From the New York Post yesterday...
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stirred up controversy in the Middle East yesterday by calling the crackpot gunman charged with shooting Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords an "extremist" -- but offered no evidence of a political agenda or a cause that would drive him to violence.
"We have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave, young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords, was just shot by an extremist in our country," Clinton said during a televised town hall-style meeting at a college in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Clinton brought up the slaughter by Jared Lee Loughner when questioned about why Americans appear to blame the entire Arab world for 9/11.
"We have the same kind of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence," she said.
"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions," added Clinton
By stating that "We have extremists in my country" and "We [U.S. and the Arab world] have the same kind of problems," the Secretary of State makes an excellent point about how much the U.S. and the Arab world have in common, the common problems we face and the effective and humane manner in which we deal with those problems. Like the U.S., the Arab world is rife with examples of groups with opposing ideas and values calmly and successfully presenting their positions to a populace that is then allowed to give their lawful consent via a popular vote. Like the U.S., the Arab world is a model of peaceful transfers of power, non-violent political activism, and a free exchange of ideas. Oh wait...
One mentally ill person does not a Jihad make. Lets not label all who reside in the Arab world as anything but people that just want to live their lives in peace, but let's not make silly comparisons. When Tea Party or ACORN folks start running into each others meetings strapped with grenades, then maybe we can talk. Otherwise, No, Hillary, we do not have the same kind of problems.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
I suppose everything that could be said has been said regarding the proposed removal of the word "nigger" from Twain's "Huckleberry Finn." Most editorials I have read denounce the removal of the word as needless censorship and an attempt to sanitize the past and conform a representative piece of work to the current era's feeble sensibilities and sensitivities.
This is all well and good, but what I find intensely interesting is the refusal of most editorials to actually use the word "nigger" to defend it's use in Huck Finn. Take good 'ole Rich Lowry's piece in the NY post today. While making a surprisingly eloquent argument, Lowry just can't bring himself to use the actual word, "nigger," instead relying on the safe euphemism we've all come to know and love, "N- word." He even takes the hangman approach, quoting a passage of the book by exchanging "nigger" with "n_ _ _ _ _." Incidentally, Lowry has no issue with spelling out the term "injun."
Really? Is there any recognition or understanding of the concept of "context" anywhere in the media, or society as a whole? Are we that pathetic that we have to be protected from seeing the word "nigger" written, even in a newspaper and under these circumstances? Sheesh.
Is there any hope for us? On a hunch, I took a look at the current Billboard 100 chart. Currently sitting at #17 - 'Lil Wayne's newest gem, "6 Foot, 7 Foot." Here's an excerpt of the lyrics...
black and white diamonds, f-ck segregation
f-ck that shit, my money up, you niggas just Honey Nut
Young Money running shit and you niggas just runner-ups
Am I missing something?