Anyone read the story today about the airport police office in Philly discharging a confiscated weapon and discharged the firearm instead. Let's see here, if I pull this the bullets will come out... Moron, firearms do not accidentally discharge, there are internal safeties built into nearly every firearm manufactured in the last 20 years to avoid accidental discharge. The biggest safety of all is often forgotten...
Monday, September 24, 2012
Onerous
Onerous--(adjective) burdensome.
How burdensome is proof of citizenship? Many complaints I have read about in news articles recently talk about making voters prove citizenship to register being onerous. When you become a naturalized citizen the U.S. government gives you documents that prove this citizenship. When you are born on territory of a state of the U.S. or territory of the U.S. or as a dependent of a U.S. government employ on recognized assignment in a foreign territory you receive a birth certificate that qualifies as proof of U.S. citizenship. What is onerous about showing this document along with proof of current residency to be given the privilege of voting (oops, it is a privilege not a right--people should go back and read the laws and cases regarding voting). Some states require a state issued photo identification card to be shown before you can vote--wow big, stiff requirement, this is a burden if I have ever seen one.
Continuing to read the drivel about burdensome requirements for voting is onerous to me. At least that is my two cents worth.
How burdensome is proof of citizenship? Many complaints I have read about in news articles recently talk about making voters prove citizenship to register being onerous. When you become a naturalized citizen the U.S. government gives you documents that prove this citizenship. When you are born on territory of a state of the U.S. or territory of the U.S. or as a dependent of a U.S. government employ on recognized assignment in a foreign territory you receive a birth certificate that qualifies as proof of U.S. citizenship. What is onerous about showing this document along with proof of current residency to be given the privilege of voting (oops, it is a privilege not a right--people should go back and read the laws and cases regarding voting). Some states require a state issued photo identification card to be shown before you can vote--wow big, stiff requirement, this is a burden if I have ever seen one.
Continuing to read the drivel about burdensome requirements for voting is onerous to me. At least that is my two cents worth.
Muslim Protests/Riots
"Iranian students chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the French embassy in Tehran in protest at the decision by satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish catroons of the Prophet Mohammad, days after widespread protests--some deadly--against a film made in the United States."
--Robin Pomeroy, "From Nigeria to Athens, Muslim Protests Rumble On," Reuters 9/24/12
Does anyone else look at this and say, maybe this is why people look at Islamists and cringe or worry about the intentions of Islamists in the pursuit of the spread of Islam in the world? Sure that idiotic film (hey I watched a 13 minute trailer--the film is just bad, regardless of the intended message) was made in California. But, I did not make the film, nor did the elected government of the United States. The cartoons were published in a European magazine--what do the people and state of Israel have to do with this publication?
Christianity and Judaism neither one teach violence in the spread of belief. But, Islam does (I have also read the Koran). Reasonableness is apparently lacking on the part of the Islamists, who equate every diminuation of their belief with an attack against all of Islam by the United States and Israel. Does this mean that I would be in the right to protest against the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Israel whenever a musical is made that depicts Jesus Christ as homosexual or sexually involved with Mary Magdelene? Oh wait, Christianity teaches love of enemy and acceptance of the authority of state in non-theological matters (As far as I can tell after also reading the Bible). Again, the greater point here is the lack of reasonableness, not the theological debate of the ages, but it seems that one faith leads to a lack of reasonableness.
--Robin Pomeroy, "From Nigeria to Athens, Muslim Protests Rumble On," Reuters 9/24/12
Does anyone else look at this and say, maybe this is why people look at Islamists and cringe or worry about the intentions of Islamists in the pursuit of the spread of Islam in the world? Sure that idiotic film (hey I watched a 13 minute trailer--the film is just bad, regardless of the intended message) was made in California. But, I did not make the film, nor did the elected government of the United States. The cartoons were published in a European magazine--what do the people and state of Israel have to do with this publication?
Christianity and Judaism neither one teach violence in the spread of belief. But, Islam does (I have also read the Koran). Reasonableness is apparently lacking on the part of the Islamists, who equate every diminuation of their belief with an attack against all of Islam by the United States and Israel. Does this mean that I would be in the right to protest against the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Israel whenever a musical is made that depicts Jesus Christ as homosexual or sexually involved with Mary Magdelene? Oh wait, Christianity teaches love of enemy and acceptance of the authority of state in non-theological matters (As far as I can tell after also reading the Bible). Again, the greater point here is the lack of reasonableness, not the theological debate of the ages, but it seems that one faith leads to a lack of reasonableness.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Myanmar's Real Issue
To be blunt, the real issue in Myanmar is not really the future of democracy, but really is the future of democracy. If you are not familiar with it, think long about Benjamin Franklin's statement about a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome. The problem in Myanmar is Theravada Buddhism.
A recent column in Foreign Policy states:
Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem. Specifically, she faces an obstacle in the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority Burman Buddhists at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. Although the world has been largely focused on the drama between Burma's military leaders and "The Lady," fraught relations between ethnic Burmans, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, and the non-Burman minorities, who make up the remaining 40 percent, could leave the country politically fragmented -- and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip.(read the full article here)
I concur with this blunt assessment of the ethnic question in Myanmar. Will the Buddhist sense of superiority carry over into the democratic realm causing real issues for pluralistic growth in Myanmar? Would a democratically elected government treat Karen Christian's (about 20% of the Karen population is Christian, while the Karen population is a total of 7% of the population of Myanmar) differently than the current government or the military led juntas of the last few decades? Why does Suu Kyi not address the ethnic question when talking about being progressive and democratic?
A recent column in Foreign Policy states:
Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem. Specifically, she faces an obstacle in the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority Burman Buddhists at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. Although the world has been largely focused on the drama between Burma's military leaders and "The Lady," fraught relations between ethnic Burmans, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, and the non-Burman minorities, who make up the remaining 40 percent, could leave the country politically fragmented -- and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip.(read the full article here)
I concur with this blunt assessment of the ethnic question in Myanmar. Will the Buddhist sense of superiority carry over into the democratic realm causing real issues for pluralistic growth in Myanmar? Would a democratically elected government treat Karen Christian's (about 20% of the Karen population is Christian, while the Karen population is a total of 7% of the population of Myanmar) differently than the current government or the military led juntas of the last few decades? Why does Suu Kyi not address the ethnic question when talking about being progressive and democratic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)