The test was passed, but was it challenging enough? My thought is that a good test to see whether or not something is human is to probe for a sense of creativity or the ability to be illogical.
I'm still not completely convinced that Maya is human.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Are you human?
I ran into banking issues, so I decided to do an online chat. Didn't my helper seem to be just a little...robotic? I decided to test him/her/it.
The test was passed, but was it challenging enough? My thought is that a good test to see whether or not something is human is to probe for a sense of creativity or the ability to be illogical.
I'm still not completely convinced that Maya is human.
The test was passed, but was it challenging enough? My thought is that a good test to see whether or not something is human is to probe for a sense of creativity or the ability to be illogical.
I'm still not completely convinced that Maya is human.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Why haven't aliens contacted us?
Some people believe that the lack of outside contact is evidence that complex life does not exist in the universe. As the idea goes, we know that simple life is easy to create (from our own experience). Yet, complex life defined as a civilization at or beyond our level apparently does not exist. If they did, presumably there would be a lot of them, and we would find evidence of them in the frequencies of the cosmos. So some people believe life is easy to start but hard / impossible to develop beyond a stage where we are, the conclusion being something snuffs out the civilization when it is about our age. Maybe nuclear weapons are to blame.
There is a tribe deep in the Amazon jungle in Brazil that has never had contact with humans from the outside. The Brazilian government is actively protecting them from outsiders who are trying to contact them, in fact. If anyone is curious why we haven't been contacted - this is my theory why: we are the equivalent to the uncontacted Brazilian tribe. There probably are millions of intelligent civilizations, and maybe even the supreme among them are protecting our planet from outside signals from others who would interfere. In their mind, we should make our own way. If we succeed then we can join the league of universal civilizations. If we destroy ourselves in the interim, then we weren't a worthy species.
I think Bill Watterson's theory is good too:
There is a tribe deep in the Amazon jungle in Brazil that has never had contact with humans from the outside. The Brazilian government is actively protecting them from outsiders who are trying to contact them, in fact. If anyone is curious why we haven't been contacted - this is my theory why: we are the equivalent to the uncontacted Brazilian tribe. There probably are millions of intelligent civilizations, and maybe even the supreme among them are protecting our planet from outside signals from others who would interfere. In their mind, we should make our own way. If we succeed then we can join the league of universal civilizations. If we destroy ourselves in the interim, then we weren't a worthy species.
I think Bill Watterson's theory is good too:
Monday, February 06, 2012
Indiana right-to-work, breaking the Union of the 1%.
Indiana just passed right-to-work legislation. The standard labor argument (against Mitch Daniels) is that all workers benefit from the actions of a worker's union, so they should all contribute. I'm not sure if that is true. There are some cases of overlap I'm sure, but one of the most important benefits of being in a union is protection from being laid off "unfairly". If a worker declined to pay union fees and didn't join the union, they face that risk. It's a calculation that any individual would need to make - but clearly, if the benefits of unionization are so great, theres no need for a law that forces a worker to join. I am always for greater individual freedom, so I definitely side with Mitch Daniels on this issue. Workers have the right to organize and join unions, but unions shouldn't have the right to force workers to join.
On a somewhat related note, consider what the essence of unionization is: it is undeserved economic influence; economic power at above-market rates. In a union, a collection of individuals organize within the framework of a larger group such that, by virtue of that organization, they become more influential than the sum of their parts. They increase their economic power not by increasing productivity, but by pressing political advantage into economic gain. Obviously, this leads to less efficient labor markets - and many others are hurt in consequence, including non-unionized workers.
Now stop and consider the entrenched financial and corporate elite in this country. The "1%" generally is a very productive group, and in a genuinely free market they would be compensated handsomely for their efforts. However, by virtue of their connections to politicians and their virtual ownership of government in general, the financial and corporate elite have been able to press their advantage. They have built a system from the inside that favors them unfairly. They are no different than factory workers who unionize and demand outrageous or unearned pay.
Wall Street and many entrenched corporations have economic power beyond that which their productivity deserves. Tax-payer bailouts and implicit government backing of too-big-to-fail institutions. A tax code, written by armies of lawyers and voted into being by bought politicians, which is insanely complex and riddled with loopholes that benefit the authors. Entrenched corporations (think: unionized workers) with their lobbyists buy themselves government subsidies and tax breaks; these are advantages that their smaller or newer competitors (think: non-unionized labor) don't enjoy. The power of the financial and corporate elite, like unionized workers in a factory, is greater than the sum of their parts. This is the Union of the 1%.
While Democrats are funded by traditional middle-class unions, Republicans are backed by the union on Wall Street - and as the financial crash in 2007 showed, the latter is more detrimental to the economy. So: want to do some union busting, and make our economy more competitive? Fine. Lets not stop with the middle class unions. We need to end corporate welfare. Simplify the tax code. Break up any company or bank that is implicitly backed by the taxpayers because it is too big to fail. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks to entrenched corporations. End attempts at regulating the internet. Re-write our ridiculous patent laws which have been woven into place by entrenched companies to keep out the competition. THAT is how you revitalize the American economy.
This is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Americans have gone along with the de-unionization of the middle classes for decades, and the promised gains in living standards have absolutely failed to be realized. Now its time to end the union of Wall Street, of the entrenched interests, of the elites who own Washington.
On a somewhat related note, consider what the essence of unionization is: it is undeserved economic influence; economic power at above-market rates. In a union, a collection of individuals organize within the framework of a larger group such that, by virtue of that organization, they become more influential than the sum of their parts. They increase their economic power not by increasing productivity, but by pressing political advantage into economic gain. Obviously, this leads to less efficient labor markets - and many others are hurt in consequence, including non-unionized workers.
Now stop and consider the entrenched financial and corporate elite in this country. The "1%" generally is a very productive group, and in a genuinely free market they would be compensated handsomely for their efforts. However, by virtue of their connections to politicians and their virtual ownership of government in general, the financial and corporate elite have been able to press their advantage. They have built a system from the inside that favors them unfairly. They are no different than factory workers who unionize and demand outrageous or unearned pay.
Wall Street and many entrenched corporations have economic power beyond that which their productivity deserves. Tax-payer bailouts and implicit government backing of too-big-to-fail institutions. A tax code, written by armies of lawyers and voted into being by bought politicians, which is insanely complex and riddled with loopholes that benefit the authors. Entrenched corporations (think: unionized workers) with their lobbyists buy themselves government subsidies and tax breaks; these are advantages that their smaller or newer competitors (think: non-unionized labor) don't enjoy. The power of the financial and corporate elite, like unionized workers in a factory, is greater than the sum of their parts. This is the Union of the 1%.
While Democrats are funded by traditional middle-class unions, Republicans are backed by the union on Wall Street - and as the financial crash in 2007 showed, the latter is more detrimental to the economy. So: want to do some union busting, and make our economy more competitive? Fine. Lets not stop with the middle class unions. We need to end corporate welfare. Simplify the tax code. Break up any company or bank that is implicitly backed by the taxpayers because it is too big to fail. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks to entrenched corporations. End attempts at regulating the internet. Re-write our ridiculous patent laws which have been woven into place by entrenched companies to keep out the competition. THAT is how you revitalize the American economy.
This is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Americans have gone along with the de-unionization of the middle classes for decades, and the promised gains in living standards have absolutely failed to be realized. Now its time to end the union of Wall Street, of the entrenched interests, of the elites who own Washington.
Friday, December 23, 2011
On Traveling, Surgery Residency, and the Intensity of Experience
In his recent book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", Daniel Kahneman expands upon an interesting concept. He describes two ways that human beings perceive reality: the experience of the present and the remembrance of the past. He calls them our "experiencing selves" and "remembering selves" and shows that they often fail to come to a consensus, as illustrated by a beautiful experiment with absurd results:
Participants are subjected to two forms of torture. In one form, the participant's hand is immersed in painfully cold water for 60 seconds. In the other, the hand is immersed in the same painfully cold water also for 60 seconds, at which point the water is warmed 1 degree Celsius and the participant must now endure 30 more seconds of slightly less painfully cold water, for a total of 90 seconds.
If I was going through this torture, at the end of 60 seconds I would obviously prefer to just take my hand out of the water instead of endure another 30 seconds of still very cold water! And most people, if given that option at the time, would do the same. Remarkably, if the participants are later asked which form of torture they prefer, they actually choose the 60 + 30 instead of just the 60. They are voluntarily willing to subject themselves needlessly to an additional 30 seconds of pain!
Why does this happen? Kahneman explains that while the duration and aggregate of an experience might matter to our experiencing selves, those details are easily glossed over by our remembering selves. In fact, our remembering selves focus disproportionately on the beginning, end, lows, and highs of an experience. Another question is posed by Kahneman: would you bother to go somewhere on a vacation if you would have complete amnesia of the entire trip? I'm not sure I would. At that point, relaxation is the only thing that matters (and maybe sun exposure). I might opt for Florida instead of the Bahamas or somewhere more exotic, if I was going to go anywhere at all.
The conflict between our experiencing and remembering selves was an interesting subject for me to read, because it neatly explains a paradoxical trend I had noticed: I remember some situations as being better than I know they actually were at the time (if I am thinking of the sum of the entire experience in aggregate). For example, one of my favorite semesters as an undergraduate was the spring of my junior year, but I also know with certainty that I was insanely busy, studied harder than I ever had, and went out very infrequently. I remember my social life being significantly better than average that semester, which I know empirically is not actually true (I even went to bed early on my 21st birthday because I had a physics test the next week, to the chagrin of my roommates at the time).
In light of Kahneman's book, it makes perfect sense. I didn't go out as frequently, but when I did, it was a much more intense experience. Going out after two weeks studying is just a different feeling than going out for the fourth night in a row. In fact, I remember having significantly MORE fun in medical school than I did in undergrad. Frequency matters less than intensity of experience.
I've noticed this paradox about traveling as well. Traveling is by definition not a relaxing experience (that would be vacationing). Right before medical school I went on a 6 week trip through Europe with some friends. It was a mad rush, to fit in as much as possible, stopping at places sometimes for only 1-2 days before moving on. The trip was exhausting, I remember thinking on more than one occasion. Yet, my remembering self recalls more easily the positive experiences - which were many, and noteworthy, and easily forgets the baseline exhaustion of the grind of intense traveling. This phenomenon can be explained graphically, with the spikes representing the intensity of experiences while the baseline is the quality of life day-to-day. When traveling, there is an obvious sacrifice of short term conveniences, habits, and luxuries for the opportunity to have heightened experiences:
I chose to go into surgery, which as a career has a reputation of being brutal. The long hours and the daily grind mean that I know my experiencing (present) self is, while maybe not completely miserable, certainly wishing I had chosen a more relaxing life. There is a conflict, because when my remembering self recalls the last six months, it think it has been one of the best times of my life. My experiencing self thinks surgery residency is tough and often painful, but my remembering self thinks its great and not so bad. I remember the interesting surgical cases, complex patients, and funny stories - not the long hours.
Like is the case when traveling, I've sacrificed my experiencing self for the sake of the remembering self, in this instance the sacrifice being ample sleep, free time, etc. I am compensated by doing really neat things on occasion. Finally, recall the anecdote from my junior year in undergrad: in residency, when I do get time off, its much more high impact. The fact that I only get every other weekend off on average is more than compensated by the fact that each weekend has 2-3 times the impact that they used to.
I suppose this is something to think about, whether traveling or choosing a career path. Perhaps the difference maker for me is that I am too willing to make decisions based on the preferences of my remembering self. Still, for a person choosing whether or not go to into medical school, or whether or not to go into surgery, "long hours" is something I am glad I never put too much weight on (because hours are essentially forgotten by the remembering self). Like a person who subject themselves to 30 seconds of needless pain in Kahneman's torture experiment, I would choose surgery residency all over again, even if my experiencing self would prefer a more laid back profession. Absurd results, indeed.
Participants are subjected to two forms of torture. In one form, the participant's hand is immersed in painfully cold water for 60 seconds. In the other, the hand is immersed in the same painfully cold water also for 60 seconds, at which point the water is warmed 1 degree Celsius and the participant must now endure 30 more seconds of slightly less painfully cold water, for a total of 90 seconds.
If I was going through this torture, at the end of 60 seconds I would obviously prefer to just take my hand out of the water instead of endure another 30 seconds of still very cold water! And most people, if given that option at the time, would do the same. Remarkably, if the participants are later asked which form of torture they prefer, they actually choose the 60 + 30 instead of just the 60. They are voluntarily willing to subject themselves needlessly to an additional 30 seconds of pain!
Why does this happen? Kahneman explains that while the duration and aggregate of an experience might matter to our experiencing selves, those details are easily glossed over by our remembering selves. In fact, our remembering selves focus disproportionately on the beginning, end, lows, and highs of an experience. Another question is posed by Kahneman: would you bother to go somewhere on a vacation if you would have complete amnesia of the entire trip? I'm not sure I would. At that point, relaxation is the only thing that matters (and maybe sun exposure). I might opt for Florida instead of the Bahamas or somewhere more exotic, if I was going to go anywhere at all.
The conflict between our experiencing and remembering selves was an interesting subject for me to read, because it neatly explains a paradoxical trend I had noticed: I remember some situations as being better than I know they actually were at the time (if I am thinking of the sum of the entire experience in aggregate). For example, one of my favorite semesters as an undergraduate was the spring of my junior year, but I also know with certainty that I was insanely busy, studied harder than I ever had, and went out very infrequently. I remember my social life being significantly better than average that semester, which I know empirically is not actually true (I even went to bed early on my 21st birthday because I had a physics test the next week, to the chagrin of my roommates at the time).
In light of Kahneman's book, it makes perfect sense. I didn't go out as frequently, but when I did, it was a much more intense experience. Going out after two weeks studying is just a different feeling than going out for the fourth night in a row. In fact, I remember having significantly MORE fun in medical school than I did in undergrad. Frequency matters less than intensity of experience.
I've noticed this paradox about traveling as well. Traveling is by definition not a relaxing experience (that would be vacationing). Right before medical school I went on a 6 week trip through Europe with some friends. It was a mad rush, to fit in as much as possible, stopping at places sometimes for only 1-2 days before moving on. The trip was exhausting, I remember thinking on more than one occasion. Yet, my remembering self recalls more easily the positive experiences - which were many, and noteworthy, and easily forgets the baseline exhaustion of the grind of intense traveling. This phenomenon can be explained graphically, with the spikes representing the intensity of experiences while the baseline is the quality of life day-to-day. When traveling, there is an obvious sacrifice of short term conveniences, habits, and luxuries for the opportunity to have heightened experiences:
I chose to go into surgery, which as a career has a reputation of being brutal. The long hours and the daily grind mean that I know my experiencing (present) self is, while maybe not completely miserable, certainly wishing I had chosen a more relaxing life. There is a conflict, because when my remembering self recalls the last six months, it think it has been one of the best times of my life. My experiencing self thinks surgery residency is tough and often painful, but my remembering self thinks its great and not so bad. I remember the interesting surgical cases, complex patients, and funny stories - not the long hours.
Like is the case when traveling, I've sacrificed my experiencing self for the sake of the remembering self, in this instance the sacrifice being ample sleep, free time, etc. I am compensated by doing really neat things on occasion. Finally, recall the anecdote from my junior year in undergrad: in residency, when I do get time off, its much more high impact. The fact that I only get every other weekend off on average is more than compensated by the fact that each weekend has 2-3 times the impact that they used to.
I suppose this is something to think about, whether traveling or choosing a career path. Perhaps the difference maker for me is that I am too willing to make decisions based on the preferences of my remembering self. Still, for a person choosing whether or not go to into medical school, or whether or not to go into surgery, "long hours" is something I am glad I never put too much weight on (because hours are essentially forgotten by the remembering self). Like a person who subject themselves to 30 seconds of needless pain in Kahneman's torture experiment, I would choose surgery residency all over again, even if my experiencing self would prefer a more laid back profession. Absurd results, indeed.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The intent of the founders: representing the people while avoiding gridlock
I've always been a moderate person who believes, contrary to Herman Cain, that the problem with America isn't too much compromise, but rather a lack of compromise. My vision of a smoothly functioning American government is when civil and well-informed representatives of the people converge on Washington, hash out their differences, and produce well intentioned legislation based on the best possible compromises. The goal is to give everyone some of what they want, nobody all of what they want, and always to move America forward.
Some people have intimated, from time to time, that it is fundamentally anti-democratic that I might wish that the representatives decide among themselves what the important issues would be and deal with them accordingly. And I fully admit that I believe that representatives should prioritize their constituents' interests, and even ignore some of them. Some would claim this position reeks of elitism, and that the truly democratic model is to elect representatives who follow their constituents' short-term inclinations to the letter.
If my view is wrong, why did the founders make America a republic? If the founders wanted direct democracy, they would have written into our constitution a form of direct democracy: but they didn't. I believe the founders understood that most Americans have better things to do than worry about politics, or alternatively, don't have the information access or facilities to really grasp the complexities anyway. Elitist? Sure, I'll cede that. But the founders counted on the people electing competent representatives who would follow the spirit of their constituents as best they could within the context of the federal government of a very large and diverse nation.
I've been trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with our political system, and it seems to me that we really almost have moved to a form of direct democracy. Especially with the advent of rapid communications, information technology, massive advertising budgets, messages matter. A hundred years ago, a well meaning representative could sacrifice some of his constituents' priorities in order to gain a compromise that was essential for the nation or one that advanced his voters' interests in other ways.
These days, its different. When a representative insults that small fraction of his support, he gets crucified for it. This is particularly true among the GOP today, which is more a consequence of them being the out-of-power party than anything else. Any one Republican who has bucked any one interest has paid a price. Mitch Daniels saw what most credible economists see: we cant balance the budget without some revenue increases. So why not a VAT? And yet, in today's GOP, proposing a tax of any sort is sacrilegious. Dick Lugar recognized a good START treaty with Russia and supported it along with all of the top military brass, and he was rewarded with a primary. I don't see any way that John Boehner makes it out of the 2012 election with a job. He will vote to increase the debt ceiling, and he will get primaried because of it.
In essence, the rapidity of the response to politics has moved us into an era of what is essentially direct democracy. And unfortunately, the American people don't always know exactly what they want. We want the government to keep its miserable hands off of our Medicare. We want to cut spending, but not cut medicare, social security, or defense. We think that cutting foreign aid to Pakistan will balance our budget. Direct democracy was most obvious in California, where the people consistently vote themselves more services but then refuse to increase taxes to pay for them. The founders knew that there needed to be a competent crew manning the rigging of the ship that we call America. Just let the passengers run things and there is chaos.
Many try to argue that this sad state of affairs is the fault of a misleading media or lying politicians, but I don't buy that. Politicians have always lied, and the media has always been biased. The single biggest thing that has changed is that politicians are now held in an environment where they are unable to make any sacrifices in the name of compromise whatsoever. It is this inability which has led to the intractable gridlock that we now see, and probably will continue to see, for some time. Until American politicians again act as the founders intended them to act, as representatives of a great republic rather than as mere puppets of fickle and conflicted constituents, this ship will continue to drift aimlessly at sea.
Some people have intimated, from time to time, that it is fundamentally anti-democratic that I might wish that the representatives decide among themselves what the important issues would be and deal with them accordingly. And I fully admit that I believe that representatives should prioritize their constituents' interests, and even ignore some of them. Some would claim this position reeks of elitism, and that the truly democratic model is to elect representatives who follow their constituents' short-term inclinations to the letter.
If my view is wrong, why did the founders make America a republic? If the founders wanted direct democracy, they would have written into our constitution a form of direct democracy: but they didn't. I believe the founders understood that most Americans have better things to do than worry about politics, or alternatively, don't have the information access or facilities to really grasp the complexities anyway. Elitist? Sure, I'll cede that. But the founders counted on the people electing competent representatives who would follow the spirit of their constituents as best they could within the context of the federal government of a very large and diverse nation.
I've been trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with our political system, and it seems to me that we really almost have moved to a form of direct democracy. Especially with the advent of rapid communications, information technology, massive advertising budgets, messages matter. A hundred years ago, a well meaning representative could sacrifice some of his constituents' priorities in order to gain a compromise that was essential for the nation or one that advanced his voters' interests in other ways.
These days, its different. When a representative insults that small fraction of his support, he gets crucified for it. This is particularly true among the GOP today, which is more a consequence of them being the out-of-power party than anything else. Any one Republican who has bucked any one interest has paid a price. Mitch Daniels saw what most credible economists see: we cant balance the budget without some revenue increases. So why not a VAT? And yet, in today's GOP, proposing a tax of any sort is sacrilegious. Dick Lugar recognized a good START treaty with Russia and supported it along with all of the top military brass, and he was rewarded with a primary. I don't see any way that John Boehner makes it out of the 2012 election with a job. He will vote to increase the debt ceiling, and he will get primaried because of it.
In essence, the rapidity of the response to politics has moved us into an era of what is essentially direct democracy. And unfortunately, the American people don't always know exactly what they want. We want the government to keep its miserable hands off of our Medicare. We want to cut spending, but not cut medicare, social security, or defense. We think that cutting foreign aid to Pakistan will balance our budget. Direct democracy was most obvious in California, where the people consistently vote themselves more services but then refuse to increase taxes to pay for them. The founders knew that there needed to be a competent crew manning the rigging of the ship that we call America. Just let the passengers run things and there is chaos.
Many try to argue that this sad state of affairs is the fault of a misleading media or lying politicians, but I don't buy that. Politicians have always lied, and the media has always been biased. The single biggest thing that has changed is that politicians are now held in an environment where they are unable to make any sacrifices in the name of compromise whatsoever. It is this inability which has led to the intractable gridlock that we now see, and probably will continue to see, for some time. Until American politicians again act as the founders intended them to act, as representatives of a great republic rather than as mere puppets of fickle and conflicted constituents, this ship will continue to drift aimlessly at sea.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
***** UPDATE *****
1. More regarding point 4 below, where I connect the mainstreaming of anti-Muslim sentiment with the political aspirations of the GOP. Here is Andrew Sullivan elaborating on that point: "You reap what you sow. You turn a benign Muslim community center into a "stab in the heart" of Americans (in Sarah Palin's words) and someone soon will up the ante." The fact that Palin herself doesn't support the Koran burning is irrelevant. If you help ignite a fire, don't try to claim innocence when it starts to burn out of control.
2. Terry Jones totally chickened out. He says he canceled the burning because the NYC Imam agreed to move the mosque there. This is BS for two reasons. One is because the NYC mosque organizers promised no such thing. Two is because Terry Jones' motivation for the burning never was the NYC mosque. He was doing it because he claimed the book "is full of lies", and he probably thinks he is doing God a favor by burning Korans. Presumably he still believes that. My money says the real reason he canceled the burning is because getting death threats isn't as fun as it sounds. He is a fraud to begin with (read about his ministry in Germany), so I'm not surprised that he bailed on his publicity stunt when he realized he might actually be in danger.
3. The Westboro Baptist Church has promised to stage a Koran burning if Jones backs out. This is not surprising. We have 300 million Americans, many of whom are crazy. We have all seen how much attention someone can get for threatening to burn Korans, so I definitely expected someone to repeat, although not to quickly. As I said before, the real story here is that Muslims world-wide just need to grow up and realize that throwing a temper tantrum every time someone insults their religion isn't going to repeal the 1st Amendment.
***** END UPDATE *****
That was Heinrich Heine in 1821. I read this quote with connection to the Florida Pastor's decision to stage a "Quran-burning day" on 9/11 this year. A few thoughts on that:
1. Burning books is fundamentally un-American.
2. This pastor has a right to make a fool of himself and his 50 followers.
3. If I was a Muslim I'd be most bothered by the predictably childish reaction to the burning, not the burning itself. That is, millions of Muslims worldwide with apparently nothing better to do will have a childish, almost Pavlovian reaction to this "insult". They will work themselves into a tizzy and probably dozens of people will die because of some irrelevant stunt pulled by some jackass in Florida, United States, of all places. Such a reaction is a sign of intellectual weakness, of insecurity, and of backwardness.
4. There is a very clear connection between the mainstreaming of attacks on Islam and the political inclinations of the right. A majority of Republicans think that Obama is a Muslim or is not an American. This is not novel. The right does this sort of thing all the time. Hispanics, homosexuals, and atheists are the tried-and-true scapegoats; Muslims are a more recent addition. These tactics are proven; they work very well. They don't make America a better place.
1. More regarding point 4 below, where I connect the mainstreaming of anti-Muslim sentiment with the political aspirations of the GOP. Here is Andrew Sullivan elaborating on that point: "You reap what you sow. You turn a benign Muslim community center into a "stab in the heart" of Americans (in Sarah Palin's words) and someone soon will up the ante." The fact that Palin herself doesn't support the Koran burning is irrelevant. If you help ignite a fire, don't try to claim innocence when it starts to burn out of control.
2. Terry Jones totally chickened out. He says he canceled the burning because the NYC Imam agreed to move the mosque there. This is BS for two reasons. One is because the NYC mosque organizers promised no such thing. Two is because Terry Jones' motivation for the burning never was the NYC mosque. He was doing it because he claimed the book "is full of lies", and he probably thinks he is doing God a favor by burning Korans. Presumably he still believes that. My money says the real reason he canceled the burning is because getting death threats isn't as fun as it sounds. He is a fraud to begin with (read about his ministry in Germany), so I'm not surprised that he bailed on his publicity stunt when he realized he might actually be in danger.
3. The Westboro Baptist Church has promised to stage a Koran burning if Jones backs out. This is not surprising. We have 300 million Americans, many of whom are crazy. We have all seen how much attention someone can get for threatening to burn Korans, so I definitely expected someone to repeat, although not to quickly. As I said before, the real story here is that Muslims world-wide just need to grow up and realize that throwing a temper tantrum every time someone insults their religion isn't going to repeal the 1st Amendment.
***** END UPDATE *****
That was Heinrich Heine in 1821. I read this quote with connection to the Florida Pastor's decision to stage a "Quran-burning day" on 9/11 this year. A few thoughts on that:
1. Burning books is fundamentally un-American.
2. This pastor has a right to make a fool of himself and his 50 followers.
3. If I was a Muslim I'd be most bothered by the predictably childish reaction to the burning, not the burning itself. That is, millions of Muslims worldwide with apparently nothing better to do will have a childish, almost Pavlovian reaction to this "insult". They will work themselves into a tizzy and probably dozens of people will die because of some irrelevant stunt pulled by some jackass in Florida, United States, of all places. Such a reaction is a sign of intellectual weakness, of insecurity, and of backwardness.
4. There is a very clear connection between the mainstreaming of attacks on Islam and the political inclinations of the right. A majority of Republicans think that Obama is a Muslim or is not an American. This is not novel. The right does this sort of thing all the time. Hispanics, homosexuals, and atheists are the tried-and-true scapegoats; Muslims are a more recent addition. These tactics are proven; they work very well. They don't make America a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)