. It's fine to try to justify one's opinion but that notion is laughable, and I laugh it off instead of getting fired up over someone's convoluted attempt to redefine "race" as something other than a genetic trait people are born with and have *NO CHOICE* in the matter. Versus religion, which of course we are free to pick and choose which one to believe, if any at all.

I've seen some wild justifications for calling someone or something "racist" in the past, but that one is such a whopper I think it's near the top of my list of the most batsh*t-crazy things I've seen in a political discussion.  :)  Well, maybe it's up there with those parents of kids  who play a game of soccer where a score isn't kept and where every kid gets a championship trophy...not for winning, but just for showing up. Just suspend all common sense and men like Johnson and the non-score-keeping types make perfect sense.

You can't suspend common sense and believe all that, I hope...

But it was entertaining to hear a justification for hurling the tag of "racism" where it doesn't even fit a logical definition of that term. Ahh, the state of politics in 2012.

So long.

Jeez guys, give it up! Arguing about politics/political views is pointless, over the past few weeks in both this thread and the Romney thread have you managed to change each others viewpoints? No, you are never going to agree and you are both on the verge of getting personal, please stop.

I was posting a general statement and not referring to anyone here - it came after hearing reports of a Penn professor who tweeted something about criminal charges and this "film" and it was trending a bit in some circles to suggest charges may be justified because of the violent reactions (a notion I still find both hypocritical and pathetic), and I commented on it.

The post was not directed at anyone or anything on this board, I was on my soapbox after hearing a radio report.

If that's the best conclusion to this, then it's a done deal. I don't want anyone to pack up and go or stop the back-and-forth, but at the same time I felt so strongly against reading what I saw as a justification from Mr. Johnson's statement of opinion for calling someone or something a racist that expected us, the observers, to suspend all factual definitions and previous standards of that term, including it's origins from the definition of "race" versus "religion", and be able to justify calling those critical of Islam "racists" because someone sees a parallel where there is none based in fact and on the very definition of the word.

Throwing the term "racist" at someone and having it stick is all too common, and in many cases it's a pure gutter-level response coming from anger rather than consideration of an opposing viewpoint. It's a tough label to remove once it's been applied, even if the charges are false or unwarranted. And it also lessens the impact and seriousness of the term when it is justifiably given to those individuals who do in fact deserve it.

If Alan Johnson wants to broaden the label even more, and justify labeling people and ideas even further to include those critical of a religion or its practices and followers "racist", there is no point in debating because all logic and facts are thrown out the window in favor of gut-level labeling and potential accusations of racism based on an opinion of what the definition of the word should be rather than what it actually is.

For the record, I was commenting on the statements of Alan Johnson reposted here, not on rockandroll personally or anyone else here, and what I said is what I still feel after reading those words. You cannot have a debate on a platform where a charge of racism can be justified by changing the very definition of that term. Only one side will win, and it's the side who chooses to redefine any word like that to fit their viewpoint.

That standard is impossible to meet or challenge if definitions of words can be changed that easily depending on the subject matter, I think Johnson is foolish for a suggestion like that.

Perhaps it is best to pack this one up and call it a day.