The more things change, the more they stay the same - in the South

Years ago, scenes such as this were common through the states that rebelled against the Union in 1861. Although Slavery was eliminated by 1865, the South created "Jim Crow" and "Separate but Equal" as tools to keep Blacks disenfranchised. Making Blacks use separate facilities (if they existed) for basic needs (such as getting a drink of ice water, as in the photo above) was a way of telling Blacks that they were valued little more than cattle on the farm. Today, these signs are long gone. Yet, the South (with other conservative states) are creating a new class of third class citizen by use of laws that discriminate against a very small number of people - Transgenders. 

It shocked America when the former George Jorgensen came back to the United States in 1951 as Christine Jorgensen. She was looked on as a form of oddity then, as there were only a handful of people who had undergone a sex change operation. Even Louis Farrakhan (in his pre-Muslim Brotherhood days) wrote a song about her - "Is she is, or is she ain't?" Yet, I can't recall anyone trying to deny her the rights to go about as a woman in society. (I can't say whether she had an amended birth certificate or other ID that identified her as female, but she was treated as such by most people she met.)

However things have changed. We now know that transgenders are at least 1/3000th of our nation's population, and maybe more. And as more and more transgenders decide to live in the gender other than that assigned at birth, we're seeing conservative elements in society attempting to bring back obstacles that are intended to let transgenders know that they are considered not worthy of having basic rights.

The author of this blog entry (Wingnuts and the political machine) notes that the bigots are attacking basic human needs, such as the right of the transgenders to go to the bathroom. Since it doesn't make sense to provide separate facilities (there is no "Separate but Equal" requirement for transgenders) for such a small population, the laws that ban transgenders from using appropriate bathrooms mean that there is no place for these people to go.

Why does the sight of a transgender person worry a certain class of conservatives so much? I think that the idea of transgenders provide a proof that the gender binary that has been indoctrinated into some people since childhood is at risk. And they would rather destroy any facts that challenge their understanding of the world.  Could you imagine what these people would feel if they were to see one permanent exhibit at NYC's Museum of Sex? The exhibit I note has examples of animals which change their sex, animals which have both male and female sex organs, and animals that do not reproduce sexually. This certainly does not agree with the biblical account of creation.

- - - - - -

You'll notice that I started with an issue that affects a small percentage of the population. But it gets worse from there. America is a nation of immigrants. Yet, narrow minded people are "suggesting" that people change their names when they come to America to reduce the effort that the "natives" need to expend to learn their new neighbors' names. 

Time and time again, I see postings trying to stir up hatred of Islam from some of my more conservative friends. There is legitimate fear of extremists - these friends see evidence of what happens when radical Islamists get control of countries, and they are right to be worried. But they don't see that their imposition of a fundamentalist form of Christianity is almost as bad as what they fear. Yet, they do make some good points, when they note how the imposition of fundamentalist Islam has affected several countries.

 Iran - Before and After

 Egypt - Before and After

And this problem even infects a "Christian" country when a large number of fundamentalist Muslims immigrate there.....

The Netherlands -

Before and After

What I find interesting is that Christian fundamentalists who fear change can be just as extreme as Muslim fundamentalists. Both believe in forcing others to live their way - even if it means destroying anything which challenges their world view. And in the United States, it is our South that tends to put the most social restrictions on individual liberty. 

I hope that over time, it will become impossible to hold people down using religion and god as excuses to justify mistreatment of individuals. To see this day, forward thinking people will need to gain control of the media and broadcast their messages louder and more often than the opposition. As long as backward thinking people control the messages heard by the general public, we have a great risk of moving backward - as illustrated by the above pictures of Iran, Egypt and The Netherlands.  It will mean that we protect people that we don't really understand, such as Transgenders. But by protecting small minorities first, we prevent the back sliding that would put larger groups (such as Blacks) at greater risk....

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Although I am still a registered Republican, I don't remember the last time I could honestly say that I could vote for a candidate on the Republican Party line. The wingnuts have taken over the party, and the rhetoric coming out of some former standard bearers has been an embarrassment for any thinking person.

Recently, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he doubted that our president, Barack Obama loves America. It seems that he believes that if we love our country that we should blindly praise our country without question, and never criticize it.  This is not love - this is blind, unthinking loyalty to a potentially corrupt leadership. Did the Abolitionists (pre Civil War) not love their country because they disagreed with the law of the land? What about people like Martin Luther King Jr. - could you say that he didn't love this country because he was critical of how it treated his race? What about the Japanese-Americans who were herded into prison camps? Almost every group who are present in this country has a legitimate gripe to complain about - do their complaints mean that they do not love this country?

Giuliani stated that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Later, on Fox News, he "doubled down" and restated the same claim. (And this, with Fox News trying to give him a chance to hedge things, so that he didn't look as much like an idiot as he did.) The former NYC mayor opened up a firestorm, as CNN noted that this puts the GOP 2016 contenders for the Presidency in a bind - Do they support Giuliani, and disrespect the office of the President? Or, do they criticize Giuliani, and say something good about Obama to show respect for his office? Of course, the left has had a field day, with one congressman using the constitution's "3/5ths Human" value of a slave for the head counts needed to determine the number of congressmen a state has.

To me, the most galling of Giuliani's statements show how racist he really is.  Giuliani stated that he was OK to criticize Obama in his way because he (Obama) had a white mother. To me, that's like saying someone isn't racist because he/she has a black friend. Our society has a lot of racist elements in it, and they can not be eliminated overnight. But to say that the sitting president of our country doesn't love his country because he refuses to shout meaningless lines like "we're number one!" and makes valid criticisms of this country is insulting to those who want to continue making this country a better country for all.

Our country was founded as a result of a minority revolt against unjust authority. It caught the British by surprise, as the British acted as it being associated with Britain was reward enough for any injustice suffered by the colonists. History has proven the British wrong - growth always is dependent on a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude. If we're not moving forward as a nation, then we are backsliding. And this president does not seem to be a backslider - even if a critic disagrees with the direction in which the president wants to take this country.

I love my country. But I do not think it is the best country in the world. Instead, we may have the best ideal, the best goal for a society in this world. The opening of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind - "We hold these truths...." We are far from that ideal - but it is a direction we all should take. If we didn't criticize our society, we would have blind obedience to corrupt leaders - and never would have given Blacks the right to vote, nor would we have given Women the right to vote. We never would have fought to end Jim Crow, much less had our current president in office, if voices of criticism were silenced, and defiance of unjust policies never occurred.

No, our president does not love this country in the same way that Rudy Giuliani does, and I thank God for that. I'd rather have a man in charge who is comfortable with criticism than to have a leader who squashes all dissent. 

It's not just what you know, but how and when you use that knowledge.

Not many people have seen an Enigma machine close up - but I have. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but not as amazing as the fact that we cracked the code AND knew enough not to use all the knowledge we had, lest we clue the enemy in to the fact that their codes were broken.

- - - - - -

During WW2, one of the biggest clandestine goals of British intelligence was to break the German Enigma codes. Every day, the Germans would change the rotors and give the Enigmas new settings to code and decode messages. The Allied forces could not break these codes until Alan Turing figured out the weaknesses of what the Germans were doing. 

After the codes were broken, what next? One had a good idea of what the enemy knew, but could they prevent disasters? Often, NO! Unless there was a plausible way to explain why a troop movement was changed, why a convoy was rerouted, why some action was not taken, the Allies had to accept the known attack to come.

Today, we are in a similar war - but against many powers. Ars Technica describes what one division of the NSA is likely to have done in infecting systems around the world, so that America has a technical edge which might be used militarily.  

- - - - - -

In the past, America has tapped Soviet (now Russian) cables connecting the mainland to Vladivostok to keep tabs on the fleet stationed there. But the Soviets were able to plant a bug in the American Embassy in Moscow - inside the Great Seal given to us as a gift. And the Chinese are known to have their electronic spies as well. All the major nations are playing this game, and they have likely evolved a form of "rules of engagement" for use when dealing with each other. But this doesn't apply to nations that aren't top tier powers. Nor does this apply to non-national powers, such as Palestine (not yet a nation) or ISIS.

As civilians, none of us (for all practical purposes) have any clue to what is going on behind the scenes. We do not know for sure how successful the STUXNET virus was in attacking Iran's Uranium enrichment program, but it likely set Iran back by a year or two. Even more interesting is North Korea's military programs - could they have been compromised by malware hidden in the hard drives they bought from outside the country? (I'd bet that China may playing a role here, as they have gotten weary of keeping this dysfunctional regime afloat.)

- - - - - -

Much of the time, information like this never makes it to the history books. Alan Turing's accomplishments were kept Top Secret by the British for a couple of generations. Once classified as Top Secret, few governments ever bother to reclassify information which no longer needs to be kept secret. Yet, some secrets are kept by hiding them in plain sight. Leon Theremin was reportedly kidnapped from the United States in the 1930's (there is information that says he left for tax reasons), and after a stint in the gulag, then working for the KGB, ended up at the Moscow Conservatory of music (building Theremins and other musical instruments) before becoming a professor of Physics at Moscow State University.

- - - - - -

There are people who want our president to go to war against ISIS, putting boots on the ground.  Are we ready to have our children come back from the war in body bags (or worse)? I doubt it. Years ago, President Kennedy contacted the pilots flying spy planes over Cuba and gave them orders (with explanations) to NOT report any hostile fire from the ground while flying their missions. Many planes came back perforated - and the pilots claimed they hit birds and other things. This gave the president the room he needed to talk peace. But it was not only an American who prevented the Third World War - there was a Soviet Officer, Vasili Arkhipov, who kept his submarine from launching nuclear missiles while the submarine he was on was being attacked by American depth charges. Hard Liners in both countries wanted war - thankfully, that war never happened. Are we ready for yet another "Forever War", because we're seeing extreme inhumanity from an enemy? Or, are there other things we can do (or are being done) that can limit the scope of the war?

Right now, we do not have all the facts, and we are being manipulated by the media. We have to watch out how the media is being manipulated - when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death, none of America's Left and Centrist media provided links to see this murder. Only the Right wing media provided links to view the murder, as it is trying to stir up the will for Americans to endure yet another war. In fact, politicians are already saying we should resort to nukes, and kill ruthlessly. Wouldn't it make more sense to get more information before another rush to war?

A modest proposal for repurposing prisons and the employees in them

One of the problems we have in our society is that we have incarcerated people needlessly for low level drug crimes, causing us to spend over $90,000,000,000/year in keeping 0.5% of the USA's population locked up, and preventing them from looking for well paid (legal) work due to the fact that these people now have criminal records. 

Over the past few months, I have had a correspondence with a special-ed teacher in a New Jersey school district which is having trouble with an autistic child (19 years old) who is biting others, and is a danger to the school - but who is not being removed, due to the school's principal seeing this child as a source of school funding. The situation is very bad, and the staff is helpless in getting the problems fixed. 

So, I made the following suggestion:

I wonder if there isn't another way this problem can be attacked. The kid is 19, and he assaults people. What if someone made a formal complaint to the police, for assault. That would blow up things, and the administration might be forced to keep the kid out of school for the safety of others.... Also - what about notifying the parents of the other children that the biter could be putting their kids at risk? There are so many ways to blow up this situation before serious, permanent damage is done by this kid.....

And my friend responded:

I appreciate your ideas but with an administration (superintendent, principal & supervisor) who all came from a place where a whole class of 5 boys could be this bad and most classes had at least one of these (according to the gym teacher who also is from that school) I doubt much can be done. They did temporarily "exclude" (not expel) another kid, younger, who drank from the toilet and put his feces all over the walls in the bathroom. He also threw things at other kids (one of whom could get a detached retina easily as he is going blind anyway and has other medical issues). Our consulting psychiatrist did an eval now the parents must do their own before he is allowed to come back. Our shrink, who is terrific, said the kid needs meds before interacting with others but mom is opposed. At least that kid is out. Now -- this is where I said we have little hope of anything changing for the biter kid.... this poop smearing kid was in my friend (R)'s room. She is an outstanding teacher. She never, ever raises her voice. Every teacher knows she is wonderful and non assertive. When she got poop smear kid who is classified as 'autistic' put into her class and then he acted up she asked the principal why the kid was in her class and not the class (same ages) of all autistic. Well, anorexic principal didn't like being asked that I guess so when R was "observed and evaluated" the principal wrote lies, such as R didn't greet this monster kid when he arrived, didn't talk to him at all, etc. So she went to the union rep and it turns out the principal only admitted she was in the class 15 minutes not the 20 that is required for an observation so the whole thing had to be discarded !!! The union rep is convinced the ridiculous eval was due to R asking a legit question. Most of us who have been at the school 5 years and did NOT come from the principal's old school know that the reason this monster didn't get put in the autistic class was because that class is taught by the Japanese lady (aka 'golden girl') who, of course, taught with the principal in the old school district !!!! That teacher is never short of aides, like the rest of us are at times due to absenteeism. She gets first crack at substitutes, etc.

Many of our student's parents are just glad their kids are someplace and if the admin could figure out who notified these parents our jobs would be gone or we would be treated unfairly (like my pal R). Years ago in our adjacent school for the emotionally disturbed, a teacher did call the police and he was transferred to another school. Apparently the kids can injure us, maim us, grope us, etc and we have no alternative except a CPI (crisis prevention intervention) blocking action which does not work (according to the course we had to take) IF the student is bigger (the 19 year old is taller than me and all the female staff). I think we are stuck with having to put up with it because it is "special ed" -- I am definitely going to look for another job in April when jobs are posted, although I am realistic about finding a district that will hire someone over 50 --- it was hard enough when I was over 40 and looking and now I am "more expensive" since they will believe I won't take a starting salary. (I would take less but not starting).

P.S.: When "mentally challenged" people (usually men) get away with crimes, including murder, do you think anyone is going to do anything about this kid?


And this got me thinking....  What if we repurposed the prisons, so that they can hold "children" like this 19 year old "student" and remove him from society, so that he won't do any harm to innocent people?  They can be made very humane, provide lots of employment, and do a real good for people.

If we took ALL the money we'd save on incarceration and spend it on health care for the "mentally challenged", we'd free the low level drug users to earn more money and pay more in taxes.  Wouldn't this be a net gain for society?  Of course, corporations could have their current (and in my opinion, now foolish) drug tests for new employees, but then with most drugs being legal, I'd expect to see employee retention based on performance and not on what substances they consume outside of the office.  (Do we really need to arrest people like Willie Nelson for inhaling the vapors of his "medicine"? I'm pretty sure that his productivity (as well as other artists) is enhanced and not negated by cannabis.) We'd still have our laws against driving, using heavy equipment, or other high risk tasks, while under the influence of any drugs - so that abusers could be treated appropriately under the law.

In previous versions of my thought experiments on this topic, I never figured out a way to provide jobs in the areas that would lose them has my proposals taken effect. However, the answer was staring me in the face - just put a different class of people in "prisons" who really do need to be isolated from society, and keep the same players in the game. Yes, the court system will be affected. Police will not get as much overtime as they've been accustomed to. But in the whole, we'd be all be better off - including these "children" who will never likely be able to function in society as independent adults.....

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.

Jihad vs. Crusade - Which is worse?

The above picture is from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - a former church, a former mosque, and now a museum. Istanbul (nee Constantinople) has been at the crossroads of Islam and Christianity for generations, as well as being the crossroads of East and West. And this building reflects the theme of today's post - Islamists vs. Christianists - which group is worse?

- - - - - -

In the past few days, our President has noted the human rights abuses committed by Christians in the past, as well as mentioning that the Crusades were not as holy as we'd like to paint them in the West. Christianists were up in arms, stating that it was Islam that struck the first blow, posting memes across social media to paint Christianity in a defensive light.

At the same time, others have been noting the human rights abuses committed by Muslims in the past (as well as most recent past), mentioning that the expansion of Islam had been one of military conquest - something that many Muslims hated to discuss, as they paint their religion as a peaceful one - ignoring their own history.

As I see it, both sides have committed great evils in the names of their faiths, and have blind spots regarding the history of their faiths. Is there any comparison possible without getting either side angry? I doubt it. Those who need absolute certainty that their faith is correct will try to destroy any evidence, any counter opinion that may suggest that their religion is wrong. 

- - - - - -

What we're seeing is a clash of civilizations. It's not the mainstream Christians and Muslims who have learned to live together that are clashing. Instead, it is those groups of people who want to turn back the clock a few hundred years to a time where there was nothing that could pose a challenge to their orthodoxy. And these people ARE the problem.

There is a large number of Muslims who consider any depiction of "the Prophet" to be heresy worth killing someone for.  Why?  If the word of God that was presented to him is that correct, then wouldn't God take care of justice? Who are they to determine what justice is, when it is only tradition that is responsible for a prohibition against depicting "the Prophet" in any way?  Christians have their hot buttons too. I remember a few years back when someone from Africa (if I recall correctly) painted a Madonna like figure with media made from Elephant dung. And the exhibition of this work set off a maelstrom of protests. Can any one person truly harm God if that God is all powerful?

Most modern people, Christian, Jew, and Muslim would look the other way if something were exhibited that offended us. Why doesn't everyone do this? As I see it, people who are alienated from modern society AND who have taken solace in religion need to believe in an "Old Testament-like God" who is ruthless in his punishments, draconian in his justice, and is as dysfunctional as they are. When events do not exhibit the "justice" they crave, they tale law into their own hands, execute that "justice", then say that they were only following God's will. But who are they to say exactly what God's will is? I don't see God coming down from on high to tell me (or others) what his will is. Who are these people to claim it?

- - - - - -

It's about time that the moderates of all faiths take back control of dogma from the extremists, and push the extremists out of civilized society. In the Mid-East, it may involve the use of heavy duty armaments, while in "civilized" nations it may involve curtailing certain rights - with a goal of forcing the extremists to move elsewhere. I have no solutions. I am proposing some thought experiments, as if we don't come up with ideas soon, the plague infecting the "Old World" may metastasize and infect the "New World" in ways we can't handle....