Jan/09©Chris Farley
Questions
What does it say about a country when a fairly elected senator is told that he won’t be seated, but a senator appointed by a likely felon is?
What does it say about the power of religion over reason when people put bumper stickers that say, “Wherever I stand, I stand with Israel” on their car? Are people so blind to the reality that nothing is black and white?
Does the fact that a president is much freer to make good, if not politically popular decisions when he doesn’t have to be reelected mean we should reevaluate our electoral system?
Is it possible to defend freedom and liberty by taking it away? How far down that path can one go before there’s no freedom or liberty left to defend? Once one freedom or liberty is taken away and is in some way philosophically justified, is there anything to prevent any remaining freedoms or liberties from being taken away?
What does it say about society when MTV feels the way to save itself is to add 16 new reality shows to its lineup? If they go bankrupt, should the CEO fall through a trapdoor in the platform, have to live on an island for a few months, or be made to eat a live scorpion?
If all information is meant to be free (as some proponents of repealing copyright legislation argue), then what incentive will publishers and creators of everything from web content to music to books to movies have to continue creating new things? Wouldn’t there be much less quality information?
If new media is the future, why is old media still the gold standard, even for bloggers?
If the war on terror and Islamic extremism is so important, why are we only partially engaged? Are we just prolonging an end? Don’t we have to decide if we’re completely committed or just dangling our feet in the water? Is the only way to end this either to leave or take control of every country harboring Islamic extremists?
Would it be a good idea to return the electoral college to its intended use and have individual voters vote for a trusted individual to vote on their behalf, instead of voters voting for electors who they know will vote for a certain candidate? The average voter isn’t well informed, so doesn’t it make sense to distance them?
Why do we ignore Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations, but Bush Administration officials are quick to point out that part of the reason for invading Iraq was their human rights violations?
How can someone have a 69.4% job approval rating before they’ve actually taken the job?
Just a few questions. I’m sure there’ll be more. Let me know what you think in the comments.
Leave a comment
No trackbacks yet.
2:59 am on January 9th, 2009
If I am not mistaken, Barack's 69.4% approval rating has to do with how he is handling the transition process. Nice to see that you are back in the swing of blogging, I also see from your TWITTER thing that you are going to the inauguration. Will your website have coverage for us who cannot be there?
7:21 am on January 9th, 2009
First I would like to say that I'm glad you are back to blogging.
Second, Israel is not the bad guy. Those people have been killing Israelis for years now by launching all those rockets, but as soon as Israel tries to defend themselves they become terrorist? Israel has a right to defend themselves.
4:31 am on January 11th, 2009
Certainly Israel has a right to defend itself, but the situation is more complicated than black and white. Israel has been at fault several times since it was created. Those bumper stickers oversimplify a complicated situation.
4:36 am on January 11th, 2009
Yes, the approval rating is about how he's handling the transition process, but at the moment, he's techincally without a job. Just amusing.
I will be at the Inauguration and a blog post about coverage is forthcoming.
3:59 am on February 3rd, 2009
Excuse me, but I don't think that you, being the 14 year old you are, have any given right to comment on such a war as the one Israel is currently in. For starters, this war is one that has been fought for hundreds of years, and will most likely never end, regardless of how we act, or other countries around us. Secondly, Israel can be at no fault here for defending their land and trying to get rid of the scum that is palestine. Palestinians are skillfully hiding in public places and communities (i.e schools) in order to try to frame Israel as the "bad guy" when really, Israel is attacking the terrorists who harm them, not the innocent civilians whose lives are at stake because of where the palestinians choose to hide.
I agree that sometime religion is chosen over reason, but it is clear that you haven't thought of the mere possibility that reason is based on religion, or vice versa, as is evident with this ongoing war. And also, the people who pride such bumper stickers as you suggest probably are very pro-israel (definitely, actually), regardless of what Israel is doing, and how they are acting; especially when it has to do with defeating (or attempting to) the palestinians.
1:34 am on February 7th, 2009
Indeed, this war has been fought for hundreds, arguably thousands of years. As such, I don't think that being 20 or 30 years old is going to make any difference on a scale of thousands of years. I don't pretend to be an expert on the conflict. There are very few who are.
If you're going to make the argument of it's theirland, then I entreat you to look a little deeper. Certainly, it's now Israel's land because the international community recognizes it as such, but there were people, Palestinians, on that land before the Israelis. And who was on it before the Palestinians? You can go back a very long way if you're going to make an argument based on who was there first. Both sides have legitimate reasons to claim the land as their own.
As for the terrorist acts, I agree that the terrorist acts are terrible, but causing Palestine “scum” says a great deal more about the speaker than it does about the recipient. As I've said, both sides have legitimate claims to make and Palestinians are trying to claim the land they think they own. If you thought you had a legitimate claim, you'd probably do something similar. All the same, that doesn't make their actions acceptable, suffice it to say that Israel hasn't been saintly and has had a role in the degeneration of the situation.
3:52 am on February 20th, 2009
It would not be a good idea to return the electoral college back into a form of representative voting. The American people already have their vote represented on issues by their senators and representatives in Congress. The presidential election is a process in which the American people choose one person to lead them and to be their representative to the international community. Having an elite group of people choose a person to represent an entire nation on an international scale would not make logical sense. Uninformed voters have their vote represented by an intelligent representative in Congress. The uninformed public has their country represented by an intelligent person in the White House.
12:34 pm on May 16th, 2009
Agreed. Israel's NOT the bad guy here. As far as individuals' commitment to ANY land or cause: if it's part of their belief system, then yes, of course they'll love it unconditionally. Penn Jillette is a *rabid* atheist, as was George Carlin. Yet, it was interesting how George still made God references in his act. I wish I could have asked him that.. Whatever the case, there are many **reasons** so many people are attached to Israel. Some of them have a basis in logic, and some have a basis in emotion-as-a-result-of-faith.