Just recently there was a story on the O' Reilly Factor about special accommodations being made for Muslim students. The students in a small high school (I forget which town) in the USA were being taken aside during non-class hours and allowed to pray during recess time.
Thank god for Bill who can Spin around a story like a bloody top. Accusations of burgeoning Madrassas made by the guests were some of the high/low points of the discussion. The perception is that much of liberal America supports such actions. The ACLU will never rise against minorities but rather wants to scare white Christians shitless. The ACLU does have a double standard. Extreme Political Correctness seems to be the mantra of the ACLU.
Moving on i think the issue of religion in school is fair as long as the practise maintains that there are people of many different faiths. In fact I laughed at the silliness of all this. I agree with a separation of Church and State when it comes to matters of executive decision making (e.g. the crusades or jihad).
I grew up in a Muslim country filled with expats. We had Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Janis, Farsis, etc. As children, we made fun of accents and race but never stooped to the level of insulting religions. When we prayed in class it was a general prayer (pray to your respective gods). We cannot turn something as innocent as children praying into our political battles.
Atheists can meditate if they want to, but denying kids religion in the classroom to achieve some P.C. euphoria is ridiculous. Prayer and/or Silence for 5 minutes in class should be encouraged. Its really simple. Show no favoritism to one religion, but understanding for all, including those with no religion.
I am not very religious but lets keep Political Correctness to personal discretion and not the Government's.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Daily News
Today I want to concentrate an issue very close to my heart. 'Fair and Balanced News'. Do you think that such an ideal exists. In my personal experience I have found BBC World to be as close as it gets to comprehensive and fair news.
I used to live in Dubai where the news was surprisingly fair. Being a monarchy or Sheikhdom, the Sheikh is rarely criticized and as of late, crimes committed by citizens were not being told to to the largely expatriate population. Apart from that, the news we got was....well...fair and balanced. We had the local news channel, GulfNews (an excellent newspaper) and cable news. The largely Conservative news channel Fox News was allowed to broadcast (some may say it has an anti-arab bias) along with the regional channel Al Jazeera (which some say has a pro-Arab agenda).
I used to have a hardcore approach to News: News must portray all sides of the story and there must be governmental regulation in place to counter free-market-tabloid-esque news broadcasts.
As of late I am inclined to fell this is a lost cause.
Free-Market-News
Internet: The 'vocal' users of the internet are largely slanted to the left where websites like digg.com represent either liberal or libertarian points of view (the Ron Paul and Mike Gravel phenomenon). Views are either hidden or shown based on user approval in the form of 'diggs'. I just used digg as an example. I visit the website everyday because it is still a great source
Television news: For years cable news has had an aspect of Fear and Hollywood has been emphasized. In the previous weeks we saw hundreds of hours of news coverage dedicate to Paris Hilton or Chris Benoit (pro wrestler who murdered his wife, son, and committed suicide). Interest pieces like these have become the cornerstone of cable news. Suposedly this is driven by market forces. I feel this is some twisted attempt to get people hooked on 'Reality News', a mechanism which drove the 'what would happen next' feelings of 'Reality TV'. There is something sinister about reporters cashing in on these interest pieces which has cheapened the value of media in a democratic society. Its all about killers and starlets. That's why a famous rock band named itself Marilyn-Manson. I watch these channels everyday because they are still good sources to understand culture and hear discourse - just not good hard news.
In the days to come I will outline my solutions on how to tackle this problem and I need people's help and feedback to make this possible. If your a free-market kind of guy/gal - trust me there is a huge market for free and informative news.
In the words of a guy I talked to in a bar, who was interested in my culture: "All the high schools and the news taught me was propaganda and bullshit....the reason I wanted to talk to you about where you're from is because I have been taught nothing"
There have been 0 posts on this site and 22 visits in the last couple of days.....Come on people...live a little! Post your views!
I used to live in Dubai where the news was surprisingly fair. Being a monarchy or Sheikhdom, the Sheikh is rarely criticized and as of late, crimes committed by citizens were not being told to to the largely expatriate population. Apart from that, the news we got was....well...fair and balanced. We had the local news channel, GulfNews (an excellent newspaper) and cable news. The largely Conservative news channel Fox News was allowed to broadcast (some may say it has an anti-arab bias) along with the regional channel Al Jazeera (which some say has a pro-Arab agenda).
I used to have a hardcore approach to News: News must portray all sides of the story and there must be governmental regulation in place to counter free-market-tabloid-esque news broadcasts.
As of late I am inclined to fell this is a lost cause.
Free-Market-News
Internet: The 'vocal' users of the internet are largely slanted to the left where websites like digg.com represent either liberal or libertarian points of view (the Ron Paul and Mike Gravel phenomenon). Views are either hidden or shown based on user approval in the form of 'diggs'. I just used digg as an example. I visit the website everyday because it is still a great source
Television news: For years cable news has had an aspect of Fear and Hollywood has been emphasized. In the previous weeks we saw hundreds of hours of news coverage dedicate to Paris Hilton or Chris Benoit (pro wrestler who murdered his wife, son, and committed suicide). Interest pieces like these have become the cornerstone of cable news. Suposedly this is driven by market forces. I feel this is some twisted attempt to get people hooked on 'Reality News', a mechanism which drove the 'what would happen next' feelings of 'Reality TV'. There is something sinister about reporters cashing in on these interest pieces which has cheapened the value of media in a democratic society. Its all about killers and starlets. That's why a famous rock band named itself Marilyn-Manson. I watch these channels everyday because they are still good sources to understand culture and hear discourse - just not good hard news.
In the days to come I will outline my solutions on how to tackle this problem and I need people's help and feedback to make this possible. If your a free-market kind of guy/gal - trust me there is a huge market for free and informative news.
In the words of a guy I talked to in a bar, who was interested in my culture: "All the high schools and the news taught me was propaganda and bullshit....the reason I wanted to talk to you about where you're from is because I have been taught nothing"
There have been 0 posts on this site and 22 visits in the last couple of days.....Come on people...live a little! Post your views!
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Pleasently Sickened
So I just completed watching Moore's latest opus....Sicko. And I have to say it is pretty convincing. However there were hints of bias and the satire maybe misunderstood, his main goal is to compare and contrast and take home the good ideas. Seems simple but then there's Washington lobbying. PR and political fallout will be interesting in the next couple of days. I didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11. But Moore definitely has hit a home run with this one.
I bitched, laughed and caught some dust in my eye....WATCH IT!
John Appleseed
I checked out the iPhone with a friend from work on June 29th. Being the armchair tech geek who does not indulge, I waited for 40 minutes at an AT&T store in suburbia just to take a spin on her. She was Beautiful. Beads of sweat and the loss of reason was setting in. "Should I buy it?! It's worth it...I mean a PHONE (long pause), an iPOD (breathing heavily) and an Internet COMMUNICATOR (heart failure). However my credit limit has been exhausted with a much needed bland beige box (Dell Laptop).
What you see on the ad is what you get. A beautiful screen which is reasonably scratch resistant. The glass hides the fingerprints quite nicely. The interface is unparalleled. However the keyboard takes a little work and EDGE is slow.
The blackjack and other smart phones look like ancients
The 'Enemy' Within
In light of the Glasgow and London car bombs CNN aired a special with Christiane Amanpour called the Enemy Within. The documentary was about the spreading ideology of extremism amongst the Muslim youth. The documentary took on two schools of thought with Islam in the UK. The extremist side and the more moderate side. A failed attempt to integrate immigrants or mix the proverbial melting pot can probably be cited as a reason for the resurgence of extremist points of view.
The United States probably doesn't see the threat of home grown terrorists for a couple of reasons
Difference between USA and Britain in immigration policy:
Between the 50s and 70s a large number of South Asian Immigrants came to live in Britain due to their previous status as 'subjects of the empire'.
1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain (Total population: 60 million)
2 million Muslims in the US (Total Population: 300 million)
Immigration policy in the US and Canada is regulated such that individuals from Asia and Europe must be skilled workers, investors or seeking amnesty.
South Asian and North African 'Ghettos'
France: The French pride themselves of being the most sophisticated liberal thinkers in the world. However the rise of North African ghettos and separation of blue-collar immigrants with the rest of the population and the fact that the government neglected them (in terms of municipal services) clearly show hypocrisy
Britain: The same phenomenon can be seen in Great Britain with large congregations of South Asians living in homogeneous pockets in city centers like Birmingham. These backfire on the majority as poverty leads to centers of dissent.
However I want to pose this question: Is segregation a natural choice of blue-collar immigrants or is it stealthily forced upon them by the government?
The United States probably doesn't see the threat of home grown terrorists for a couple of reasons
Difference between USA and Britain in immigration policy:
Between the 50s and 70s a large number of South Asian Immigrants came to live in Britain due to their previous status as 'subjects of the empire'.
1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain (Total population: 60 million)
2 million Muslims in the US (Total Population: 300 million)
Immigration policy in the US and Canada is regulated such that individuals from Asia and Europe must be skilled workers, investors or seeking amnesty.
South Asian and North African 'Ghettos'
France: The French pride themselves of being the most sophisticated liberal thinkers in the world. However the rise of North African ghettos and separation of blue-collar immigrants with the rest of the population and the fact that the government neglected them (in terms of municipal services) clearly show hypocrisy
Britain: The same phenomenon can be seen in Great Britain with large congregations of South Asians living in homogeneous pockets in city centers like Birmingham. These backfire on the majority as poverty leads to centers of dissent.
However I want to pose this question: Is segregation a natural choice of blue-collar immigrants or is it stealthily forced upon them by the government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)