Political Irony

Three interesting articles in blogs today, all worth a read:

Over at Politicususa they analyze the recent Pew Research Center’s survey of where people get their news, and conclude that the biggest competition to Fox News is not MSNBC or even CNN, but comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central. I love reading things like that, since Political Irony is based on a healthy mix of humor and politics. An interesting factoid is that the overwhelming majority (64%) of Fox News watchers are older, while an even larger majority (77%) of Stewart and Colbert’s audiences are younger. Maybe there is hope for the future!

There is a fascinating discussion going on about your right to silence when returning to the US after a foreign trip. The whole thing started with a blog post by Paul Karl Lukacs, who travels frequently. On a recent trip, when returning to the US he was asked by a passport control officer “Why were you in China?” to which he replied “None of your business”. He fully complied with the law, which requires him to present a valid passport and to fill out a customs declaration form, but beyond that he is not required by law to answer any questions. After hassling him for a while, they finally let him in.

The original post led to many comments, which then spilled over to other blogs, including postings on Boing Boing, The Consumerist, Reason, and Ycombinator, which have amassed over a thousand comments, some in support, and some against his actions. So he responded with a followup post answering some of the questions people asked.

When a US citizen is reentering the US (as opposed to entering a foreign country) they cannot be denied reentry, and they have the right to remain silent. Unfortunately, hardly anyone exercises that right. And as we all know, if you don’t exercise your rights, you are likely to lose them.

If you are one of the people who think you should always answer questions asked of you by authorities, watch this video. It will open your eyes.

Finally, a bit of wonderfully ironic news. Chuck Cooper, the lead attorney defending Proposition 8 (which made gay marriage unconstitutional in California) gave a talk to 200 students at Brigham Young University law school. You would think that students at a Mormon university would be sympathetic, since the Mormon church was one of the most vigorous promoters of Proposition 8. But no, they tore his arguments to pieces. “Chuck Cooper failed miserably in attempting to defend Prop 8 to possibly the friendliest crowd he will even encounter. … If Chuck Cooper can’t defend Prop 8 in front of a group of BYU students, then how is he going to defend it in front of the Supreme Court?”

© Tom Tomorrow

Yes, conservatives really are trying to lay claim to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. It boggles the mind.

A judge in South Africa has outlawed the burning of Bibles, planned by a Muslim activist as a response to the now-cancelled burning of Qurans in Florida.

This is interesting in so many different ways. One our dearest freedoms is the freedom of speech, and we consider many acts to be protected speech. So while tremendous pressure was brought to bear against Pastor Terry Jones to get him to call off the Quran burning, it would not occur to most Americans that burning a religious book could be illegal. People in South Africa do not have that same freedom.

We also have limits to free speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. And defamation (libel and slander) is illegal, because it harms someone. But doesn’t the burning of a holy book harm lots of people? Should it be illegal here?

Personally, I’m glad it is not illegal, because who is to say what is holy and what is not. I’d be the first person out there suing someone who burned the image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if burning holy documents were illegal.

Secondly, it is interesting because the group that sought the injunction against the Bible burning is an Islamic group called Scholars of the Truth, who consider the burning of any religious books offensive (not just Islamic ones). Other Muslim groups in South Africa were also on record against the burning of Bibles.

One reason for this is that Muslims also consider Jesus to be a prophet who is part of the Quran, so burning the Bible would be in effect burning part of the Quran. Apparently, some Christian pastors are not so enlightened.

After the verdict, the person who had planned the Bible burning was actually happy he was stopped. “Luckily they stopped me from doing it.”

But the best thing to come of this whole mess is the response from the locals in Gainesville, FL, who came out actively against the pastor’s proposed burning of the Quran. For example: “He doesn’t represent the community. This guy is obviously a publicity hound and a weirdo.” and “He’s a lunatic. … I don’t want this to represent my neighborhood.”

UPDATE: People in Amarillo, Texas also came out to protest a planned Quran burning. One person stole his lighter and another grabbed the Quran and gave it to an Islamic leader who was there to protest. Maybe there’s hope for us after all.

Yesterday, a Fox News reporter asked Obama about “the wisdom of building a mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero“.

I think I’ve been pretty clear on my position here. And that is, is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights; one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely. And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.

We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts. And we’ve got to be clear about that. We’ve got to be clear about that because … if we’re going to successfully reduce the terrorist threat, then we need all the allies we can get. The folks who are most interested in a war between the United States or the West and Islam are al Qaeda. That’s what they’ve been banking on.

And fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are peace-loving, are interested in the same things that you and I are interested in: how do I make sure I can get a good job, how can I make sure that my kids get a decent education, how can I make sure I’m safe, how can I improve my lot in life. And so they have rejected this violent ideology for the most part, overwhelmingly.

And so from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here. It’s a handful, a tiny minority of people who are engaging in horrific acts — and have killed Muslims more than anybody else.

The other reason it’s important for us to remember that is because we’ve got millions of Muslim-Americans, our fellow citizens, in this country. They’re going to school with our kids. They’re our neighbors. They’re our friends. They’re our coworkers. And, you know, when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?

I’ve got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan, in the uniform of the United States armed services. They’re out there putting their lives on the line for us, and we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes: They are Americans. And we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between ‘them’ and ‘us’. It’s just ‘us’.

© Nick Anderson

Pastor Terry Jones certainly got the 15 minutes of fame he seemed to desire. The only question is, will he survive it?

Is this what our politics has become? Really? And what’s worse — that an actual major candidate for the Senate could threaten violence if she doesn’t win, or that the mainstream media doesn’t even find this unusual?

[via Crooks & Liars]

Interestingly, I agree with Sharon Angle on most of her points. The second amendment to our constitution was put there so that people could overthrow their government if it became tyrannical. But the second amendment was definitely not put into the constitution so that a radical minority (especially a religious minority) could impose their will by violence. That would NOT be democracy. But democracy is a concept that some of these people don’t seem to understand.