There's a lot to love about May/June: great weather, (before the heat drives everyone back indoors), school buses no longer make commuting a unending nightmare (ask a driver on a Monday morning stuck behind a bus how he feels about home schooling) and even the crappiest yard in your neighborhood has a fresh green look. Late spring also means the arrival of that cineplex phenomenon known as the summer blockbuster. Every year around Memorial Day local theaters are awash in big budget, high octane, testosterone fueled extravaganzas. Most are sequels or remakes (Man of Steel, Fast and Furious 73, Iron Man 3, etc) Some are sequels masquerading as new movies (Star Trek Into Darkness, The Internship [wedding crashers go to Google] and Monsters University). Last year 9 of the 10 top grossing films worldwide were sequels. No great surprise there. Ask your average Hollywood mogul if he'd rather own the rights to Hangover or John Carter.
Summer blockbusters don't change much from year to year. They get bigger, noisier, special effect-ier and, with the advent of 3-D, pricier. Tragically they don't get smarter, more innovative or sexier. (Sex is right out if you want to keep your PG-13 rating.) In spite of the considerable success of the dialogue-rich Iron Man movies, most directors will prefer a few more bullets or explosions to a few more words any day. You want words, go see Much Ado About Nothing. Even James Bond, with that dreamy British accent that magically causes women's undies to hit the floor at fifty paces, would prefer to shoot rather than talk his way out of sticky situations. I like a good special effect as much as the next guy but not at the expense of a credible plot. You want plot, go see The Usual Suspects. (I'm told that the next Fast and Furious will feature Vin Diesel crawling through the tail pipe of a Toyota and winding up as a character on the GPS screen.)
Isitjustme doesn't usually do movie reviews. We can't normally see enough of them to be relevant. Plus there's a distinction between movies and films. Films are pictures made: 1) in third world countries, 2) by directors with unpronouceable names 3) with subtitles 4) shown only in theaters (actually "theatres") in really bad neighborhoods. Unless you're trying to impress a woman, these films are best left to On-demand. Mostly we see movies that are non-artistic drek, made for teenagers, serial killers with time to burn and the unemployed. In other words fun stuff. So for the benefit of anyone with $30 to waste and a few idle hours in their day, here are a few selections that we have seen.
Iron Man 3 - Someone needs to explain why Iron Man and Fast And Furious get regular numbers and Hangover gets Roman Numerals.
Iron Man is pretty good. Robert Downey, Jr is fun in the title role. He's irreverent, charming and capable of using multisyllablic words (a drawback in The Hulk). Think Bill Gates with really cool face hair. There is a story, it makes sense, sort of, and there's a bit of comic relief and from an unexpected source. Guy Pearce plays a delightful villain (a hero is only as good as his nemesis) and our hero lives to fight another day...and make Avengers 2 (or maybe II).
Star Trek Into Darkness
An explanation for the culturally clueless who were probably reading Proust in the sixties: Captain James Tiberius Kirk and his intrepid crew aboard the Enterprise spent the better part of four years from 1966 to 1969 in outer space, boldly going where no man had gone before. Cancelled as a TV series the storyline went on to foster six (VI) movies with the original cast and a prequel movie in 2009. Into Darkness is the sequel to the prequel. Remember, in space no one can hear you scream, "Stop flogging this franchise to death".
Actually the movie is good. Seeing Spock, Bones McCoy, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu and the gang when they were just kids is a gas for "those of a certain age". Younger audiences appear to like it too. Watching McCoy and Kirk invent the cliches that made them fully formed characters in TV reruns is like seeing James Bond have his first martini. (Casino Royale, 2006.) Even the bad guy is a visitor from the future... or the past. Yes the budget and the effects rob the tableau of some of its sixties kitsch but no one in 2013 would tolerate Doctor McCoy using a salt shaker as a prop to administer an injection (true story). The movie feels right and director JJ Abrams has paid considerable homage to Gene Roddenberry's vision from 45 years ago.
Now You See Me
Another example of how movies are becoming fun again. Now You See Me has a cast for all ages, from Jesse Eisenberg of Social Network fame, to Mark Ruffolo to Woody Harrelson to Morgan Freeman. It's a big caper movie that, although it cheeses on the payoff a bit, still provides a lot of the reason you go to the movies instead of the bookstore (like you could find one).
"Magic" movies haven't been big box office lately (The Prestige, The Illusionists) maybe because it's too hard to make a movie audience sit still for complicated magic tricks unless the trick involves fast cars and rocket launchers. You should give this one a chance. How they did it will matter less than who and why.
If I had to find a fault with blockbusters, it would be the need for the pull-out-all-the-stops, bigger than the last one, knock our socks off climax. (This kind of climax is distinguished from the other kind in that men tend to be more excited at the end than at the start. Women, not so much.) The idea that a hero and villain spend two hours outwitting each other, only to have their conflict resolved in a fist fight seems cliched? Really? A mano a mano brawl? What are they, cave dwellers? Every action movie ends the same way. It's like a fireworks show. Throw all the stuff in the air at the end. Maybe just once, the good guy and the bad guy could put aside their differences and unite against a common cause, like climate change or genetically modified foods. We need something else. After all, Proust doesn't end like that.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
...or should we be offended that more people aren't offended?
It would appear that, for the foreseeable future, The Washington Redskins will remain The Washington Redskins. It is difficult to imagine the level of shame that should be felt by Dan Snyder, owner of the team, Roger Goodell, Commissioner of the NFL and, the country in general. And yet, there is no outrage, no boycott, no statement from our first black President. Why should there be? After all they're only Indians. It's not like we owe this race of people we systematically disenfranchised, tortured and murdered by the thousands any shred of respect. Their very existence is a reminder of how reluctant we should be to condemn the Greeks in Armenia or, yes, the Nazis.
This isn't about dignity. It's not about race. It isn't even about justice. It's about money. Dan Snyder owns one of the hottest merchandise franchises in the country. Sales of Robert Griffen III jerseys broke all records in 2012-13. His shirts can cost up to $249 a pop. The Washington NFL franchise trails only the Dallas Cowboys in sales of logo-laden crap. If you imagine that Dan Snyder would jeopardise that pot of gold for anything as trivial as the culture of another race, then you must believe in the concept of the student athlete. Remember, Snyder is the guy who sued his own season ticket holders who couldn't pay for their seats after the recession of 2008-9. This guy would ration the toilet paper in the ladies room if he could.
Snyder is a greedy pig without question but the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell is just gutless. Having received a letter from the Congressional Native American Caucus, requesting a change in the Washington team's name, Goodell thought about it for a nano-second and wrote back. His letter states, in brief, go stick it up your wigwam. "Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate or offend any group." Well, that's a load off my mind. Except you don't get to decide what offends me. It's not OK to fly the Confederate stars and bars over a state capital and tell black people to get over it. We wouldn't even consider the Washington Wetbacks or the Washington WOPS. Why is Redskins OK?
The name Redskins derives originally from Braves Field, the venue that hosted the team in its earliest years in Boston. It was changed to Redskins when the club moved to Fenway Park and was maintained when they moved to D.C. in 1937. However it was through the 50's and early 60's that controversy first attended the team. Owner George Preston Marshall adamantly refused to hire black players. The Redskins played in Griffith Stadium, home of the thoroughly racist Washington Senators baseball franchise. (The Senators owner Cal Griffith told a crowd in 1970 that he moved his team from D.C. to Minnesota because "you only have 15,000 black people here"). The Senators finally hired a black player in 1954 (seven years after Jackie Robinson signed a contract with Brooklyn) but it took Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to force Marshall to integrate his football club. The Redskins signed Bobby Mitchell in 1962, seven years after every other NFL team desegregated. The fact that the Redskins played in Robert F. Kennedy Stadium from 1969 to 1996 is an irony lost on Dan Snyder. Marshall, it's said, had no great love of Jews either. One can only speculate how offended Dan Snyder, who is Jewish, might have been if GP Marshall had called his team the Washington Kikes or the Potomac Jewboys.
Roger Goodell is a busy man what with perpetuating all that racism so I have taken the liberty of rewriting his letter to the Congressional Native American Caucus. This is what he meant to say:
Dear Native American Brothers,
HOW!
I understand that you feel that the name Redskins as a mascot for the Washington football team is offensive to American Indians or Native Americans (whatever). Please understand, we mean no offense. Much time and effort has gone into crafting just the right image for the Redskins logo. The character we portray is how we imagine the Noble Savage looked in the moment before white people killed his family, burned his home and stole his land. We have avoided stereotypes about drinking, scalping and silly dances. That would be offensive. We respect the Native American culture even though we understand it has been all but wiped out. But hey, water over the dam right?
I have spoken at length with the Washington team owner Dan Snyder and he's pretty adamant about keeping the name. There's a lot of wampum involved. Imagine if someone tried to make you change the name of the Foxwoods casino? I know, right? Seriously, Dan sells enough junk with that Indian on it to buy the reservations in six states. Don't worry, he's not going to do that. Hell, what would he do with a million acres of dust and a bunch of inebriated guys in flannel shirts? However, to show that it's not all about money (wink,wink) Dan is willing to offer team tryouts to any braves who can down enough steroids to bulk up and make the team. Can't ask any more than that, right?
Anyway, I'm afraid there will be no treaty (like that would matter) on the subject of a name change. With 70% of the country on our side it looks like, once again, you are out-numbered and SOL. The Redskins will remain the Redskins and you will remain a cartoon villain in old West comic books. Sorry chief.
Sincerely
Roger Goodell
Commissioner, NFL
ps. I have forwarded your letter to the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks. Good luck with that.
rg
So here it is. No one outside of the Native American community gives a rat's ass about offending Indians. Football fiends who think Crazy Horse finished forth in the Belmont Stakes will howl in protest if anyone tries to drag the NFL into the 21st Century. Remember, "Teach Ignorance" is the mantra of half the schools in the South and West. We are determined to use every opportunity to show the world that we may be the land of the free and the home of the brave but we are also the address of the assholes.
This isn't about dignity. It's not about race. It isn't even about justice. It's about money. Dan Snyder owns one of the hottest merchandise franchises in the country. Sales of Robert Griffen III jerseys broke all records in 2012-13. His shirts can cost up to $249 a pop. The Washington NFL franchise trails only the Dallas Cowboys in sales of logo-laden crap. If you imagine that Dan Snyder would jeopardise that pot of gold for anything as trivial as the culture of another race, then you must believe in the concept of the student athlete. Remember, Snyder is the guy who sued his own season ticket holders who couldn't pay for their seats after the recession of 2008-9. This guy would ration the toilet paper in the ladies room if he could.
Snyder is a greedy pig without question but the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell is just gutless. Having received a letter from the Congressional Native American Caucus, requesting a change in the Washington team's name, Goodell thought about it for a nano-second and wrote back. His letter states, in brief, go stick it up your wigwam. "Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate or offend any group." Well, that's a load off my mind. Except you don't get to decide what offends me. It's not OK to fly the Confederate stars and bars over a state capital and tell black people to get over it. We wouldn't even consider the Washington Wetbacks or the Washington WOPS. Why is Redskins OK?
The name Redskins derives originally from Braves Field, the venue that hosted the team in its earliest years in Boston. It was changed to Redskins when the club moved to Fenway Park and was maintained when they moved to D.C. in 1937. However it was through the 50's and early 60's that controversy first attended the team. Owner George Preston Marshall adamantly refused to hire black players. The Redskins played in Griffith Stadium, home of the thoroughly racist Washington Senators baseball franchise. (The Senators owner Cal Griffith told a crowd in 1970 that he moved his team from D.C. to Minnesota because "you only have 15,000 black people here"). The Senators finally hired a black player in 1954 (seven years after Jackie Robinson signed a contract with Brooklyn) but it took Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to force Marshall to integrate his football club. The Redskins signed Bobby Mitchell in 1962, seven years after every other NFL team desegregated. The fact that the Redskins played in Robert F. Kennedy Stadium from 1969 to 1996 is an irony lost on Dan Snyder. Marshall, it's said, had no great love of Jews either. One can only speculate how offended Dan Snyder, who is Jewish, might have been if GP Marshall had called his team the Washington Kikes or the Potomac Jewboys.
Roger Goodell is a busy man what with perpetuating all that racism so I have taken the liberty of rewriting his letter to the Congressional Native American Caucus. This is what he meant to say:
Dear Native American Brothers,
HOW!
I understand that you feel that the name Redskins as a mascot for the Washington football team is offensive to American Indians or Native Americans (whatever). Please understand, we mean no offense. Much time and effort has gone into crafting just the right image for the Redskins logo. The character we portray is how we imagine the Noble Savage looked in the moment before white people killed his family, burned his home and stole his land. We have avoided stereotypes about drinking, scalping and silly dances. That would be offensive. We respect the Native American culture even though we understand it has been all but wiped out. But hey, water over the dam right?
I have spoken at length with the Washington team owner Dan Snyder and he's pretty adamant about keeping the name. There's a lot of wampum involved. Imagine if someone tried to make you change the name of the Foxwoods casino? I know, right? Seriously, Dan sells enough junk with that Indian on it to buy the reservations in six states. Don't worry, he's not going to do that. Hell, what would he do with a million acres of dust and a bunch of inebriated guys in flannel shirts? However, to show that it's not all about money (wink,wink) Dan is willing to offer team tryouts to any braves who can down enough steroids to bulk up and make the team. Can't ask any more than that, right?
Anyway, I'm afraid there will be no treaty (like that would matter) on the subject of a name change. With 70% of the country on our side it looks like, once again, you are out-numbered and SOL. The Redskins will remain the Redskins and you will remain a cartoon villain in old West comic books. Sorry chief.
Sincerely
Roger Goodell
Commissioner, NFL
ps. I have forwarded your letter to the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks. Good luck with that.
rg
So here it is. No one outside of the Native American community gives a rat's ass about offending Indians. Football fiends who think Crazy Horse finished forth in the Belmont Stakes will howl in protest if anyone tries to drag the NFL into the 21st Century. Remember, "Teach Ignorance" is the mantra of half the schools in the South and West. We are determined to use every opportunity to show the world that we may be the land of the free and the home of the brave but we are also the address of the assholes.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
...or does the axiom "you can't fix stupid" have a corollary "but you should at least keep it to yourself'?
There's a reason why Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal thinks of the Grand Old Party as the stupid party. No, it's not because they continually lose elections. That's just the end result. It's not because all Republicans are stupid. Most aren't. It's because the "big picnic" that Republicans hope will attract voters of all races and beliefs has instead attracted an amazing collection of red ants, bedbugs, cuckoos and shit-house rats. No joke! All the crazies are camped under the red banner. Every day some fool steps forward and proudly announces to the world that Republicans are unworthy of your vote.
Sure, not every conservative worships at the feet of Rush Limbaugh but all the Rush Limbaughs are conservatives. All the ignorant, hate speech: all the insane talk of the American apocalypse emanates from one camp. Blue state politicians do dumb things but they don't talk as if science and learning were concepts to be feared and condemned. Interestingly enough, tea party leaders preach to their faithful as if those people were dim-witted children. Those congregants then go home, reflect on not just the preaching but the preachers and vote to reject those preachers. The Senate races in Indiana and Missouri in 2012 are only the most recent examples.
Now we move to Virginia and the governors race in 2013. The Old Dominion has gone for Obama in the last two elections but in races inside the state, they show much more red than blue. True, both U.S. Senators from Virginia are Democrats but the State Capitol, including the Governor is very much a GOP stronghold. Recent scandals regarding Governor McDonnell and his wife haven't stopped the steady flow of repressive, draconian legislation. (The State representatives of Virginia seem more interested in probing a woman's vagina than the finances of their ethically compromised governor).
Anyway, Virginia's governors cannot succeed themselves so the race is on for a new face in 2013. Democrats have chosen Terry McAuliffe, a functional candidate whose primary success to date is as a fundraiser for the Clintons. In his previous run for VA governor he couldn't beat a nobody named Creigh Deeds in a primary. The Republicans have thrown in with Ken Cuccinelli, the current State Attorney General who began running for governor a nano-second after taking the oath as AG. Known as Cuch (People who couldn't stop Googling "Santorum" will hurt themselves laughing about "Cuch".) Cuccinelli is a screaming conservative Catholic who: 1) hates immigrants, 2) hates gays, 3) hates abortion, (big surprise) 4) loves guns, and, of course 5) hates Obamacare. He apparently feels that if he can pander to the "old South" part of the state, he won't need any of the DC suburbs where all the smart people live.
The reason that Virginia's current election ties into a discussion of "Republican=Stupid" is the GOP choice for Lieutenant Governor, one E.W. Jackson. Reverend Jackson is a colorful politician in more ways than one. He is the founder and current president of S.T.A.N.D., a tortured acronym for Staying True To America's National Destiny. He is also head of the Exodus Faith Ministries (EFM doesn't have much of a ring, does it?) Still Jackson is that rarest of birds: a black conservative, right-wing nut job. Traditionally, Virginia's black conservatives could hold their caucus at a modest table at Denny's. (Guest speaker Hermann Cain). Rev. Jackson will have no trouble being recognized at campaign events. He'll be the black man in the crowd who isn't serving hors d'oeuvres.
Mr. Jackson's uniqueness isn't limited to his race. Even among Republicans his views are, lets say, novel. Reverend Jackson is not your run-of-the-mill loony. He is a Harvard educated lawyer, an ex-marine and a bishop in his church. It's amazing how many conservative crazies are Harvard grads: Ted Cruz, Antonin Scalia , David Vitter... the list goes on. He was apparently chosen by a selection committee more worried about the color of his skin than the content of his character. Say what you will, Reverend Jackson is a character.
Among the newsworthy if cringe-inducing pronouncements from Rev. Jackson are:
"It is the principle of sin, rebellion against God and his truths which has brought about birth defects and other destructive natural occurrences."
"Planned Parenthood has done more to harm black people than the Ku Klux Klan."
"Homosexuals are perverted and very sick people."
In an blog posting published in 2010 (Yeah, like you can believe anything in a blog!) Jackson wrote that Barack Obama "sees the world from a Muslim prospective".
Rev. Jackson has also attacked the heinous, godless practice of...yoga. In his book "Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life" the Rev. states that yoga meditation encourages participants to empty their minds. "Satan is happy to invade the empty vacuum of your soul and possess it". Nature may abhor a vacuum but Beelzebub wants to move right in. Rev. Jackson knows of what he speaks. Having emptied his mind of virtually all of the knowledge gained at Harvard, the evil influence of Conservatism just took up residence. This man needs a right wing exorcism. Paging Max Von Sydow!
Will someone please explain why Republicans feel the need to continuously trot out one bible thumping, gag-inducing, anti-intelligence, gasbag after another? When you add EW Jackson to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Louie Gommert, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin and a host of others, that's not a coincidence; that's a contagion. The GOP insists on mining a claim that is petering out by the hour. Smart conservatives look at E.W. Jackson and shake their heads in dismay. How does a black preacher, whose views are laughable (bordering on scary) help an already foundering candidate who might otherwise give the liberal opponent a run for his money? How can you make a case for your stance on the issues when the issue becomes your whack-job running mate? Conservatism used to be a serious political philosophy. Now it only serves to keep Jon Stuart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher in business.h
To paraphrase David Letterman, what can you make of a political party whose members think the birth certificate of the President is a fake but professional wrestling is real?
Sure, not every conservative worships at the feet of Rush Limbaugh but all the Rush Limbaughs are conservatives. All the ignorant, hate speech: all the insane talk of the American apocalypse emanates from one camp. Blue state politicians do dumb things but they don't talk as if science and learning were concepts to be feared and condemned. Interestingly enough, tea party leaders preach to their faithful as if those people were dim-witted children. Those congregants then go home, reflect on not just the preaching but the preachers and vote to reject those preachers. The Senate races in Indiana and Missouri in 2012 are only the most recent examples.
Now we move to Virginia and the governors race in 2013. The Old Dominion has gone for Obama in the last two elections but in races inside the state, they show much more red than blue. True, both U.S. Senators from Virginia are Democrats but the State Capitol, including the Governor is very much a GOP stronghold. Recent scandals regarding Governor McDonnell and his wife haven't stopped the steady flow of repressive, draconian legislation. (The State representatives of Virginia seem more interested in probing a woman's vagina than the finances of their ethically compromised governor).
Anyway, Virginia's governors cannot succeed themselves so the race is on for a new face in 2013. Democrats have chosen Terry McAuliffe, a functional candidate whose primary success to date is as a fundraiser for the Clintons. In his previous run for VA governor he couldn't beat a nobody named Creigh Deeds in a primary. The Republicans have thrown in with Ken Cuccinelli, the current State Attorney General who began running for governor a nano-second after taking the oath as AG. Known as Cuch (People who couldn't stop Googling "Santorum" will hurt themselves laughing about "Cuch".) Cuccinelli is a screaming conservative Catholic who: 1) hates immigrants, 2) hates gays, 3) hates abortion, (big surprise) 4) loves guns, and, of course 5) hates Obamacare. He apparently feels that if he can pander to the "old South" part of the state, he won't need any of the DC suburbs where all the smart people live.
The reason that Virginia's current election ties into a discussion of "Republican=Stupid" is the GOP choice for Lieutenant Governor, one E.W. Jackson. Reverend Jackson is a colorful politician in more ways than one. He is the founder and current president of S.T.A.N.D., a tortured acronym for Staying True To America's National Destiny. He is also head of the Exodus Faith Ministries (EFM doesn't have much of a ring, does it?) Still Jackson is that rarest of birds: a black conservative, right-wing nut job. Traditionally, Virginia's black conservatives could hold their caucus at a modest table at Denny's. (Guest speaker Hermann Cain). Rev. Jackson will have no trouble being recognized at campaign events. He'll be the black man in the crowd who isn't serving hors d'oeuvres.
Mr. Jackson's uniqueness isn't limited to his race. Even among Republicans his views are, lets say, novel. Reverend Jackson is not your run-of-the-mill loony. He is a Harvard educated lawyer, an ex-marine and a bishop in his church. It's amazing how many conservative crazies are Harvard grads: Ted Cruz, Antonin Scalia , David Vitter... the list goes on. He was apparently chosen by a selection committee more worried about the color of his skin than the content of his character. Say what you will, Reverend Jackson is a character.
Among the newsworthy if cringe-inducing pronouncements from Rev. Jackson are:
"It is the principle of sin, rebellion against God and his truths which has brought about birth defects and other destructive natural occurrences."
"Planned Parenthood has done more to harm black people than the Ku Klux Klan."
"Homosexuals are perverted and very sick people."
In an blog posting published in 2010 (Yeah, like you can believe anything in a blog!) Jackson wrote that Barack Obama "sees the world from a Muslim prospective".
Rev. Jackson has also attacked the heinous, godless practice of...yoga. In his book "Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life" the Rev. states that yoga meditation encourages participants to empty their minds. "Satan is happy to invade the empty vacuum of your soul and possess it". Nature may abhor a vacuum but Beelzebub wants to move right in. Rev. Jackson knows of what he speaks. Having emptied his mind of virtually all of the knowledge gained at Harvard, the evil influence of Conservatism just took up residence. This man needs a right wing exorcism. Paging Max Von Sydow!
Will someone please explain why Republicans feel the need to continuously trot out one bible thumping, gag-inducing, anti-intelligence, gasbag after another? When you add EW Jackson to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Louie Gommert, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin and a host of others, that's not a coincidence; that's a contagion. The GOP insists on mining a claim that is petering out by the hour. Smart conservatives look at E.W. Jackson and shake their heads in dismay. How does a black preacher, whose views are laughable (bordering on scary) help an already foundering candidate who might otherwise give the liberal opponent a run for his money? How can you make a case for your stance on the issues when the issue becomes your whack-job running mate? Conservatism used to be a serious political philosophy. Now it only serves to keep Jon Stuart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher in business.h
To paraphrase David Letterman, what can you make of a political party whose members think the birth certificate of the President is a fake but professional wrestling is real?
Saturday, June 01, 2013
...or does the Buddha have it right... " Lack of action is action"?
So maybe it's time to talk about Islam.
As a forum that hues to the port side of the political spectrum, isitjustme is inclined to take a conciliatory stance when tempers run high. There is little satisfaction or justice to be had in the mass condemnation of any group or ethnicity. Harassing a Yemeni restaurant owner or protesting the construction of a mosque in Frankfort, KY hardly seems intelligent or fair. The vast majority of Muslims in America and in Europe want nothing more than to enjoy the benefits of living in a country where one's religion is no impediment to success or happiness. Your Persian neighbor, Pakistani doctor or Moroccan co-worker wishes only to be treated like the American citizen he or she has become. When we condemn a culture or religion, we rarely mean the people of that culture or religion who are known to us. Bigotry is harder to sustain when the oppressed has a name...
So, having established that we are all reasonable, intelligent, enlightened members of a modern, tolerant society, we are getting a bit fed up with Islam. The world is tired of the absurd justifications for senseless murder. Muslim sensibilities cannot be trotted out as the reason for car bombings, mass shootings, and airplane hijackings. Your beliefs are important to you but trivial to me. We cannot tolerate one more senseless death because some disenfranchised loser, whose inability to find happiness in the West results in his "striking a blow for Allah". Our society is not responsible for your poverty, or your isolation. Turning to jihaddist preachers for answers will not feed your family or put gas in your car. It will however, cause the rest of us to become radicalized against you and yours. (Please refer to the chapter in the Koran on self-fulfilling prophesy.)
The Crusaders killed thousands of Muslims. The Ottaman Turks killed tens of thousands of Christians. If we acknowledge that the world was a barbaric place in 1100 or 1360 or 1490 can we please move on? Empirical evidence would suggest that, if the West wanted to kill Muslims in 2013 we could certainly do a better job of it. Imagining that conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are somehow religious in origin belies the facts that richer Islamic targets exist almost everywhere. But logic is rarely in play where Islam is concerned. No one should die over a movie. Tens of thousands should not take to the streets in multiple countries over a cartoon. Apoplectic responses to book burnings will always seem to be an overreaction.
Still, logical or not, Islam has to start taking responsibility for itself. If you want to live in France then you must do so as a Frenchman. We are beginning not to care that most Muslims are "normal folk" who just want to practice their religion in peace. If you attend a mosque where radicalism is preached, tolerated or even whispered and you don't call Homeland Security, you are not "normal folk". Your reaction to talk of violence at a mosque should be the same as if you heard it in the checkout line at Safeway. If you don't speak up you are a collaborator. If you put the misguided teaching of your religion before the security of your country you are a co-conspirator. Islam isn't being blamed for all the violence in the world but Islam is causing a lot of it, especially among civilians. We are starting not to care that you have grievances. You must find a better way to express them.
We must decide where to draw the line between culture and crime; between religious freedom and social welfare. No religious creed or custom can become a justification for cruelty or abuse of personal rights. Your Koran will not shield you from laws against abuse of women, honor killings or denial of basic liberties. The West is not inclined to invade Saudi Arabia in order to secure driving rights for women however we will not condone the abuse of women's rights in any country or territory where Western laws prevail. As Tom Friedman observes, the world is getting flat and standards for basic human conduct are becoming universal. We in the civilized world will not tolerate bad behavior, not on religious grounds but on moral grounds.
The Tsarnaev Brothers in Boston, Major Nidal Hasan (he of the Fort Hood shooting) and all of the other deranged murders in the last fifteen years have succeeded only in convincing Westerners that, even the worst religious bigots have a point. The Brits are about one step away from jailing everyone in the UK who prays to Mecca. After the horrific murder of an off-duty soldier last weekend, who can blame them? Holland, one of Europe's most open countries, feels subsumed by Muslims who don't want to be Dutch. They want a Sharia state in the Netherlands. We want to be tolerant. We don't want to be stupid.
So here it is. If you want to be a Muslim in Germany or Greece or Cleveland fine but you must assimilate. Transition is difficult for any immigrant but the difficulty is usually worth it. Let your kids (especially the girls) go to local schools. Learn a little of the local language, not because you have to but because you want to. Get used to thinking of yourself as a Brit or a Swede. Respond to an incident in the Middle East as a citizen not a follower.
Practice your religion but keep it out of your politics. Imams who preach hate in Denmark or Poland are in little danger of being chosen as suicide bombers. Think for yourself. Understand that you are different and as such may be treated differently. No offence intended. Although you might well have been a victim in your old country, in this place you're just new. Impatience is not bigotry. Rudeness is not intolerance. The whole point of freedom is that you can be anything, so chose to be something good. You have a lot to offer so offer it. Remember, if being a Muslim in Kuwait or Syria was such a cool thing, why are you here? We in the West are only being shown one side of Islam. Please, show us something else or prepare to be treated the way you fear most.
As a forum that hues to the port side of the political spectrum, isitjustme is inclined to take a conciliatory stance when tempers run high. There is little satisfaction or justice to be had in the mass condemnation of any group or ethnicity. Harassing a Yemeni restaurant owner or protesting the construction of a mosque in Frankfort, KY hardly seems intelligent or fair. The vast majority of Muslims in America and in Europe want nothing more than to enjoy the benefits of living in a country where one's religion is no impediment to success or happiness. Your Persian neighbor, Pakistani doctor or Moroccan co-worker wishes only to be treated like the American citizen he or she has become. When we condemn a culture or religion, we rarely mean the people of that culture or religion who are known to us. Bigotry is harder to sustain when the oppressed has a name...
So, having established that we are all reasonable, intelligent, enlightened members of a modern, tolerant society, we are getting a bit fed up with Islam. The world is tired of the absurd justifications for senseless murder. Muslim sensibilities cannot be trotted out as the reason for car bombings, mass shootings, and airplane hijackings. Your beliefs are important to you but trivial to me. We cannot tolerate one more senseless death because some disenfranchised loser, whose inability to find happiness in the West results in his "striking a blow for Allah". Our society is not responsible for your poverty, or your isolation. Turning to jihaddist preachers for answers will not feed your family or put gas in your car. It will however, cause the rest of us to become radicalized against you and yours. (Please refer to the chapter in the Koran on self-fulfilling prophesy.)
The Crusaders killed thousands of Muslims. The Ottaman Turks killed tens of thousands of Christians. If we acknowledge that the world was a barbaric place in 1100 or 1360 or 1490 can we please move on? Empirical evidence would suggest that, if the West wanted to kill Muslims in 2013 we could certainly do a better job of it. Imagining that conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are somehow religious in origin belies the facts that richer Islamic targets exist almost everywhere. But logic is rarely in play where Islam is concerned. No one should die over a movie. Tens of thousands should not take to the streets in multiple countries over a cartoon. Apoplectic responses to book burnings will always seem to be an overreaction.
Still, logical or not, Islam has to start taking responsibility for itself. If you want to live in France then you must do so as a Frenchman. We are beginning not to care that most Muslims are "normal folk" who just want to practice their religion in peace. If you attend a mosque where radicalism is preached, tolerated or even whispered and you don't call Homeland Security, you are not "normal folk". Your reaction to talk of violence at a mosque should be the same as if you heard it in the checkout line at Safeway. If you don't speak up you are a collaborator. If you put the misguided teaching of your religion before the security of your country you are a co-conspirator. Islam isn't being blamed for all the violence in the world but Islam is causing a lot of it, especially among civilians. We are starting not to care that you have grievances. You must find a better way to express them.
We must decide where to draw the line between culture and crime; between religious freedom and social welfare. No religious creed or custom can become a justification for cruelty or abuse of personal rights. Your Koran will not shield you from laws against abuse of women, honor killings or denial of basic liberties. The West is not inclined to invade Saudi Arabia in order to secure driving rights for women however we will not condone the abuse of women's rights in any country or territory where Western laws prevail. As Tom Friedman observes, the world is getting flat and standards for basic human conduct are becoming universal. We in the civilized world will not tolerate bad behavior, not on religious grounds but on moral grounds.
The Tsarnaev Brothers in Boston, Major Nidal Hasan (he of the Fort Hood shooting) and all of the other deranged murders in the last fifteen years have succeeded only in convincing Westerners that, even the worst religious bigots have a point. The Brits are about one step away from jailing everyone in the UK who prays to Mecca. After the horrific murder of an off-duty soldier last weekend, who can blame them? Holland, one of Europe's most open countries, feels subsumed by Muslims who don't want to be Dutch. They want a Sharia state in the Netherlands. We want to be tolerant. We don't want to be stupid.
So here it is. If you want to be a Muslim in Germany or Greece or Cleveland fine but you must assimilate. Transition is difficult for any immigrant but the difficulty is usually worth it. Let your kids (especially the girls) go to local schools. Learn a little of the local language, not because you have to but because you want to. Get used to thinking of yourself as a Brit or a Swede. Respond to an incident in the Middle East as a citizen not a follower.
Practice your religion but keep it out of your politics. Imams who preach hate in Denmark or Poland are in little danger of being chosen as suicide bombers. Think for yourself. Understand that you are different and as such may be treated differently. No offence intended. Although you might well have been a victim in your old country, in this place you're just new. Impatience is not bigotry. Rudeness is not intolerance. The whole point of freedom is that you can be anything, so chose to be something good. You have a lot to offer so offer it. Remember, if being a Muslim in Kuwait or Syria was such a cool thing, why are you here? We in the West are only being shown one side of Islam. Please, show us something else or prepare to be treated the way you fear most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)