It has long been said that state rights are a bastion of conservatism, something that liberals and progressives don't believe in. While states' rights have favored conservative policies in some instances, I have never understood why this should be a general rule. After all, libertarianism, a branch of liberalism, also supports state rights.
The Trump administration's travel bans have served to highlight this. When the federal government overreaches, in any given direction, it's better for the states to be able to challenge them. State rights are ultimately a protector of liberty, when the federal government does not take liberty seriously. Centralization, on the other hand, has always been among the favorite tools of authoritarians.
Of course, state rights have been invoked against marriage equality and anti-segregation laws too. But that's the fault of authoritarianism, not the fault of states' rights itself. For example, in Australia, marriage laws can only be changed by the federal government, resulting in exactly zero states having marriage equality at the moment. In a truly liberal society, individual rights should trump collectivist designs, whether state or federal. But that's another issue altogether.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
Donald Trump's Victory is a Failure of Liberalism
Ever since Donald Trump's victory last year, there have been many theories flying around: that people don't take feminism seriously, that people actually want some protectionism, that Hillary Clinton was seen as too establishment, that many voters are racist and would therefore love to see mass deportations, etc. While I won't go into the individual merits of these arguments, I think they all miss the central point.
Donald Trump won because liberalism failed.
Liberalism has been forgetting its roots for many years now, and ever since the advent of the religious right vs the social justice warriorism this has only accelerated. So-called liberal progressives have begun embracing things like limiting people's freedom of speech and conscience, in the name of social justice. While traditional liberalism has sought to end racism, sexism and homophobia via civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and rational discourse, social justice warriors have embraced more coercive and social engineering methods, like enforcing a level of political correctness similar to that found in 1984. Meanwhile, ever since the Bush era, the traditionally small-government right wing, under the increasing influence of religious right, have increasingly favoured an intrusive Christian state over a libertarian state.
The sensible center of liberty and mutual respect, freedom of conscience, limitation on government intrusion and rational discourse has been abandoned. The political field has become more and more like a choice between different tribes of authoritarians. Against this backdrop, Donald Trump's authoritarianism has become nothing unusual, and is simply another choice. If the other versions of authoritarianism have failed, why not give Trump's version a go?
Right now, many liberals and progressives are fearing that Trump will use his authority to roll back women's rights and LGBT rights and initiate mass deportations. And their fears do have plenty of ground. But just one year ago, many of the same people, perhaps believing that the Democrats will be forever in government, thought that the government was their friend and one of the most important weapons in their fight to change the world.
The lesson? Authoritarianism is only good until you are the one being oppressed. Liberty is the only reliable friend.
Donald Trump won because liberalism failed.
Liberalism has been forgetting its roots for many years now, and ever since the advent of the religious right vs the social justice warriorism this has only accelerated. So-called liberal progressives have begun embracing things like limiting people's freedom of speech and conscience, in the name of social justice. While traditional liberalism has sought to end racism, sexism and homophobia via civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and rational discourse, social justice warriors have embraced more coercive and social engineering methods, like enforcing a level of political correctness similar to that found in 1984. Meanwhile, ever since the Bush era, the traditionally small-government right wing, under the increasing influence of religious right, have increasingly favoured an intrusive Christian state over a libertarian state.
The sensible center of liberty and mutual respect, freedom of conscience, limitation on government intrusion and rational discourse has been abandoned. The political field has become more and more like a choice between different tribes of authoritarians. Against this backdrop, Donald Trump's authoritarianism has become nothing unusual, and is simply another choice. If the other versions of authoritarianism have failed, why not give Trump's version a go?
Right now, many liberals and progressives are fearing that Trump will use his authority to roll back women's rights and LGBT rights and initiate mass deportations. And their fears do have plenty of ground. But just one year ago, many of the same people, perhaps believing that the Democrats will be forever in government, thought that the government was their friend and one of the most important weapons in their fight to change the world.
The lesson? Authoritarianism is only good until you are the one being oppressed. Liberty is the only reliable friend.
I Endorse Hillary Clinton for US President
I'm not saying that she is the perfect choice, but for me she was the best among all the candidates, even at the beginning of the year, before the field was narrowed down to two. This is because, among all the candidates running for the two main parties, Hillary seems to be the only person who has any respect for the idea of liberty. She's not religious right, isolationist, ultra nationalist, or anti economic freedom. And that makes her the most qualified candidate, in my opinion.
Of course, this is just my view. You are welcome to disagree, respectfully.
Of course, this is just my view. You are welcome to disagree, respectfully.
J.K. Rowling Enters the Anti-Homophobia Conversation Again
J.K. Rowling's outspokeness about homophobia continues. Recently, when the organisation Christian Voice attempted to link British olympic diver Tom Daley's performance to his sexual orientation in a twitter post, she defended him, predictably causing waves on social media.
Homophobia is sad, but unfortunately it is still a fact of life. While I believe society should embrace freedom of speech, it is also imperative that people with certain moral stances use their freedom of speech to promote their values. We should all follow Rowling's example here, and use our voice to improve society whenever we can. It's a responsibility we all have.
Homophobia is sad, but unfortunately it is still a fact of life. While I believe society should embrace freedom of speech, it is also imperative that people with certain moral stances use their freedom of speech to promote their values. We should all follow Rowling's example here, and use our voice to improve society whenever we can. It's a responsibility we all have.
So Better Midler is a Bigot Now? When PC Goes Too Far, Again.
Bette Midler, of all people, would be the last to be accused of bigotry, you would think. But apparently, in the age of the social justice warriors, she, too has become the latest victim of the witch hunt.
It all started when Bette posted on twitter comments about Caitlyn Jenner, suggesting now that I Am Cait is over, perhaps Caitlyn may become Bruce again. Surely insensitive, but I'm sure it was meant to be tongue in cheek. Predictably, accusations of transphobia poured in, and Midler soon apologised. But even that was not enough. Because Bette wrote that she had misread the 'temper of the times' in her apology, the SJWs thought that she needed another lesson, regarding the 'fact' that she thought it would be okay to be transphobic in other times. Of course transphobia is never okay. But this SJW-type response is certainly a feature of the 'temper of the times'!
Not that the SJW crowd like Caitlyn Jenner either, remember. Her Republican party affiliation is an eyesore to most of them, since they apparently believe that all minorities should be leftist. As if being a minority should take away your political choice.
Not only totally ridiculous, but also totally sad. Social justice surely doesn't get achieved this way.
Let me suggest a better way. How about, just educate? Maybe we should have told Bette Midler that what she said was insensitive to trans people. And she would have gotten it, I believe. Much easier, much less divisive, and much more effective indeed.
Download the full song here.
It all started when Bette posted on twitter comments about Caitlyn Jenner, suggesting now that I Am Cait is over, perhaps Caitlyn may become Bruce again. Surely insensitive, but I'm sure it was meant to be tongue in cheek. Predictably, accusations of transphobia poured in, and Midler soon apologised. But even that was not enough. Because Bette wrote that she had misread the 'temper of the times' in her apology, the SJWs thought that she needed another lesson, regarding the 'fact' that she thought it would be okay to be transphobic in other times. Of course transphobia is never okay. But this SJW-type response is certainly a feature of the 'temper of the times'!
Not that the SJW crowd like Caitlyn Jenner either, remember. Her Republican party affiliation is an eyesore to most of them, since they apparently believe that all minorities should be leftist. As if being a minority should take away your political choice.
Not only totally ridiculous, but also totally sad. Social justice surely doesn't get achieved this way.
Let me suggest a better way. How about, just educate? Maybe we should have told Bette Midler that what she said was insensitive to trans people. And she would have gotten it, I believe. Much easier, much less divisive, and much more effective indeed.
Download the full song here.
Kristen Stewart and Cara Delevingne: Dating women but no 'labels'. A new era of equality?
Kristen Stewart and Cara Delevingne have become two of the latest celebrities to be openly dating women, but opting not to put a label on their relationships status or their sexual orientation.
In the past, people would have expected those dating the same sex to 'come out as gay'. But times appear to be changing. And it may just be another step towards equality. I mean, those dating the opposite sex don't have to 'come out as heterosexual' or describe their relationship as a 'heterosexual relationship'. It may be described as such by other people, but the couple themselves don't have to actively own the term, or identify with it. So why should there even be an expectation that people 'come out as gay' if they want to date someone of the same sex?
Download the full song here.
In the past, people would have expected those dating the same sex to 'come out as gay'. But times appear to be changing. And it may just be another step towards equality. I mean, those dating the opposite sex don't have to 'come out as heterosexual' or describe their relationship as a 'heterosexual relationship'. It may be described as such by other people, but the couple themselves don't have to actively own the term, or identify with it. So why should there even be an expectation that people 'come out as gay' if they want to date someone of the same sex?
Download the full song here.
Jared Leto speaks up about Hollywood's discrimination problem. But it may be difficult to fix.
Jared Leto may be one of Hollywood's most successful actors today, but he's not blind to the fact that some people still have more opportunities than others in the industry. He recently spoke out about the fact that Hollywood remains a conservative business, where people from minority groups would not have the same level of opportunities as he had.
Jared should be congratulated for speaking up. But I don't think this is something that can easily be fixed. Hollywood is, after all, a business that wants to make money, and to make money from selling movies to large audiences, appealing to mainstream tastes, including having characters that the majority can readily identify with, just makes business sense. The number of characters who are from minority ethnic groups, who are LGBT, or who are disabled would generally have to be limited. It would then follow naturally that minorities would have fewer chances in the movie industry.
This is really a problem with mass media in general. Mass media has to appeal to many, many people at once to achieve enough audience to make enough profits to offset the huge costs involved, which means it generally has to go for a more 'common' appeal. On the other hand, 'narrowcasting' on the internet is not bound by such restrictions. That is why people from minority groups have more readily found success as independent cultural icons in the age of the internet. And ultimately, this is why we should be happy that the mass media can't dominate our culture as much as it used to.
Download the full song here.
Jared should be congratulated for speaking up. But I don't think this is something that can easily be fixed. Hollywood is, after all, a business that wants to make money, and to make money from selling movies to large audiences, appealing to mainstream tastes, including having characters that the majority can readily identify with, just makes business sense. The number of characters who are from minority ethnic groups, who are LGBT, or who are disabled would generally have to be limited. It would then follow naturally that minorities would have fewer chances in the movie industry.
This is really a problem with mass media in general. Mass media has to appeal to many, many people at once to achieve enough audience to make enough profits to offset the huge costs involved, which means it generally has to go for a more 'common' appeal. On the other hand, 'narrowcasting' on the internet is not bound by such restrictions. That is why people from minority groups have more readily found success as independent cultural icons in the age of the internet. And ultimately, this is why we should be happy that the mass media can't dominate our culture as much as it used to.
Download the full song here.
Clint Eastwood blasts PC 'Pussy Generation'. I think he has a point.
Clint Eastwood recently added to the already very loud chorus of voices against political correctness, blasting what he calls the 'pussy generation'. He also said that he would vote for Donald Trump in November.
While I don't think that voting for Trump is the wisest decision, I have to thank Clint for adding to the opposition to political correctness. For somebody like myself, political correctness is a detriment to the improvement of society, including in the campaigns to solve the problems of racism, sexism and homophobia. It's like, if you disagree with someone, just state your case. Free speech means debate, and debate means real progress. Shutting down useful debate isn't helpful to anyone.
While anti-PC used to be a mainly conservative concern back in the 1980s, nowadays it's one of the few things that unite conservatives, libertarians and progressives (including President Obama) alike, even if for different reasons. We may want PC gone for vastly different, even opposing, reasons, but it's clear that a building majority of us want our freedom of speech back.
While I don't think that voting for Trump is the wisest decision, I have to thank Clint for adding to the opposition to political correctness. For somebody like myself, political correctness is a detriment to the improvement of society, including in the campaigns to solve the problems of racism, sexism and homophobia. It's like, if you disagree with someone, just state your case. Free speech means debate, and debate means real progress. Shutting down useful debate isn't helpful to anyone.
While anti-PC used to be a mainly conservative concern back in the 1980s, nowadays it's one of the few things that unite conservatives, libertarians and progressives (including President Obama) alike, even if for different reasons. We may want PC gone for vastly different, even opposing, reasons, but it's clear that a building majority of us want our freedom of speech back.
Some Berners are still Bernie or Bust. Maybe they just don't understand how history works.
I hate to break it to the remaining 'Bernie or Bust' people: Bernie Sanders definitely won't be president next year, but either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will. And if you don't want to be part of the decision making, then other people will make the decision for you. (I'm also guessing that, if it's the Donald, they won't like it very much.)
Berners may have taken the recent 'victory' of Hillary Clinton as their 'defeat', and some have taken it very personally. But nothing in politics should be taken personally, or the consquences may be quite unpalatable (for those who are interested, you can look up the 'fight' between former Australian Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, and how that all ended). Besides, it's not like Berners and Bernie 'lost' everything. They brought important ideas and conversations to the table, ideas which will have some influence on a future Clinton administration, ideas that may even change the Democratic Party forever. Although I didn't support Sanders, I acknowledge he had some great ideas, and the Democrats' plaform has become stronger in considering these ideas.
Which brings me to my next point. History and change work incrementally. I, too, believe in universally available public health care insurance, but it needs to happen gradually, like everything else. Same with a higher minimum wage. Some change leads to more change. So it's always good to take whatever 'some change' that is available, rather than to just take the 'moral high ground' and walk away from any prospect of change. (Or should I say, walk towards the prospect of the repeal of even the modest progress we have, under an administration who believes in things like that health care is a privilege.)
p.s. the last paragraph also speak to the far-left in Australia, who are proposing to block the marriage equality plebiscite even if it means waiting 3-6 more years for marriage equality. Guess what? Not only do we not know what political climate we will be in at that time, many people who have been waiting their whole lives for this change may not even live that long to see it. Talk about dressing up selfishness as moral purity.
Berners may have taken the recent 'victory' of Hillary Clinton as their 'defeat', and some have taken it very personally. But nothing in politics should be taken personally, or the consquences may be quite unpalatable (for those who are interested, you can look up the 'fight' between former Australian Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, and how that all ended). Besides, it's not like Berners and Bernie 'lost' everything. They brought important ideas and conversations to the table, ideas which will have some influence on a future Clinton administration, ideas that may even change the Democratic Party forever. Although I didn't support Sanders, I acknowledge he had some great ideas, and the Democrats' plaform has become stronger in considering these ideas.
Which brings me to my next point. History and change work incrementally. I, too, believe in universally available public health care insurance, but it needs to happen gradually, like everything else. Same with a higher minimum wage. Some change leads to more change. So it's always good to take whatever 'some change' that is available, rather than to just take the 'moral high ground' and walk away from any prospect of change. (Or should I say, walk towards the prospect of the repeal of even the modest progress we have, under an administration who believes in things like that health care is a privilege.)
p.s. the last paragraph also speak to the far-left in Australia, who are proposing to block the marriage equality plebiscite even if it means waiting 3-6 more years for marriage equality. Guess what? Not only do we not know what political climate we will be in at that time, many people who have been waiting their whole lives for this change may not even live that long to see it. Talk about dressing up selfishness as moral purity.
Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher remind us that Weddings don't have to be Expensive
It has recently been revealed that Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher got their wedding bands at Etsy, for just $90 and $100 respectively.
People have been complaining about how weddings have become too expensive, even putting them off for years as a result. But all that is required is actually commitment. Maybe this will remind people that, there's no shame in not choosing the most expensive wedding. If rich people like these two can 'go cheap', it's no shame for everyone else to do so either.
People have been complaining about how weddings have become too expensive, even putting them off for years as a result. But all that is required is actually commitment. Maybe this will remind people that, there's no shame in not choosing the most expensive wedding. If rich people like these two can 'go cheap', it's no shame for everyone else to do so either.
Karl Stefanovic, Sonia Kruger, and the Marriage Equality Plebiscite: Sometimes, we just need to have the conversation
Australian morning television show host Karl Stefanovic recently made some transphobic jokes on air. Unsurprisingly in the current cultural climate, he got into major trouble almost immediately. He has since apologised for those 'jokes', and promised that it would never happen again.
Also unsurprisingly, the social justice warriors (SJWs) got into full battle-mode over this incident, as if that would be helpful. This episode comes just weeks after another Australian TV host Sonia Kruger voiced opinions against muslim immigration on air, over which the SJWs also reacted in a very similar way. (I don't have firm statistics, but my impression is that Australia seems to have more SJWs than the US per capita.)
But I actually think it's good that these people said what they wanted to say, and it triggered a reaction in society, causing people to discuss the associated issues. Transphobia and Islamophobia are of course things we should 'fight' against. But I believe we should 'fight' these things in the classic (small-l) liberal way: over society-wide conversations, winning people over with reason. These two incidents have caused society-wide discussion on these important issues, and provided an opportunity for true liberals like myself to offer our alternative viewpoints. In the case of Stefanovic, he has already been enlightened, and has sincerely apologised. That's surely a win for reason.
On the other hand, SJW type behaviour only serves to muddy the picture, making it look like a big fight between two opposing sides, from an outsider's perspective. This means we cannot have those conversations properly, and we cannot inject reason into the debate properly. It also means many people, wanting to be 'neutral', will just stand between the 'two sides' if asked for an opinion. Clearly not an ideal outcome.
Australia is most likely to have a plebiscite on same-sex marriage in the first half of next year. I will, of course, be voting yes. I believe the side of reason will win the debate. But it's crucial that SJWs don't ruin it, or people like myself will have to make sure they wear the blame for delaying marriage equality for another decade. (The fact that some are already saying they will 'boycott' the plebiscite is making me worried. That's not how a responsible citizen in a democracy acts, right?)
p.s. some may wonder why a Labor voter like myself would support the plebiscite. But if you look at all the major polls, the majority of voters for all three parties support the plebiscite (about 70% of Labor and Coalition voters and about 60% of Green voters). I think Labor and the Greens should just listen to their voters and stop delaying the inevitable.
Also unsurprisingly, the social justice warriors (SJWs) got into full battle-mode over this incident, as if that would be helpful. This episode comes just weeks after another Australian TV host Sonia Kruger voiced opinions against muslim immigration on air, over which the SJWs also reacted in a very similar way. (I don't have firm statistics, but my impression is that Australia seems to have more SJWs than the US per capita.)
But I actually think it's good that these people said what they wanted to say, and it triggered a reaction in society, causing people to discuss the associated issues. Transphobia and Islamophobia are of course things we should 'fight' against. But I believe we should 'fight' these things in the classic (small-l) liberal way: over society-wide conversations, winning people over with reason. These two incidents have caused society-wide discussion on these important issues, and provided an opportunity for true liberals like myself to offer our alternative viewpoints. In the case of Stefanovic, he has already been enlightened, and has sincerely apologised. That's surely a win for reason.
On the other hand, SJW type behaviour only serves to muddy the picture, making it look like a big fight between two opposing sides, from an outsider's perspective. This means we cannot have those conversations properly, and we cannot inject reason into the debate properly. It also means many people, wanting to be 'neutral', will just stand between the 'two sides' if asked for an opinion. Clearly not an ideal outcome.
Australia is most likely to have a plebiscite on same-sex marriage in the first half of next year. I will, of course, be voting yes. I believe the side of reason will win the debate. But it's crucial that SJWs don't ruin it, or people like myself will have to make sure they wear the blame for delaying marriage equality for another decade. (The fact that some are already saying they will 'boycott' the plebiscite is making me worried. That's not how a responsible citizen in a democracy acts, right?)
p.s. some may wonder why a Labor voter like myself would support the plebiscite. But if you look at all the major polls, the majority of voters for all three parties support the plebiscite (about 70% of Labor and Coalition voters and about 60% of Green voters). I think Labor and the Greens should just listen to their voters and stop delaying the inevitable.
Why it's Big News that Sia becomes the First Woman Over 40 to top the Billboard Hot 100 since 2000 (And Why it Shouldn't Be)
It's official. Australian singer Sia has grabbed herself a Billboard Hot 100 chart topper with Cheap Thrills. And it has not gone unnoticed that she is actually the first woman over 40 to do so, since Madonna topped the charts in 2000. That's 16 years!
In fact, it highlights how ageist the music industry is. In every other walk of life (except maybe sports), 40-years-old is not considered old. In fact, it is an age many would consider way too young to be a CEO of a major corporation or the President or Prime Minister of a country. And unlike in sports, it's not like people can't sing as well after 40, right? And then there's the sexism. People have pointed out that plenty of men over 40 have had number one hits. Just not the women.
It's a thing we must fight to change. We should make our disgust over this situation heard loud and clear. And we should actively support female musicians over 35, especially those new to the industry, whenever we can.
On the other hand, there may be hope that things are finally changing, at least slowly. Rachel Platten got her first top ten hit last year at the age of 34, something that would be an anomaly not so long ago. The year before, Idina Menzel got her first top five hit at age 42. Hollywood itself is also less ageist-sexist than just a decade ago, with over-40 female celebrities like Jennifer Aniston, Sarah Jessica Parker and Jennifer Lopez still in high demand. But it wouldn't be enough, in my opinion, until the median age of entertainment industry icons rises to about 45, as in most other professions.
Related: Idina Menzel - Let It Go (cover/parody)
In fact, it highlights how ageist the music industry is. In every other walk of life (except maybe sports), 40-years-old is not considered old. In fact, it is an age many would consider way too young to be a CEO of a major corporation or the President or Prime Minister of a country. And unlike in sports, it's not like people can't sing as well after 40, right? And then there's the sexism. People have pointed out that plenty of men over 40 have had number one hits. Just not the women.
It's a thing we must fight to change. We should make our disgust over this situation heard loud and clear. And we should actively support female musicians over 35, especially those new to the industry, whenever we can.
On the other hand, there may be hope that things are finally changing, at least slowly. Rachel Platten got her first top ten hit last year at the age of 34, something that would be an anomaly not so long ago. The year before, Idina Menzel got her first top five hit at age 42. Hollywood itself is also less ageist-sexist than just a decade ago, with over-40 female celebrities like Jennifer Aniston, Sarah Jessica Parker and Jennifer Lopez still in high demand. But it wouldn't be enough, in my opinion, until the median age of entertainment industry icons rises to about 45, as in most other professions.
Related: Idina Menzel - Let It Go (cover/parody)
How Hillary Clinton can Really Make History this year
After losing out to Obama eight years ago, Hillary Clinton has finally got what she was perhaps waiting for for decades, i.e. the nomination of the Democratic Party for the election of US President. And as she is the first woman ever to receive this honor, much has been made about her 'making history'.
Of course, this is literally history in the making, like all great firsts. But the real prizes in history are not just for being the 'first woman' or the 'first' whatever. The real prizes in history come to those who have made a big difference. For example, Barack Obama may have come to office most notably as the 'first black President', but he will leave office being remembered for much more.
If Hillary is to 'make a difference', she should start with her campaign. After all, a successful campaign supplies the winner with a strong mandate, and sets the tone for their government. And I believe Hillary should start with the fact that she is a uniter, not a divider. In a campaign where her opponent is perhaps the most divisive candidate of all time, I believe the message of unity and a government that looks after all citizens equally would strike a chord.
There has also been much said about whether her economic message should be based around the continuation of the successes of the Obama years, or a more radical Sanders-like message. But in reality, this is a false dichotomy. Good economic governance and acknowledging the fact that many Americans are currently struggling and the government should step in to help are not incompatible. Just like supporting free trade and supporting welfare for those who really need it are not incompatible. (By the way, I think she should support the TPP. Again, it's not incompatible with better health care or a higher minimum wage.)
Of course, this is literally history in the making, like all great firsts. But the real prizes in history are not just for being the 'first woman' or the 'first' whatever. The real prizes in history come to those who have made a big difference. For example, Barack Obama may have come to office most notably as the 'first black President', but he will leave office being remembered for much more.
If Hillary is to 'make a difference', she should start with her campaign. After all, a successful campaign supplies the winner with a strong mandate, and sets the tone for their government. And I believe Hillary should start with the fact that she is a uniter, not a divider. In a campaign where her opponent is perhaps the most divisive candidate of all time, I believe the message of unity and a government that looks after all citizens equally would strike a chord.
There has also been much said about whether her economic message should be based around the continuation of the successes of the Obama years, or a more radical Sanders-like message. But in reality, this is a false dichotomy. Good economic governance and acknowledging the fact that many Americans are currently struggling and the government should step in to help are not incompatible. Just like supporting free trade and supporting welfare for those who really need it are not incompatible. (By the way, I think she should support the TPP. Again, it's not incompatible with better health care or a higher minimum wage.)
Is President Barack Obama a Muslim? Of course not, but even Question is Sinister.
The question of whether US President Barack Obama is a muslim has been around like forever. Recently, it raised its ugly head again, when one of the speakers at the Republican National Convention was reported to state that he was certain that this silly myth was true. Some commentators pointed to the fact that, as more than 40% of Republican voters also believed this myth, it shouldn't be surprising that at least one speaker at their convention would share this belief.
Of course we know it's not true. We know that Obama is, and has always been, a devout Christian.
But what if he were indeed muslim. Would it matter? Why would it, as long as he is an effective President? The question of whether the President is a muslim, besides being ridiculous, is a very sinister one, as it implies that a muslim would be unfit to be president.
I think this reflects the relatively narrow-minded attitudes of Americans (sorry), compared to even other countries of similar culture. For example, there are plenty of muslim members of parliament in both the UK and Australia, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps it's time Americans reconsidered their stance.
Of course we know it's not true. We know that Obama is, and has always been, a devout Christian.
But what if he were indeed muslim. Would it matter? Why would it, as long as he is an effective President? The question of whether the President is a muslim, besides being ridiculous, is a very sinister one, as it implies that a muslim would be unfit to be president.
I think this reflects the relatively narrow-minded attitudes of Americans (sorry), compared to even other countries of similar culture. For example, there are plenty of muslim members of parliament in both the UK and Australia, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps it's time Americans reconsidered their stance.
Chilcot Report Vindicates Us who were Anti Iraq War. But where to next?
The British government's Chilcot Report, which found that there was inadequate justification for the War in Iraq, vindicated those of us who were bitterly opposed to the war back in 2003. It has taken almost half my lifetime so far for this taste of 'justice' I've been waiting for since I was 16, and it surely feels good.
But the question is, what should happen from here on? Some British commentators say that Blair could be sued for the war. But if he alone faced trial, that would be unfair, especially when it was Bush who started it. Australian indepdent MP Andrew Wilkie called for Bush, Blair and Howard to be all trialled in an international court. Sounds great to me, but I know it's not going to happen.
Most likely of all, Bush, Blair and Howard will not pay any price for the war at all. The chance to make them pay has gone. The chance was there back in 2004-5, when all three faced elections. But all three were returned by electorates which, in my opinion, were not interested in justice. Now it's too late.
p.s. The biggest injustice, in my opinion, is that Howard is now commonly regarded as Australia's most popular PM in recent history. Australians, please wake up!
But the question is, what should happen from here on? Some British commentators say that Blair could be sued for the war. But if he alone faced trial, that would be unfair, especially when it was Bush who started it. Australian indepdent MP Andrew Wilkie called for Bush, Blair and Howard to be all trialled in an international court. Sounds great to me, but I know it's not going to happen.
Most likely of all, Bush, Blair and Howard will not pay any price for the war at all. The chance to make them pay has gone. The chance was there back in 2004-5, when all three faced elections. But all three were returned by electorates which, in my opinion, were not interested in justice. Now it's too late.
p.s. The biggest injustice, in my opinion, is that Howard is now commonly regarded as Australia's most popular PM in recent history. Australians, please wake up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
With the Trump administration embroiled in the unpopular Iran War, several online influencers known for peddling extremely distasteful antis...
-
People have long been saying that ethnic enclaves are a bad thing for society. As someone who likes controversy and debate, let me put my ow...
-
It is an objective fact that both the left and the right have gotten more extreme in the past decade. Ideas previously considered taboo have...
