We’ve debated before on these pages the implications of religious sensitivity on military affairs and politics. But here is a case (story also copied as the first comment) of where Muslim tradition has broad implications on the decided rights of another sovereign nation.

Check out Pakistan’s response:

[The Danish government should] “try to resolve this issue because you cannot hurt the sentiments of billions of Muslims in the name of freedom of press.”

Say what? Pakistan apparently believes that it’s too much to ask Muslim governments to abandon sponsoring terrorism, but it’s perfectly reasonable to ask a government to suspend the most fundamental of civil rights.

The pertinent questions to me seem to be the following.

1. It is reasonable for Islamic nations to expect western countries to abandon centuries-old rights and freedoms in the interest of religious sensitivity?

2. Are there any cases when religion trumps civil rights?

3. Given this example, is it moronic to suggest that Islamic tradition is incompatible with modern life?

4. How can the west accommodate or peacefully co-exist with a society that deems blasphemy occuring in another sovereign nation as an acceptable excuse for trade wars, diplomatic recourse, or even violence?

I’m in love with avocados. I used to consider the orange my favorite food from the fruit/vegetable category. But the avocado’s taste and extreme versatility has made it a true leader. The avocado is supposedly very nutritious, although a little bit high in fat compared to other fruits and veggies. (This is still no comparison to butter, which unit for unit is loaded in fat.)

I eat about an avocado or two per day as an independent snack or as an ingredient to a meal. They’re relatively filling. They cost anywhere from $0.50 to $1.00. I cut mine on the north/south axis and scoop out the pit, then eat them raw with a spoon and a dash of salt and pepper on them. However, you can also slice them up and drop them in soup or you can use them as an alternative to mayo/butter for sandwiches and toast. I haven’t even discussed guacamole, a viable salsa alternative.

For those who have been living under a virtual rock, Wikipedia (link goes to the English version) is an online encyclopedia whose entries are written and ammended by anyone who wants to contribute. For a better definition, just look up the term “wikipedia” in Wikipedia.

The reliability of this online encyclopedia has been questioned since it was created due to anyone being able to edit it. Now it appears as if Congressional staffers have been caught cleaning up their bosses bios. Wikipedia’s own definition of itself states:

“Wikipedia’s status as a reference work has been controversial since its open nature allows vandalism, inaccuracy, inconsistency, uneven quality, and unsubstantiated opinions. It has also been criticised for systemic bias, preference of consensus to credentials, and a perceived lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias.”

Does the large amount of topics and entries Wikipedia offers make up for a few inaccuracies? Should this project be viewed as a fun facet of the web, or serious reference? Was it doomed from the start or the future of information? Is it really any worse than any printed material that claims to recite the definitive version of history?

Finally, some rap I can relate to! Cupcakes…mmmm.

SNL finally does something right.

AJ

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182842,00.html

The Palestinian militant group Hamas won a huge majority in parliamentary elections Wednesday as Palestinian voters rejected the longtime rule of the Fatah Party, throwing the future of Mideast peacemaking into question.

Bush at a press conference today said “I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace when you advocate the destruction of a country on your platform” or when a party has an armed wing, Bush said. “We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government but I will continue to remind people about what I just said, if your platform is the destruction of Israel, that means you’re not interested in peace.”

So, this cannot be good. Hamas was specifically formed FOR the destruction of Israel; that has, in effect, been it’s charter. Over the past few years, they started providing basic services to the palestinian people in the territories that the PA government would not. Hence, their sucess in the elections this week.

I can’t fault the people for wanting a group that gives them the necessities over their current government, but don’t believe the hype- Hamas will not negotiate with Israel, they may call a Hudna, or cease fire, but so far have stated they would only have a truce for a year, and then what?

This leaves few options for the United States, so my question is, how does this play out, and where do we stand when the cards fall?

AJ