Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (27581)	2/2/2004 7:32:52 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 793625

So they really didn't say that. Thanks. I figured. Your words: "- but I've met many who say they do, under the guise of multiculturalism. " If they didn't really say those words, there is, I think, a good chance you didn't understand what they were saying. I've learned that on SI when people try to "paraphrase" what people they do not agree with are "really" saying they almost always get it wrong.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (27581)	2/2/2004 7:41:06 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793625

Boobenfreude (n) The feeling one gets when a celebrity makes an ass of themselves, and you are glad you are not them, e.g. when Janet Jackson bared her breast at the Superbowl halftime show. Alternatively, also used to describe the feelings of superiority that well up inside when a celebrity or politician acts like a fool, and does not realize it. masterofmydomain.blogspot.com This was the main talk show subject this morning. It is obvious from the Drudge closeup that she had it planned. Otherwise, why wear costume jewelry on her nipple underneath her bra? drudgereport.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (27581)	2/2/2004 8:03:29 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793625

One reason we've heard so little about the abuses in the Sudan, for example. Is that because we are reluctant to judge foreign cultures, or because we don't feel that the abuses in the Sudan have any significant impact on our interests? We managed not to notice 2 to 5 million dead in the Congo and surrounding countries over the last decade. That's not because we don't want to judge Africans, it's because we just don't give a damn what goes on down there. It's not bothering us, why should we? Our morally upright administration has nothing whatsoever to say about Indonesian abuses in Aceh, not because they don't want to judge Indonesians, but because they think Jakarta's cooperation in prosecuting JI members is more important than the rights of a bunch of Acehnese Muslims. It is true that those who loudly proclaim their righteousness and civilization are generally held to the sort of standard that such a claim implies, especially if they have their hands out when making the claims. There are advantages to the image of the guy in the white hat, and disadvantages as well: there are things you can't do if you expect to be given default approval and default access to the resources of others. There's a key distinction in this question that's often overlooked. It's the difference between behaviour we are willing to tolerate and behaviour we are willing to subsidize. Obviously there's a big difference in the level of abuse that would justify a cessation of assistance and the level that would justify direct intervention, especially if there is no critical interest in place. The practical upshot is, they judge only countries deemed to be "Western", and leave the others alone. Examples, please. Specific ones. There is plenty of bias to go around in these cases. I was recently reading some Freedom House reports on Indonesia that protested vigorously about Muslim attacks on Christians, but completely failed to mention massacres of Muslims by Christian militias. That reflexive assumption that if Christians are fighting Muslims the Christians must be good and the Muslims must be bad has become a fairly common thing.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (27581)	2/3/2004 2:49:00 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

Someone else shares similar thoughts..... Patronizing The Hyperdictionary defines "patronizing" as "to treat condescendingly". Following the definitional chain, we find that "condescension" is defined as: The act of condescending; voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in intercourse with an inferior; courtesy toward inferiors. Shortly after more than 240 hajj pilgrims died at a stampede in the holy city of Mecca and after Saudi authorities assured the world that precautions would be taken to prevent a recurrence, a second stampede occurred at the same devil-stoning ritual at which the first carnage took place. Dozens of unconscious pilgrims were taken to hospital in the town of Mina near the Muslim holy city of Mecca today after being caught in another stampede during the stoning of the devil ritual, the Saudi health minister said. Unlike yesterday's stampede in which 251 pilgrims were killed, there were no deaths this time, Hamad al-Mani told reporters. "A stampede occurred this evening (local time) on the stoning bridge which caused a large number of pilgrims to fall to the ground," said Mani. Just the day before, a South African newspaper noted that, despite the hundreds of deaths that had taken place in the last few days a press of hajj pilgrims were massed at the very scene of the disaster. Before dawn, a vanguard of the faithful were already pouring on to the esplanade, where three stone pillars represent the devil, to join the last major act of the annual haj pilgrimage to Mecca. ... A tide of white-robed Muslims were gathered around the site by mid-morning as helicopters flew overhead monitoring the flow.The second day threatened to be a further high-risk exercise for the Saudi authorities, who had nonetheless announced last month an "integrated crowd control strategy" to prevent new tragedies during the annual event. That was before the second stampede. Properly speaking, though, it should be called the fifth stampede in recent years as four had preceded it, including the mega-disaster in the last few days. The history of the devil-stoning ritual has been a perilous one. "Last year 14 pilgrims were killed in a stampede during the first day of the same ritual and 35 in 2001, while the 1998 haj saw 118 killed and more than 180 hurt at the pillars. And in 1994, 270 were killed", the South African Star reported. Omitted from mention were the 1,500 hajj pilgrims who died in a tunnel stampede in 1990. If a revenue-earning pilgrimage at Lourdes or at St. Peter's had killed 2,100 people in the last fourteen years, there would probably be calls to ban or regulate it in the interests of safety. Instead, the French government has issued this statement: "France pays homage to the efforts of the Saudi authorities who organized as efficiently as possible emergency help and assistance for the victims. In these painful circumstances, we express our sympathy to the kingdom's authorities and present our sincerest condolences to the families of the victims" Just was there are cartoon laws of physics to govern animated characters in the funnies, the politically correct classes have ordained Muslim rules of behavior which are different from those which apply even to a poor Salvadoran Catholic peasant. But it implies no respect for Muslim culture, rather the contrary. It suggests no appreciation for Muslim lives, rather the reverse. It implies no regard for the Islamic mind, rather its absence. It is not the intercourse between equals. It is patronizing. belmontclub.blogspot.com