Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let them declare fatwas against those usurping the religion.

Let them denounce those preaching hare in the universities.

Let them speak up. And not just BS words, like RT chose to link to, Let's see true leaders speak AND act.

Surely, you don't disagree with these sentiments.

We've had this argument before. I suspect that there are more moderates who speak out against the extremists than we hear about, since it's not the sort of thing that the media cares to cover. I know, e.g., that a Spanish cleric has issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden. But I also don't think that they have any particular obligation to speak out, much like Democrats have no particular obligation to disavow Robert Byrd, and Republicans have no particular obligation to disavow David Duke.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
NARAL actually counts that number a bit higher in their anti-Bush mailings. Although I'm not on the mailing list, I'm sure you are.

Surprisingly, that makes two of us.

Doesn't the number seem high to you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I doubt he meant "deserve" to die, but, practically speaking, their chance of dying will increase. How long before we start to see a mini civil war, aimed mostly at the local Islamic communities? In England, I'm guessing the answer is, soon. They've had way more than their share of stories and interviews in the last two days, with young londoner muslims expressing humor and - yeah - glee - at the bombings. I don't think the reasonable Islamic community can afford to stay on the sidelines much longer there.

The media interviews 50 muslims, all of whom condemn the bombings. You ssee one or two of those interviews, in very short clips, buried in the story. BUT, that one imbecile Muslim... that one rebellious shit-for-brains 19 year old who wants to give society the middle finger by applauding the bombings... he gets put on a loop and played over and over.

Last night, Carl Bernstien was blathering on Fox about how the media was the last honest outpost in society, and how it must be protected. He's right, but the fucking media needs to stop ccreating chaos by focusing on the virulent minority of idiots in every story. A foolish young muslim who doesn't know any better might think its cool or popular to join jihad by watching these media misrepresentations.

The media needs to stop fanning the flames.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think the reasonable Islamic community can afford to stay on the sidelines much longer there.

This notion that they are on the sidelines is a myth. There is a civil war among competing versions of Islam going on right now, and the fundamentalists are attacking us for advantage in that war. The moderates control the governments of countries like Egypt and Jordan, and we support them. There is violence in these coutries between these factions, not that we pay much attention if it doesn't involve Westerners.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[i]
The one thing I'm quite sure of is that the current situation in not what our founding fathers had in mind when they put in place a system of checks and balances.

I disgaree. If you view things over the long term, its clear the status quo remains. Thats all checks and balances were designed to do.

People seem to expect the govt to create results. That is not what the Founders intended at all. Thats what Marx intended. The Govt is merely the manager of the basic infrastructure of rules that govern society. Viewing it as an agent of change which should proactively tinker in peoples' lives is missing the whole point of what our Republic is about.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Last night, Carl Bernstien was blathering on Fox about how the media was the last honest outpost in society, and how it must be protected. He's right, but the fucking media needs to stop ccreating chaos by focusing on the virulent minority of idiots in every story. A foolish young muslim who doesn't know any better might think its cool or popular to join jihad by watching these media misrepresentations.

The media needs to stop fanning the flames.

I think you mean that the media should report the news, not make it. Unfortunately, that doesn't promote market share so we will not see it anytime soon.

On a related point, does anyone actually think reporters should be entitled to a reporter/source privilge? I find it ridiculous, but maybe others can pursuade me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This notion that they are on the sidelines is a myth. There is a civil war among competing versions of Islam going on right now, and the fundamentalists are attacking us for advantage in that war. The moderates control the governments of countries like Egypt and Jordan, and we support them. There is violence in these coutries between these factions, not that we pay much attention if it doesn't involve Westerners.

Unfortunately, the moderates aren't winning. Thats why we have to back their policies up with strongmen like Mubarrak.

Egypt is a time bomb. Mubarrak is 76. No successor yet ordained except a ne'er do well son. Yikes.

The problem with the Muslim civil war is the moderates can't promise the jihadis anything. They have no money to offer the jihadis in place of their idiot religious beliefs. The jihadis are like LA gangs in the 80s. They figure "I can't get money by joining society, so I have to join a gang."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The media interviews 50 muslims, all of whom condemn the bombings. You ssee one or two of those interviews, in very short clips, buried in the story. BUT, that one imbecile Muslim...

Go read the london papers from yesterday and this morning. I get the sense that they're trying to find those outspoken moderates you mention - but they're not finding them.

I don't think this means that they all support the bombings - but they're under some severe pressure from the fanatic part of their social group to not condemn the Islamofacists.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub On a related point, does anyone actually think reporters should be entitled to a reporter/source privilge? I find it ridiculous, but maybe others can pursuade me.

Not unless it also extends to me, in my role as a poster on an internet board.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think this means that they all support the bombings - but they're under some severe pressure from the fanatic part of their social group to not condemn the Islamofacists.

So moderate muslims are in the same predicament as moderate republican politicians?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My sister, BTW, figured 5% seemed about right.

FWIW, I recall another way to calculate it - one abortion for every 2.3 (I think) live births. I am not willing to expend the effort to even do back of the envelope calculations, but my gut is that the 5% number doesn't sound high.

Now you can have fun figuring out what the fact that women are fertile for, on average, about 25 years (15-40) means if 5% of them are having abortions each year. My vague recollection is hearing that (after controlling for repeat customers) somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all women in America have had or will have an abortion at some point. I have no frickin' clue how they calculate that, though it seems most interesting to me in what it says about how many women are, in fact, repeat customers.

BR(I'd also love to see regressions of those repeats for (i) education, (ii) income and (iii) religious affiliation)C

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
FWIW, I recall another way to calculate it - one abortion for every 2.3 (I think) live births. I am not willing to expend the effort to even do back of the envelope calculations, but my gut is that the 5% number doesn't sound high.

Now you can have fun figuring out what the fact that women are fertile for, on average, about 25 years (15-40) means if 5% of them are having abortions each year. My vague recollection is hearing that (after controlling for repeat customers) somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all women in America have had or will have an abortion at some point. I have no frickin' clue how they calculate that, though it seems most interesting to me in what it says about how many women are, in fact, repeat customers.

BR(I'd also love to see regressions of those repeats for (i) education, (ii) income and (iii) religious affiliation)C

I have one sure fire way to lower the # of abortions - federally subsidized birth control and more sex education.

Why aren't those policies pushed? Who's holding them back. Aren't we all agreed that we wanted less abortions? If so, what reason on earth would we have not to implement policies which absolutely achieve that result?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have one sure fire way to lower the # of abortions - federally subsidized birth control and more sex education.

Why aren't those policies pushed? Who's holding them back. Aren't we all agreed that we wanted less abortions? If so, what reason on earth would we have not to implement policies which absolutely achieve that result?

'Cuz then we'd have to admit that kids/unmarried persons actually do have sex and there's not much we can do to stop it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you mean that the media should report the news, not make it. Unfortunately, that doesn't promote market share so we will not see it anytime soon.

On a related point, does anyone actually think reporters should be entitled to a reporter/source privilge? I find it ridiculous, but maybe others can pursuade me.

Interesting RP history here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2093187

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
'Cuz then we'd have to admit that kids/unmarried persons actually do have sex and there's not much we can do to stop it.

I am puzzled by people who think that facts will somehow magically not exist if they simply refuse to acknowledge them. Is there a name for that psychiatric condition? It has to be a mental health malady of a sort. We follow policies borne of psychiatric disorders? What if we passed a law that said that any policy deemed to be based on a psychiatrically unsound belief could not enacted into law. I wonder if that might be a good start to curing some issues. I'd at least like to hear the opposition...