A New Jersey school continues to implement a policy of banning all Christmas Hymns and Carols. But the new twist is that the school has said that even instrumental versions of the songs must be banned. So the student orchestra is left with Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
This is because some students might feel left out....some students might be offended....even by the instrumental versions of the songs. Ridiculous.
A California teacher is in trouble for handing out historical documents that mention God...including the Declaration of Independence. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Target has decided not to allow Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their stores anymore (entirely their right, of course). But they have stated that it's their (own) non-solicitation policy that is the reason they're stopping their association with the Salvation Army. This also is an effort to make sure no one is offended.
However, inside the store they are happy to take your money for buying presents in celebration of a holiday that might offend.
We have no reasonable expectation of not ever being offended. Thanksgiving was about thanking God. Christmas is about Jesus. Our historical documents mention God because God was important to those who penned those documents...the founding documents of our country.
Freedom means that we might sometimes be offended. People should learn to deal with it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Scattershooting...
Sorry for the absence. We had a tragedy that needed my attention and I gave it. (read here)
Was the punishment handed down by NBA Commissioner David Stern the right one? Why only Artest? What about the fans...what is the proper punishment there?
Should beer be banned at NBA games? How about cutting off sales at the fourth quarter like baseball cuts off sales in the 7th inning. Should that be done?
About Thanksgiving...is it a religious holiday? Thankful for what? Thankful to whom?
Again, sorry for the absence.
Discuss.
Was the punishment handed down by NBA Commissioner David Stern the right one? Why only Artest? What about the fans...what is the proper punishment there?
Should beer be banned at NBA games? How about cutting off sales at the fourth quarter like baseball cuts off sales in the 7th inning. Should that be done?
About Thanksgiving...is it a religious holiday? Thankful for what? Thankful to whom?
Again, sorry for the absence.
Discuss.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Rules of Engagement
This has every possibility of becoming the next Abu Ghraib.
First, we should say that if a soldier did something wrong, it will be dealt with. Shooting someone who is unarmed and poses no threat is wrong and I am confident will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
However, remember the context of the event. These men have been fighting non-stop for 7 days at the time. One day before, another unit of soldiers went into this mosque that the enemy had occupied and was using as a fortress. When that unit went into that mosque there were booby-trapped dead insurgents (bodies with bombs set to explode and kill US service men)...one Marine was killed by an exploding insurgent!
So the next day another unit hears gunfire from the mosque. Their unit enters the mosque thinking that perhaps other insurgents have retaken the building. In the building are some wounded and dead insurgents.
The soldier (who just the day before had been shot in the face, but was back fighting with his unit) believes the man is faking and is still a threat. He shoots the man in the head killing him.
How, given the ways of this enemy, -- in a battle where even the dead pose a threat -- can you ever determine that someone poses no threat. If these are the facts of the case (and time will tell us more in the days ahead because of the investigation), is the soldier to blame?
This is not Abu Ghraib, but I'm not sure you're gonna know that by watching the news for the next week or so.
First, we should say that if a soldier did something wrong, it will be dealt with. Shooting someone who is unarmed and poses no threat is wrong and I am confident will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
However, remember the context of the event. These men have been fighting non-stop for 7 days at the time. One day before, another unit of soldiers went into this mosque that the enemy had occupied and was using as a fortress. When that unit went into that mosque there were booby-trapped dead insurgents (bodies with bombs set to explode and kill US service men)...one Marine was killed by an exploding insurgent!
So the next day another unit hears gunfire from the mosque. Their unit enters the mosque thinking that perhaps other insurgents have retaken the building. In the building are some wounded and dead insurgents.
The soldier (who just the day before had been shot in the face, but was back fighting with his unit) believes the man is faking and is still a threat. He shoots the man in the head killing him.
How, given the ways of this enemy, -- in a battle where even the dead pose a threat -- can you ever determine that someone poses no threat. If these are the facts of the case (and time will tell us more in the days ahead because of the investigation), is the soldier to blame?
This is not Abu Ghraib, but I'm not sure you're gonna know that by watching the news for the next week or so.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Baby Killer?
The Scott Peterson verdict came in at the end of the week, so perhaps America can move on to the next obsession.
Obviously, a tragic case...never to lessen the human element by discussing these things in an academic or analytical way. Tragedy all around. For Laci's family and friends as well as for the family and friends of the convicted killer.
I have found it interesting how major news outlets have so easily referred to Scott Peterson as a 'baby killer.'
From the beginning I believed that this case could be the one we look back to as the one that changed our mindset on the termination of the unborn. There will be conversations prompted by these questions: Is the unborn to be protected selectively? Are we to have to wonder, case by case, whether the taking of the life of the unborn is to be considered a crime?
Scott Peterson faces the death penalty ONLY because in this case the baby was protected by law. Otherwise, it would be a single murder. How can we put to death Scott Peterson and not have the debate that I am sure will follow this case?
The media that have been using the term 'baby killer' so easily will have birthed the conversation and the debate that will bring us closer to protecting the unborn not just from murderous dads...but from moms, too.
Obviously, a tragic case...never to lessen the human element by discussing these things in an academic or analytical way. Tragedy all around. For Laci's family and friends as well as for the family and friends of the convicted killer.
I have found it interesting how major news outlets have so easily referred to Scott Peterson as a 'baby killer.'
From the beginning I believed that this case could be the one we look back to as the one that changed our mindset on the termination of the unborn. There will be conversations prompted by these questions: Is the unborn to be protected selectively? Are we to have to wonder, case by case, whether the taking of the life of the unborn is to be considered a crime?
Scott Peterson faces the death penalty ONLY because in this case the baby was protected by law. Otherwise, it would be a single murder. How can we put to death Scott Peterson and not have the debate that I am sure will follow this case?
The media that have been using the term 'baby killer' so easily will have birthed the conversation and the debate that will bring us closer to protecting the unborn not just from murderous dads...but from moms, too.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Right decision....wrong reason.
Whenever this comes up, I stand the great chance of being misunderstood, so let me be perfectly clear:
1. I liked the movie 'Saving Private Ryan.'
2. I appreciated 'Saving Private Ryan' and I appreciate artistic integrity and the desires of a director (or any creator) to be allowed to craft as he sees fit.
3. I do not believe that 'Saving Private Ryan' should not be seen on television.
4. I DO believe that 'Saving Private Ryan' should not be seen on commercial television.
Some ABC affiliates have decided not to air 'Saving Private Ryan' tonight (story). I think it's the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
As I have always made the argument, the only problem is the fact that we're talking about public airwaves that are charged to 'broadcast in the public interest' and are bound to broadcast in accordance with 'community standards.' That isn't a favor they do us, that is their agreement to be granted their license.
If there is no editing of content that is clearly outside their agreement to be granted their license, there is no right to run programming. That is their agreement.
The ABC affiliates that have decided not to run this movie tonight (the same program many of them aired on two previous Veteran's Days) have made the right decision but for the wrong reason.
1. I liked the movie 'Saving Private Ryan.'
2. I appreciated 'Saving Private Ryan' and I appreciate artistic integrity and the desires of a director (or any creator) to be allowed to craft as he sees fit.
3. I do not believe that 'Saving Private Ryan' should not be seen on television.
4. I DO believe that 'Saving Private Ryan' should not be seen on commercial television.
Some ABC affiliates have decided not to air 'Saving Private Ryan' tonight (story). I think it's the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
As I have always made the argument, the only problem is the fact that we're talking about public airwaves that are charged to 'broadcast in the public interest' and are bound to broadcast in accordance with 'community standards.' That isn't a favor they do us, that is their agreement to be granted their license.
If there is no editing of content that is clearly outside their agreement to be granted their license, there is no right to run programming. That is their agreement.
The ABC affiliates that have decided not to run this movie tonight (the same program many of them aired on two previous Veteran's Days) have made the right decision but for the wrong reason.
Monday, November 08, 2004
If you don't learn from your mistakes...
You gotta love the tenacity of the liberals. (Maureen Dowd)
Deride the opposition...make fun of them...mock them. Call them names. Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better after a loss. I understand it, but it's counter-productive to building a better Democratic Party (don't get me wrong, I hope they keep it up).
But liberals will do that at the risk of learning what lessons there are to be learned.
Democrats seem to be suggesting that the problem was a communication problem...that if they had just better communicated on the values issue things might have turned out differently.
The problem wasn't how they communicated, but what they communicated.
I think Democrats were perfectly clear on where they stood on marriage, on embryonic stem cell research, on federal funding for abortion. Kerry in the debates said he 'respected' the position of those who disagreed with his position, but he was clear. And they were clear.
The problem was not with the messenger or the means of the message. What the majority of Americans rejected was the message.
It's easy to call Karl Rove a nerd and talk about how the president isn't very smart. But that will only assure that Democrats will be a longer term minority party than is already underway.
If Democrats don't (to quote them) 'admit mistakes, how can they learn from them?'
Deride the opposition...make fun of them...mock them. Call them names. Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better after a loss. I understand it, but it's counter-productive to building a better Democratic Party (don't get me wrong, I hope they keep it up).
But liberals will do that at the risk of learning what lessons there are to be learned.
Democrats seem to be suggesting that the problem was a communication problem...that if they had just better communicated on the values issue things might have turned out differently.
The problem wasn't how they communicated, but what they communicated.
I think Democrats were perfectly clear on where they stood on marriage, on embryonic stem cell research, on federal funding for abortion. Kerry in the debates said he 'respected' the position of those who disagreed with his position, but he was clear. And they were clear.
The problem was not with the messenger or the means of the message. What the majority of Americans rejected was the message.
It's easy to call Karl Rove a nerd and talk about how the president isn't very smart. But that will only assure that Democrats will be a longer term minority party than is already underway.
If Democrats don't (to quote them) 'admit mistakes, how can they learn from them?'
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Bush Wins
It's done.
Bush has won. There are details to be figured out, but that's the bottom line.
Mel Martinez is in in Florida. Tom Daschle is out...that is HUGE. Republicans keep the House, the Senate, and the White House. George Bush is the first president to win the election by carrying the popular vote since 1988 and was elected with more votes cast for him than any other president in American history.
It will be interesting to see if all the people who have said for four years that Gore (who won the popular vote by half a million) was the real president will accept that George Bush (who won this election by SIX TIMES that) is the legitimate president.
And isn't it interesting how when the Democratic candidate loses the popular vote, how important the electoral vote is to them.
Bush has won. There are details to be figured out, but that's the bottom line.
Mel Martinez is in in Florida. Tom Daschle is out...that is HUGE. Republicans keep the House, the Senate, and the White House. George Bush is the first president to win the election by carrying the popular vote since 1988 and was elected with more votes cast for him than any other president in American history.
It will be interesting to see if all the people who have said for four years that Gore (who won the popular vote by half a million) was the real president will accept that George Bush (who won this election by SIX TIMES that) is the legitimate president.
And isn't it interesting how when the Democratic candidate loses the popular vote, how important the electoral vote is to them.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)