in this case the simple math shows you that the world's gross product per capita is very small and everyone would be in a very bad shape
This is a fallacy. A rough estimate gives about 10 thousand dollars per person. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/xx.html
I live with about that amount of money (+/- 5%) and it'd be preposterous to say that I am in a bad shape.
c) the side that wants the government not supporting anyone because neither economy nor ecology should be matters of state policy.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't less government interference that exactly what the industrialist lobby is pushing? As far as I know, more liberal economic policies has always been the lobby's main goal be. The adverse effects of said liberalism ranged from an ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots to abject destruction of the environment (extinctions of species, deforestation, early signs of climate change...)
Now, if only scientists find a way to extend our life span, maybe people will start caring...
Basically, they win political power, which can then be used for other, secondary purposes.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. There's no doubt that the issue has been hijacked for political purposes. Yet, the political power you're refering to is an incentive for both sides. So, from my stand-point, it evens out.
We are all optimists at heart. Else, we'd be running around like crazies if we didn't believe there's a way to make it all better. The difference is that "pessimism of the intellect" is necessary if we wanna begin to question our - by now obvious - wasteful lifestyles.
Also, let me ask you a simple question: What's those "alarmist fear-mongering" people gotta win by promoting their side of the story? I can sure see why an industrialist lobby would wanna dismiss global warming. Evidently, the latter has a LOT more power and resources than the former.
Well, Arabs citizens of Israel have a hard time, but as I understand it they have the same legal rights as Jews.
There's a big difference between their rights on paper and in practice. Keep in mind that Israel knew very little times of peace throughout its short history, and as such, is practically under martial law. Censorship is a daily practice and Arabs which represent 20% of the population own as little as 2% of the land.
Jonathan Cook is one of the very few brave journalists that chose to live in an Arab populated area (Nazareth). Cook describes the ordeal Arabs suffer on a daily. His account is a must-read for anybody who'd like an insider's perspective. All other reporters prefer the confortable hotels of Jerusalem, and only compile whatever was already published by the local press to avoid trouble with the censor.
Of course, the best way to understand the issue is to go there yourself and talk to the ordinary people. If you're Arab, make sure not to make plans upon arrival as you'll be detained at the airport for about a whole day!
However, the Israelis did not ethnically cleanse all of the original inhabitants: a minority of Muslims, Christians and Druze still live there.
Thank God for that! Yet it's hard to deny that Arabs in Israel are second class citizens. Try having a look at Carter's most recent book to get some insight.
Personally, I don't trust anyone who immediately calls a press conference after supposedly being "harassed", too many "victims" in this country complain far too loudly most of the time, and I'm too jaded to believe many, if any, of them.
The following is just plane hilarious and goes to show that the paranoia "harrassement" treatment isn't restricted to Muslims. http://verystrangenews.com/?p=42
Regarding pedophilia: Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9.
Accounts diverge on this particular issue as people didn't really keep track of their age back then. Heck, my OWN grandmother doesn't know her age. There's no doubt that Aicha was his favourite wife as she's believed to have been the only virgin he married. She was extremely jealous of the love Mohammad had for his first wife - and then deceased - Khadija.
No matter, I believe that someone with a penchant for little girls, and in his position, could have married a lot more of them if that was the reason he married Aicha. The fact is that, most of his wives were widows. The rationale behind polygamy in Islam is to keep widows off the streets and satisfy their needs; Remember that there were many wars in the beginning of Islam and men were falling like flies.
and you write that off as part of the "custom" of the time? Interesting.
What I tried to convey was the arranged marriage custom (which is still persitent in some places) for political reasons. In a tribal society, it's one of the few ways you can ensure the other tribes' loyalty. The "custom" has nothing to do with age.
If the latter, you need to do the same and stop making excuses for brutal behavior like that exhibited by the early (and modern) followers of the Way of Submission ("Muslimeen" in English).
Let me make it clear that there's an infinity of behaviors exhibited by Muslims which I don't condone. Aside from the obvious manifestation of a bearded few recently, I have difficulty admitting that the prophet may have indeed ordered the execution of adult males of a whole tribe that blatantly betrayed him costing the lives of hundreds of his companions (and enslaved the women and kids). It was only after tomes of historical litterature that I understood the context of the situation. I don't have time to go thru all the details but let me tell you that the Muslim cadavers were savagely mutilated by the members of that tribe.
The hottest point for me is the one you focused on, namely the age of Aicha. Even taking the most conservative account of age 12 at the time the marriage was consumed, it is still very bothering to me. And of course, a cheap shot anti-Muslims since the dawn of Islam. My grandma married when she was 13 for economical reasons so my feelings on the subject are pretty ambivalent. Are sweat-shops a good or bad thing for the workers? Ultimately, such questions should be left to the legislative body.
They stopped bitching every time someone suspected them of being a terrorist. 9/11 changed things, it's up to YOU to change them back, and you won't do it by acting like a victim.
Hah! Reminescent of the way Saddam was asked to prove that he didn't have WMDs or Iran is asked to prove that they are not intending to make nukes. It's just impossible. There will always be a handful of extremists to sally the image of my religion (and the way the US and Israel are bullying the rest of the world, I can tell you for sure that they're not gonna go away). The US support for the despotic regimes in all of the Arab world (with the exception of Lebanon and Palestine) is
In short, they broke all kinds of regulations and acted like terrorists.
Well, Imam Omar Shahin begs to differ on all accounts. But if you'd rather believe the "Air Line Pilots Association" lobby or the paranoid Department of Homeland Security, it's your choice.
note that none of the imams were obese and did not need the extenders to fasten their belts.
The Imam refered to above weighs 290 pounds. In my book, that's obese.
OK, so you show us: what did Mohammad bring into the world that was completely new and different from, say, Judaism or Christianity that wasn't inhuman or evil?
Mohammad never EVER claimed to be bringing something new. He was merely repeating previous messages. Now, what does raiding caravans have to do withpedophilia? Nothing and it's really hard to assume good faith when you throw gratuitous accusations like these around. But I'll do anyway.
In the early days of Islam, Mohammad's life was in danger (Remember Jesus' faith?). Numerous attempts on his life and flagrant betrayals understandably were followed by repercutions. Remember that he was human. He never claimed to be divine or anything of the sort. So, yes, he attacked caravans for economical and political reasons. But rest assured that he never initiated any agressive act without being provoked.
The 9-years old wife issue is nothing outrageous if you put it in context. By most accounts, he didn't have sex with her until she turned 12 and reached puberty. Secondly, it was the daughter of the first male Muslim who, not only proposed the union but would have been extremely offended if the prophet refused. There's also Arab tribal tradition of strengthening alliances thru arranged marriages aspect. This is pretty universal but more pronounced among Arabs. Anybody studynig European history knows that. (but given your inflamatory language, I assume you watch Fox and thus are from the US). Let me also point out very briefly that it was about 1500 years ago. A couple of hundreds years back, your forefathers were marrying 12 years old girls. I respect the ideals they fought for (though condemn the genocide of the Natives and slavery bit), but will never call them pedophiles since they were other times with other customs. The concept of childhood is pretty modern if you think of it. Kids were becoming apprentices at a very young age (which still the case in most of the world) and the girls got married as soon as it was possible. Anyway, please take the time to read a historical book about Islam, you just might learn something. It goes without saying that you have to cross check anything you read on the subject.
I trust many big companies because they provide quality products and never tried to screw me,
If they didn't provide quality products, you'd go look elsewhere. Same if they tried to screw you. That's the only reason you trust them.
That said though, Dell isn't in my white list, that's for sure. Michael Dell is in for the money, period...
And so are the absolute majortity of corparations. They all put their interests above public interest. Try to watch Achbar's very insightful "The corporation" to get a sense of how just how bad it is.
But this strikes me as a classic patentable idea: novel, presumably useful, and (given that we didn't have any before despite a gazillion other models) non-obvious.
None of the above; It's patentable simply because the system's broken.
The part you emphasize was not in the original speech. It was added later on. The original English text had a "somewhat brusquely" instead. Also, brusqueness is not part of the sentence he used "wendet er sich in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form". He has been warned about the potential implications of the quotation but decided to include it anyway. http://www.focus.de/politik/papst/islam-zitate_nid _36094.html
I understand perfectly your position, but believe that the pope chose that statement deliberatly. I have read his speech in its integrity and drew the conclusion that he knew exactly what was bound to happen, given the then-current events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine (and more recent attacks on Somalia and the concentration of US forces around Iran).
To give you a simplistic analogy, would you recite an ode to wine by Milton at an AA meeting, quote Woodrow Wilson when trying "to highlight the need for understanding" between races?
But then again, maybe it was an honest mistake and he was genuinely trying to spread understanding between religions; In which case I just commited a sin by not granting him the benefit of the doubt. Pray for my soul, Benedict, pray!
Sure! Just like Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah while talking about the despair of the people in the occupied territories. Both points were better off without the quotes, but were purposedly included.
racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred.
While I condemn Wahabism for being a ruthless radical form of Islam, I can't help but pick up a bit of bias in your speech. Reading TFA reveals that the speech had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with homosexuals, the modern woman and children's education. All of those topics are openly debated by fundamentalists from all faiths.
On the other hand, when people that speak Arabic or even have t-shirts written in Arabic are denied boarding planes, that's racism IMHO. Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying? Or the two in Madrid that were "talking Arabic and looking at their watches"?
Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.
A genuinely free-market Republican administration would surely want the truth about climate change to be readily available so that the markets could respond appropriately and make capital and resources available for the inevitable re-shaping of society
I think not. Politicians couldn't care less about the fate of the planet a couple of generations down the road. Dead people have been known to influence politics (you know what I mean, right?); Not-yet-born do not!
I rather suspect that once the current political fad of believing the world is about to end because of environmental catastrophes has passed, I think privacy and personal freedom will be the Next Big Political Hot Potato.
Sure, our current lifestyles are demonstrably sustainable. It's not like many species are exctinct or on the verge of being so because of us...
What happens when they need to install a driver? There is no step-by-step process to follow. Hell, even updating video drivers requires you to know to type./ before the (ridiculously long) filename just to get it to run.
I thank you not for propagating the myth. This isn't something I had to do in quite some time. Automatix takes care of it nowadays.
Installing it is a breeze (ever since breezy); Click on the download link and click on a dialog box.
Also, updating the system is a click away on Ubuntu. So, your argument doesn't really add up. Let's face it, the reason people aren't switching is because Windows is what they're used to.
As much as I hate the situation in Tibet, I can't help but recall the bombardment of Somalia by the US a few days back. I am guessing that you are American otherwise you wouldn't use such phrases as "nobody sorry about that" when innocent victims are caught in conflicts which only serve US strategic interests.
Try to get past the "invasion" bit (though the US actually invaded many countries by proxy, but that's not the issue) and realise how many people have died as a direct result of a hungry hegemon seeking ever more power. Since WWII, the US bombed 24 countries. http://www.futurepower.org/us_government_violence. html
That is not to say China shouldn't be blamed for the horrific things they did, but by any standard, the US has done several orders of magnitude worse at the planet's scale (while the Chinese were more or less local in their attacks).
More insight on the current US-Chinese cold war http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=103&ItemID=11864
I totally get your point, yet I think the proposition should be limited to political matters only. Anyone with an ounce of lucidity and some insights on the middle-east can clearly see the US media bias in favor of Zionists.
This is, IMHO, the most pressing issue that should be dealt with.
As insightful as your post is, it yet fails to incorporate the soul into the debate. I don't blame you about that, I'm just pointing out the main flaw in your whole "simulate a brain" scheme.
For the record, the Quran established that the earth was "a very small part of a much larger universe" long before the advent of modern astronomy.
Slashdot Mirror
I live with about that amount of money (+/- 5%) and it'd be preposterous to say that I am in a bad shape.
Now, if only scientists find a way to extend our life span, maybe people will start caring...
Also, let me ask you a simple question: What's those "alarmist fear-mongering" people gotta win by promoting their side of the story? I can sure see why an industrialist lobby would wanna dismiss global warming. Evidently, the latter has a LOT more power and resources than the former.
Jonathan Cook is one of the very few brave journalists that chose to live in an Arab populated area (Nazareth). Cook describes the ordeal Arabs suffer on a daily. His account is a must-read for anybody who'd like an insider's perspective. All other reporters prefer the confortable hotels of Jerusalem, and only compile whatever was already published by the local press to avoid trouble with the censor.
Of course, the best way to understand the issue is to go there yourself and talk to the ordinary people. If you're Arab, make sure not to make plans upon arrival as you'll be detained at the airport for about a whole day!
I always give the benefit of the doubt to the little guy. Take a look at this, http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/muslims_th rown_.html
The following is just plane hilarious and goes to show that the paranoia "harrassement" treatment isn't restricted to Muslims. http://verystrangenews.com/?p=42
Accounts diverge on this particular issue as people didn't really keep track of their age back then. Heck, my OWN grandmother doesn't know her age. There's no doubt that Aicha was his favourite wife as she's believed to have been the only virgin he married. She was extremely jealous of the love Mohammad had for his first wife - and then deceased - Khadija.
No matter, I believe that someone with a penchant for little girls, and in his position, could have married a lot more of them if that was the reason he married Aicha. The fact is that, most of his wives were widows. The rationale behind polygamy in Islam is to keep widows off the streets and satisfy their needs; Remember that there were many wars in the beginning of Islam and men were falling like flies.
What I tried to convey was the arranged marriage custom (which is still persitent in some places) for political reasons. In a tribal society, it's one of the few ways you can ensure the other tribes' loyalty. The "custom" has nothing to do with age.
Let me make it clear that there's an infinity of behaviors exhibited by Muslims which I don't condone. Aside from the obvious manifestation of a bearded few recently, I have difficulty admitting that the prophet may have indeed ordered the execution of adult males of a whole tribe that blatantly betrayed him costing the lives of hundreds of his companions (and enslaved the women and kids). It was only after tomes of historical litterature that I understood the context of the situation. I don't have time to go thru all the details but let me tell you that the Muslim cadavers were savagely mutilated by the members of that tribe.
The hottest point for me is the one you focused on, namely the age of Aicha. Even taking the most conservative account of age 12 at the time the marriage was consumed, it is still very bothering to me. And of course, a cheap shot anti-Muslims since the dawn of Islam. My grandma married when she was 13 for economical reasons so my feelings on the subject are pretty ambivalent. Are sweat-shops a good or bad thing for the workers? Ultimately, such questions should be left to the legislative body.
Hah! Reminescent of the way Saddam was asked to prove that he didn't have WMDs or Iran is asked to prove that they are not intending to make nukes. It's just impossible. There will always be a handful of extremists to sally the image of my religion (and the way the US and Israel are bullying the rest of the world, I can tell you for sure that they're not gonna go away). The US support for the despotic regimes in all of the Arab world (with the exception of Lebanon and Palestine) is
In the early days of Islam, Mohammad's life was in danger (Remember Jesus' faith?). Numerous attempts on his life and flagrant betrayals understandably were followed by repercutions. Remember that he was human. He never claimed to be divine or anything of the sort. So, yes, he attacked caravans for economical and political reasons. But rest assured that he never initiated any agressive act without being provoked.
The 9-years old wife issue is nothing outrageous if you put it in context. By most accounts, he didn't have sex with her until she turned 12 and reached puberty. Secondly, it was the daughter of the first male Muslim who, not only proposed the union but would have been extremely offended if the prophet refused. There's also Arab tribal tradition of strengthening alliances thru arranged marriages aspect. This is pretty universal but more pronounced among Arabs. Anybody studynig European history knows that. (but given your inflamatory language, I assume you watch Fox and thus are from the US). Let me also point out very briefly that it was about 1500 years ago. A couple of hundreds years back, your forefathers were marrying 12 years old girls. I respect the ideals they fought for (though condemn the genocide of the Natives and slavery bit), but will never call them pedophiles since they were other times with other customs. The concept of childhood is pretty modern if you think of it. Kids were becoming apprentices at a very young age (which still the case in most of the world) and the girls got married as soon as it was possible. Anyway, please take the time to read a historical book about Islam, you just might learn something. It goes without saying that you have to cross check anything you read on the subject.
I understand perfectly your position, but believe that the pope chose that statement deliberatly. I have read his speech in its integrity and drew the conclusion that he knew exactly what was bound to happen, given the then-current events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine (and more recent attacks on Somalia and the concentration of US forces around Iran).
To give you a simplistic analogy, would you recite an ode to wine by Milton at an AA meeting, quote Woodrow Wilson when trying "to highlight the need for understanding" between races?
But then again, maybe it was an honest mistake and he was genuinely trying to spread understanding between religions; In which case I just commited a sin by not granting him the benefit of the doubt. Pray for my soul, Benedict, pray!
Sure! Just like Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah while talking about the despair of the people in the occupied territories. Both points were better off without the quotes, but were purposedly included.
On the other hand, when people that speak Arabic or even have t-shirts written in Arabic are denied boarding planes, that's racism IMHO. Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying? Or the two in Madrid that were "talking Arabic and looking at their watches"? Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/294921_amy0
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/826056.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6108574.stm
http://mondediplo.com/2006/12/17witchhunt
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/
But then again
Also, updating the system is a click away on Ubuntu. So, your argument doesn't really add up. Let's face it, the reason people aren't switching is because Windows is what they're used to.
In other news, Nordea is planning to relocate to Sealand.
As much as I hate the situation in Tibet, I can't help but recall the bombardment of Somalia by the US a few days back. I am guessing that you are American otherwise you wouldn't use such phrases as "nobody sorry about that" when innocent victims are caught in conflicts which only serve US strategic interests.
. html
o nID=103&ItemID=11864
Try to get past the "invasion" bit (though the US actually invaded many countries by proxy, but that's not the issue) and realise how many people have died as a direct result of a hungry hegemon seeking ever more power. Since WWII, the US bombed 24 countries. http://www.futurepower.org/us_government_violence
That is not to say China shouldn't be blamed for the horrific things they did, but by any standard, the US has done several orders of magnitude worse at the planet's scale (while the Chinese were more or less local in their attacks).
More insight on the current US-Chinese cold war http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti
I totally get your point, yet I think the proposition should be limited to political matters only. Anyone with an ounce of lucidity and some insights on the middle-east can clearly see the US media bias in favor of Zionists. This is, IMHO, the most pressing issue that should be dealt with.
For my part, this reminds me that Google Earth is a banned service in Morocco. Security through obscurity...
As insightful as your post is, it yet fails to incorporate the soul into the debate. I don't blame you about that, I'm just pointing out the main flaw in your whole "simulate a brain" scheme.
For the record, the Quran established that the earth was "a very small part of a much larger universe" long before the advent of modern astronomy.