Comments for Ted Galen Carpenter http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog Promoting Peace and Freedom in the World Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:32:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 Comment on Our Tax Dollars: Supporting Child Rape in Afghanistan by Elaine Bergstrom http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=405#comment-6797 Elaine Bergstrom Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:29:56 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=405#comment-6797 That should have read ... And this is surprising? That should have read … And this is surprising?

]]> Comment on Our Tax Dollars: Supporting Child Rape in Afghanistan by Elaine Bergstrom http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=405#comment-6796 Elaine Bergstrom Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:29:02 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=405#comment-6796 And this is surprising. The way Afghan men treat their women is a perversion, so why not one more. But, Ted, recall the ancient Greeks where this sort of behavior was just as prevalent (and women were treated rather well)and the older man was the teacher of the youth. The moral is, there is no accounting for culture. Two things the article does not mention is that often the man will marry the youth to one of his daughters when he comes of age, to keep him in the family. And there is no mention of the child rapes that go on in madrassas. I have an Indian friend who says their behavior makes the most horrific Catholic priest stories look positively tame by comparison. I have plenty of OTHER reasons for wanting this stupid war to end. Better yet,with hindsight, we should have helped the Russians stay there instead of arming the future Taliban. At least when the Russians were there, girls went to school, too. And this is surprising. The way Afghan men treat their women is a perversion, so why not one more. But, Ted, recall the ancient Greeks where this sort of behavior was just as prevalent (and women were treated rather well)and the older man was the teacher of the youth. The moral is, there is no accounting for culture. Two things the article does not mention is that often the man will marry the youth to one of his daughters when he comes of age, to keep him in the family. And there is no mention of the child rapes that go on in madrassas. I have an Indian friend who says their behavior makes the most horrific Catholic priest stories look positively tame by comparison.
I have plenty of OTHER reasons for wanting this stupid war to end. Better yet,with hindsight, we should have helped the Russians stay there instead of arming the future Taliban. At least when the Russians were there, girls went to school, too.

]]> Comment on Ground Zero “Mosque” Opposition: Some Thoughts by tcarpenter http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6790 tcarpenter Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:49:29 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6790 Eddie, if the opposition to the Cordoba House location were an isolated incident, I would be much more sympathetic to the argument that choosing that particular site was insensitive and inappropriate--even though the stated goal is to promote reconciliation. There's no question that the anguish of those people who lost loved ones that terrible day--or even just witnessed first-hand the destruction of the Twin Towers--is genuine. But there are also political opportunists and Muslim-bashers who are cynically exploiting the issue. And a major piece of evidence is the intense opposition to Islamic projects in other locales that have no connection at all to 9-11. Many of the arguments used against those projects don't even pretend to be anything but religious bigotry. And its getting worse than just hate speech. Last night, there was apparently a firebombing of construction equipment at the Tennessee mosque site. There are some really ugly sentiments loose in the land. Even though, as you say, the propriety of the Cordoba House location may be questionable, I believe it's important not to cave-in to the pressure and thereby give encouragement to the bigots. Eddie, if the opposition to the Cordoba House location were an isolated incident, I would be much more sympathetic to the argument that choosing that particular site was insensitive and inappropriate–even though the stated goal is to promote reconciliation. There’s no question that the anguish of those people who lost loved ones that terrible day–or even just witnessed first-hand the destruction of the Twin Towers–is genuine.

But there are also political opportunists and Muslim-bashers who are cynically exploiting the issue. And a major piece of evidence is the intense opposition to Islamic projects in other locales that have no connection at all to 9-11. Many of the arguments used against those projects don’t even pretend to be anything but religious bigotry. And its getting worse than just hate speech. Last night, there was apparently a firebombing of construction equipment at the Tennessee mosque site.

There are some really ugly sentiments loose in the land. Even though, as you say, the propriety of the Cordoba House location may be questionable, I believe it’s important not to cave-in to the pressure and thereby give encouragement to the bigots.

]]> Comment on Ground Zero “Mosque” Opposition: Some Thoughts by Eddie http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6789 Eddie Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:35:15 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6789 I have followed the issues surrounding the building of the Mosque near ground zero. I also have felt pulled at the notion of this building so close in proximity to the site of such devastation at the hands of others whom call themselves Muslim. I recognize many of the issues outlined. Being a Mormon I also see the other side regarding the argument of religious persecution/freedom. This said, I believe this discussion is as much about consideration or maybe empathy as it is about legal right. There was a time when society would have prohibited this building as a vulgar act of inconsideration for those who lost their lives and those left behind. Just because something is legal, does not make it ethical and I believe this is where the argument has been lost. Would I rather see the Mosque built somewhere else? Yes. Do they have the right to build it on the proposed site? Yes. Now may be the time to consider propriety of days gone by. I have followed the issues surrounding the building of the Mosque near ground zero. I also have felt pulled at the notion of this building so close in proximity to the site of such devastation at the hands of others whom call themselves Muslim. I recognize many of the issues outlined. Being a Mormon I also see the other side regarding the argument of religious persecution/freedom. This said, I believe this discussion is as much about consideration or maybe empathy as it is about legal right. There was a time when society would have prohibited this building as a vulgar act of inconsideration for those who lost their lives and those left behind. Just because something is legal, does not make it ethical and I believe this is where the argument has been lost. Would I rather see the Mosque built somewhere else? Yes. Do they have the right to build it on the proposed site? Yes. Now may be the time to consider propriety of days gone by.

]]> Comment on Ground Zero “Mosque” Opposition: Some Thoughts by tcarpenter http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6786 tcarpenter Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:52:29 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6786 All very good points. The "proximity" argument is an especially slippery slope. How close is too close? According to opponents of the project, a little over two blocks is not far enough away. So, would four blocks be needed? Six? A mile? What, exactly? Even when pressed, they never really answer. Your first point is also crucial. Ultimately, the opposition to Cordoba House makes sense only if one accepts the proposition that all Muslims, instead of 19 Muslim fanatics, attacked the United States on 9-11. But Americans should be very wary of embracing the doctrine of collective guilt. That puts advocates in the same camp as those who argue that everyone with white skin is responsible for slavery, segregation, lynchings, and other atrocities committed over the decades against black people in this country. We really shouldn't want to go down that path. All very good points. The “proximity” argument is an especially slippery slope. How close is too close? According to opponents of the project, a little over two blocks is not far enough away. So, would four blocks be needed? Six? A mile? What, exactly? Even when pressed, they never really answer.

Your first point is also crucial. Ultimately, the opposition to Cordoba House makes sense only if one accepts the proposition that all Muslims, instead of 19 Muslim fanatics, attacked the United States on 9-11. But Americans should be very wary of embracing the doctrine of collective guilt. That puts advocates in the same camp as those who argue that everyone with white skin is responsible for slavery, segregation, lynchings, and other atrocities committed over the decades against black people in this country. We really shouldn’t want to go down that path.

]]> Comment on Ground Zero “Mosque” Opposition: Some Thoughts by Lara http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6784 Lara Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:49:11 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=389#comment-6784 Several things have bothered me about the mosque controversy: *I think it's dangerous to equate a radical group's actions to all followers of a religion, even where some of the religion's core tenets may differ from American ideals...and I do feel that we're making an exception in targeting Islam - we don't, for example, see a call to ban all Christian churches from proximity to the Atlanta Olympic Park simply because Eric Rudolph was connected to a radical/militant Christian sect. *"Proximity" is such a vague concept, and while I personally feel some discomfort of putting a mosque so close to Ground Zero (primarily for the pain it may bring some of the survivors & families who lost loved ones) I don't know how you'd draw a line that couldn't be bent until suddenly we have a tool for preventing all manner of things (or people) from being somewhere simply because it might cause someone distress. *At the very heart of our constitution is protection for of all types of religious beliefs but also people of various ethnicities. I can't help be feel that any action we take simply because the proximity of people practicing their religion causes the majority (or minority) distress strikes me as far more similar to justifications used for segregation throughout our country's history than I care to see in 2010. Several things have bothered me about the mosque controversy:

*I think it’s dangerous to equate a radical group’s actions to all followers of a religion, even where some of the religion’s core tenets may differ from American ideals…and I do feel that we’re making an exception in targeting Islam - we don’t, for example, see a call to ban all Christian churches from proximity to the Atlanta Olympic Park simply because Eric Rudolph was connected to a radical/militant Christian sect.

*”Proximity” is such a vague concept, and while I personally feel some discomfort of putting a mosque so close to Ground Zero (primarily for the pain it may bring some of the survivors & families who lost loved ones) I don’t know how you’d draw a line that couldn’t be bent until suddenly we have a tool for preventing all manner of things (or people) from being somewhere simply because it might cause someone distress.

*At the very heart of our constitution is protection for of all types of religious beliefs but also people of various ethnicities. I can’t help be feel that any action we take simply because the proximity of people practicing their religion causes the majority (or minority) distress strikes me as far more similar to justifications used for segregation throughout our country’s history than I care to see in 2010.

]]> Comment on Is Sarah Palin Really This Clueless? by tcarpenter http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=353#comment-6690 tcarpenter Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:00:51 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=353#comment-6690 The GOP has moved a long way--in entirely the wrong direction--from the days of Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned about the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex. Imagine! A Republican who worried that we might be too deferential to the budget goals of the Pentagon and its defense-contractor and congressional allies. The 50th anniversary of that speech is coming up in January, and that would be a good time for all Republicans to read it--and think about it. The GOP has moved a long way–in entirely the wrong direction–from the days of Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address, in which he warned about the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex. Imagine! A Republican who worried that we might be too deferential to the budget goals of the Pentagon and its defense-contractor and congressional allies. The 50th anniversary of that speech is coming up in January, and that would be a good time for all Republicans to read it–and think about it.

]]> Comment on Is Sarah Palin Really This Clueless? by Elaine Bergstrom http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=353#comment-6685 Elaine Bergstrom Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:16:28 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=353#comment-6685 Amen! What is astonishing is how forgetful the GOP, in particular, is about how defense spending can bankrupt a country. Reagan amped up the cold war and, most of his party agree, brought down the communist government. With no enemy, we have, as Pogo said, made it ourselves and our own stupid paranoia. Sadly, the Dems are missing the mark on this. It would be such an ideal time to cut the DD hardware and up the spending on the troops, many of whom are coming home terribly wounded. It would be, at least, a start. Amen! What is astonishing is how forgetful the GOP, in particular, is about how defense spending can bankrupt a country. Reagan amped up the cold war and, most of his party agree, brought down the communist government. With no enemy, we have, as Pogo said, made it ourselves and our own stupid paranoia. Sadly, the Dems are missing the mark on this. It would be such an ideal time to cut the DD hardware and up the spending on the troops, many of whom are coming home terribly wounded. It would be, at least, a start.

]]> Comment on Security Gestapo Strikes Again by Amber Orner http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=348#comment-6275 Amber Orner Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:29:42 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=348#comment-6275 I am left feeling stunned and thoroughly unsure whether to be more outraged by the fact that they crossed so many decency lines with this poor woman, or the inhumane treatment of mother & child. Either way, it is clear that the TSA needs to get a grip! I am left feeling stunned and thoroughly unsure whether to be more outraged by the fact that they crossed so many decency lines with this poor woman, or the inhumane treatment of mother & child. Either way, it is clear that the TSA needs to get a grip!

]]> Comment on My Least Favorite Cheney by tcarpenter http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=310#comment-6267 tcarpenter Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:11:37 +0000 http://www.tedgalencarpenter.com/blog/?p=310#comment-6267 Most conservatives are either silent about this ruling or are endorsing it as a necessary measure in the "war on terror." I find it a very worrisome precedent, for some of the same examples you cite. In addition, even though the Court opinion says that merely speaking or writing in favor of an organization that the State Department (however arbitrarily) has designated as a terrorist operation is still legal, I suspect that even one phone call or e-mail between the alleged terrorist group and the person making the speech or writing a favorable article would constitute "coordination" and transform that person's actions into "material support." That would, in turn, open the speaker or writer to prosecution. It's always nice to know that the Supreme Court is acting as the guardian of liberty. Yeah, like the Court hasn't become a total lapdog whenever the executive branch invokes "national security" as a justification for a restrictive measure. Most conservatives are either silent about this ruling or are endorsing it as a necessary measure in the “war on terror.” I find it a very worrisome precedent, for some of the same examples you cite. In addition, even though the Court opinion says that merely speaking or writing in favor of an organization that the State Department (however arbitrarily) has designated as a terrorist operation is still legal, I suspect that even one phone call or e-mail between the alleged terrorist group and the person making the speech or writing a favorable article would constitute “coordination” and transform that person’s actions into “material support.” That would, in turn, open the speaker or writer to prosecution. It’s always nice to know that the Supreme Court is acting as the guardian of liberty. Yeah, like the Court hasn’t become a total lapdog whenever the executive branch invokes “national security” as a justification for a restrictive measure.

]]>