
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
|
sloppyliberal's Journal
A sentence I learned when I was 3. Still holds true. This society places far too much emphasis upon a few insignificant 4 (and more) letter words. When I lived in the UK, most words can be said on broadcast TV. Not before the 'watershed' (9pm), but they can still be said. True, perhaps swear words are much more part of the vernacular than in the US, but by their overuse, they have become watered down, non threatening nouns and verbs. They have become what they always have been, just words.
In fact the absurdity of it all, I think is reflecting in the use of 'acceptable' substitutes for such words. You can't say 'shit' but shoot is perfectly acceptable. Even though it sounds almost the same. Fricking for the ever popular 'F' bomb. Darn, for Damn. If the notion of the word is so abhorrent, then surely the alliteration alludes to the wish to express such words, and is as such hypocritical. The best example of this absurdity is found on the show Battlestar Galactica. In order to be able to express such a gritty realistic view, but to avoid censure, they have substituted the F bomb, for the word 'frak'. It means exactly the same as the F bomb and is used in its place. In the world of the Colonists, their 'F' bomb simply is the word frak, and yet, it does not have to be bleeped out. Perhaps Shakespeare didn't quite have this in mind when he said the following, however, the age old bard, does make a valid point...
"That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet".
So I've been reading a lot of condemnation on the DU on the tragedy at Qana. I'd like to pose a question for all the armchair experts. You are in charge of Israeli defenses. There are rockets being fired at the civilians you are charged with protecting. The rockets are being fired by a group whose aim is to "free the Middle East holy lands of Jews". The rocket launcher is parked right next to a civilian apartment block.  Edited to add, I thank you for pointing out its an anti-aircraft gun, I probaly wouldn't know the difference even if it was shooting at me, but its still parked in what appears to be a civilian neighborhood, which is the point. What would you do? How would you ensure the safety of the citizens YOU protect? Its easy to sit back and spread a blanket of condemnation on others. Its not easy to put yourself in the shoes of others tasked with difficult decisions, and find a better solution, but sometimes the more enlightening discussion is not the easy one. I'll go first. What would I do? I'm not sure. Is it my fault if I target the launcher and instead hit the apartment complex, or the fault of the group using the complex as a shield. If I dropped leaflets in the area warning that I'm fixing to take out any launcher in that vicinity, even if its parked next to a children's hospital, give them 48 hours to evacuate, and if they don't, to avoid going into buildings with launchers parked next to them. Then end up killing a bunch of people who didn't leave, or whom were prevented from leaving by Hezbollah, in order to become human shields am I targeting civilians? Or am I doing my job of protecting my own civilians, whilst doing my best in a terrible situation to protect or at least do my best to protect innocent lives. I think every decision would leave me with questions to wrestle with, but I believe I would choose to warn an area, give plenty of time for people to leave the area and hope that if they don't, they at least make the decision to avoid any buildings with launchers parked next to them. then target the launchers wherever they are. After all if there wasn't rockets being fired at my people, placed next to an apartment complex in the first place, I would have zero chance of hitting the civilian complex in the first place. I'm not saying its the right decision. Its my first attempt, my gut reaction to the question posed. I'm biased, I'll admit that. Biased by the experience of spending time in Israel, listening to the soft thud of Ketusha rockets fired by Hezbollah, landing in the distance throughout the night in Israel, during a period of 'peace'. I was young and impressionable and the experience has remained with me always. I'd like to hear other ideas. Different ideas. Unbiased ideas, and ideas biased by another point of view. But most of all, I'd just like to hear ideas for a change, instead of condemnation for condemnation's sake.
Yes its a sad fact that when Phelps disrupts a military funeral that gets more press coverage. That the biker community has always had strong ties to the military. That they would be the ones to stand up to Phelps at this point in time. That's where this country is today. Thats just a fact you have to deal with. Nobody has ever stopped anyone from organizing a group to protect people from the ugliness of Phelps' free speech. Yes it would have been more than appropriate, and yes you are probably right when you think it wouldn't have had the same turnout as the PGR has to the military funerals. Especially in the states where there is a lot of bigotry toward anything gay. But to denounce the PGR just because they didn't exist is just pathetic. Its a start in getting populist support against Phelps. Its a start in being able to denounce such bigotry against gays. Its a foothold into the mind of the average American, to show them what Phelps is up to. Seeing such hatred can often spark a conciliatory understanding and compassion for the subject of that hatred. Take it for what it is, work with it and use it. But don't be so ignorant as to try and work against it, when it could help bring your cause to public attention.
I am posting an argument I had on another board, about the issue of abortion. I was arguing that you couldn't ban abortion because it would violate first amendment rights - specifically the establishment of religion clause, because you can only assert that 'life' begins at conception on the grounds of religious belief, since there is no scientific consensus regarding the exact time you consider a ball of cells to be 'alive'. Also considering that since in my own religion - Judaism, I was taught the soul is given with the first cry - hence there being really no moral qualms to abortion from my religious background. Anyway, I was arguing with a fundie nut case - who argued that the abortion debate had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Fine I said, and posted this: Can You Take Religion Out of the Abortion Debate?Take the religious aspect out of the abortion debate. Doesn't anyone find abortion - killing off part of the human race - a little bit disturbing?Okay then, lets take religion out completely. How about using statistics. If around 30% of confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage and probably if every conception was known about, the number ending in miscarriage/chemical pregnancy would probably be closer to at least 50%. Then what makes you assume a fetus is going to be a member of the human race? Back before we had modern medicine in fact, just for shits and giggles, back in biblical times from this source, they think the infant mortality rate was at least 30%. Go back before then, to the Stone age, and it would be more like 80%. Only in the last 100 years, has it gone down to under 10%, due to advances in medicine. Which means if naturally, without outside influence, from every conception, only 10% make it to be part of the human race, how does that statistically add up to every abortion being a de facto member of the human race. Its fair to say that such a fetus had a slim chance of becoming a fully fledged member of the human race, but thats about it. Still on this statistical point: If at least 30% of wanted pregnancies fail naturally, statistically it should be perfectly acceptable to cull at least 30% of unwanted confirmed pregnancies. Again, using statistics: unwanted babies lead to a dramatic rise in crime rate (I'm quoting the book Freakonomics here), therefore, it is sensible as a measure to reduce crime to allow abortions. How about economics, unwanted children, usually born to the very poor or the young with no means to support the child. Burden financially on society, we have to pay for their health care, education, and eventually the prisons they'll fill. So how about abortion as a cost saving solution? Bet you are morally outraged now right? And that is precisely WHY we can't take religion out of the issue. Morals in the most part are guided by religious beliefs. Its what makes you believe abortion is killing of a member of the human race, whereas I for example, basing my moral codes on a Jewish belief structure do not see a fetus as a member of the human race, rather than as something with the potential to become part of that race. To me and my moral code, that is not the same thing and it doesn't have the same value as a member of the human race. Because of this it does not have rights or desires which could trump my own. If my desire is to end a pregnancy, if I claim the right to protect my own life (and it is statistically more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term, than to abort it), then I have the right to make that decision as a fully fledged member of the human race, and no ball of half-formed cells, no matter how baby looking has a right to trump that. In fact, when you consider that miscarriage is the end result for probably way more than 30% of conceptions, and nearly 30% of all confirmed pregnancies, its even easier to make that assumption. Oh and one more thing. Doesn't anyone find war - killing off part of the human race - a little bit disturbing? Doesn't anyone find poverty - killing off part of the human race - a little bit disturbing? Doesn't anyone find AIDS - killing off part of the human race - a little bit disturbing? Adding the death penalty, torture, screwing the environment we live in, (oh I could go on for a while, but it may end up political  ) all as very disturbing for the human race. ps, if you have trouble view the source for the biblical statistics I had to view it through a google cache
|
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|