151. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268354 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 6:12 pm

"Funny old world... "

What,Goldy, shades of grey???!!!

Sev -- I'm not googling, but that sure has a Bruce Springsteen flavor, 'cept for that one word...

152. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268340 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Goldy - an argument about socialism is only ever a whisker away on these threads so feel free to jump in any time.

153. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268338 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm

She is a Sri Lankan of Tamil descent. Her dad was a Tamil Tiger leader, I think. I like some of her songs. One of my musician friends who is also into electronic music really likes her. Sometimes she is too whiny for me, but I like some of her art (she does most of her own) and her kind of electro-world Third World revolutionary vibe.

154. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268333 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:49 pm

What kind of music do yo like? I like bits of this and that from every almost every genre.

155. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268329 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sei-eEjy4g

I love this one. No more lyrics. I promise. :)

Just tryin' to help Skylark and Tez.

156. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268325 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Since you think that was too sissy, try this one:

I bongo with My Lingo
Beat it like a wing yo
From Congo to Columbo
Can't sterotype my thing yo

I salt and pepper my Mango
Shoot Spit Out the window
Bingo I got him in the thing yo

Quit bending all my Fingo
Quit beating me like you're a ringo
You wanna go?
You wanna win a war?
Like p.L.O I don't surrendo

Sunshowers that fall on my troubles
Are over you, My baby
And Some Showers I'll be aiming at you
Cause I'm watching you, My baby

I bongo with My Lingo
Beat it like a wing yo
From Congo to Columbo
Can't sterotype my thing yo

I checked that mouth on him
Fucking Checked that gas on him
I had him, Cornered him
Fucking Shut that gate on him

Why would you listen to him?
He had his way I'm bored of him
I'm tired of him
I don't wanna be as bad as him

It's a bomb yo
So run yo
Put away your stupid gun yo
Cause see through like a protocol call
Which is why we blow it up 'for we go

Sunshowers that fall on my troubles
Are over you, My baby
And Some Showers I'll be aiming at you
Cause I'm watching you, My baby [x2]

Semi-9 and snipered him
On that wall they posted him
They cornered him
And then just murdered him

He Told them he didn't know them
He wasn't there, they didn't know him
They showed him a picture then ;
"Ain't that you with the Muslims?"

He got Colgate on his teeth
And Reebok classics on his feet
At a factory he does Nike
And then he helps the family

Beat heart Beat
He's made it to the newsweek
Sweetheart Seen it
He's doing it for the Peeps... Peace

Sunshowers that fall on my troubles
Are over you, My baby
And Some Showers I'll be aiming at you
Cause I'm watching you, My baby [x3]

Sarah Palin

157. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268324 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:38 pm

DP

I googled it. I now need to check if I still have genitals after looking that up.

Since you're naked, it should be pretty easy ;)

158. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268322 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Shall I post more lyrics just to push this Palin thread along? Here is a game. Which 80s song is this?


She wears a long fur coat of mink
Even in the summer time
Everybody knows from the coy little wink
The girl's got a lot on her mind

She's got big thoughts, big dreams
And a big brown Mercedes sedan
What I think this girl
She really wants
Is to be in love with a man

She wants to lead xxxxxx
She don't need a man's touch
She wants to lead xxxxxx
Without love
It ain't much

She saw him standing in the section marked
If you have to ask you can't afford it lingerie
She threw him bread and said make me scream
In the dark what could he say

Boys with small talk and small minds
Really don't impress me in bed
She said, I need a man's man, baby
Diamonds and furs
Love would only conquer my head

She wants to lead xxxxx
She don't need a man's touch
She wants to lead the xxxxx
Without love
It ain't much

They made haste in the brown sedan
They drove to 55 Secret street
They made love and by the seventh wave
She knew she had a problem
She thought real love is real scary
Money only pays the rent
Love is forever
That's all your life
Love is heaven sent
It's glamorous

She wants to lead xxxxx
She don't need a man's touch
She wants to lead xxxxx
Without love
It ain't much
It ain't much

Sarah Palin

edit -- well heck! I blew it.. maybe they didn't see **whispers to Skylark**

159. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268319 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I especially like books with lots of pictures. They are my favorite."


Which books do you like? The ones with pictures?

Yes, those are my favorite.

160. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #268318 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Epeeist -- Does that Joe Hill song start out:

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you or me
Says I to Joe "You're ten years dead."
"I never died" says he.

My mom had Joan Baez albums when I was growing up and I always liked that song.

161. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268309 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Severalspeciesof -- PM rec'd and replied.

Steve Zara -- didn't receive a PM yet, did you send?

Al-Rawandi - thanks for the pat on the back back earlier. Liked your points about civic service on the crazy-eyes christian lady thread. Been too absorbed over here to comment there. I'm supposed to be studying and I'm being really, really naughty hanging out on RDnet!

162. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268306 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Hi Nairb -- Nice to see you again. I've been taking this Western Civilization Since 1500 class. I mentioned to you that I'd written a "letter to a friend"-style essay criticizing Rousseau's Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. I put together this little blog so I could share that paper with you, but I guess you didn't see my post about it before. Hopefully, you will see this one.

http://zealous-meerkat.blogspot.com/2008/10/response-to-jean-jacques-rousseaus.html

Don't bother reading my Robespierre essay. It doesn't quite work, but it was a difficult assignment.

I've been reading all these primary source documents:

The Large Petition, (a bill of rights put together by "Levellers" in 1647),

excerpts from the Putney Debates of 1647 (a debate re what type of government England was going to have after Cromwell's New Model Army defeated the King's men)

John Locke's writings on Toleration and Two Treatises of Government, 1689 and 1690, respectively

Rousseau's The Social Contract from 1763,

the American Declaration of Independence 1776

Federalist Papers 10 by James Madison

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789,

Declarations of the Rights of Women, 1791

and even poor crazy Robespierre's On the Principles of Political Morality

Also Edmund Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution

It's been really exciting and fascinating. I am hot, hot, hot on how amazing and how hard won our societies are. Our values are worth protecting! :)

163. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268296 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I'm sorry, Peace. I'm tired and I don't see your point.

My whole point is that allowing Sharia arbitration to resolve family and inheritance law in a legally binding way violates Muslim women's rights. It is a problem that needs to be fixed. I showed that in the next post using the very same report. My other concern is that Sharia tribunals will have a counterproductive effect on integration.

The article and poll results I cite back up my position. It also suggests that mainstream media and government officials are out of touch with what the majority of Muslims want and have insufficient knowledge of Sharia.

If a US Supreme Court Justice made an announcement in one of the largest American mosques to the largest U.S. population of Muslims that Sharia law could be used and enforced due to an existing arbitration law, it would be seen as an official policy announcement and government sanction to Sharia law.

I can't understand why the equivalent situation occurring in the UK has been described by H.E. as just "a judge speaking outside court."

The fact that I acknowledge that I might be incorrect about the exact effect on Muslims doesn't negate the fact that the then highest-ranking judge in the land made a policy statement of considerable significance, which will have a legal, practical and psychological ramifications.

164. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268107 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm

I may be incorrect that Lord Phillips and similarly silly-dresser Rowan will cause a psychological effect.

This from the above posted Spectator article:

According to our findings, Lord Phillips's speech will be seen by most British Muslims in a similarly disapproving light.

I couldn't find anything controversial about CIP, but here a similar article from their website.


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/articles/2008a/080709survey.htm

However, the concerns about Muslim women being exploited by Sharia still stand:

Tasleem Ahmed, a Muslim woman employed at the Bradford Advice Centre, administers community programmes to assist Muslim women with economic and social problems. She observed that women seldom attend mosque services or apply at mosques for help with their problems, and that, failing to gain support in their families, homes, and local communities, they may go to informal sharia courts for assistance in marriage and divorce cases, even though the latter tribunals " the most notorious functioning in east London " charge thousands of pounds for decisions that are almost always improvised and may not even conform to traditional Islamic law. Ms Ahmed said that because British Muslim women do not know their British civil rights, they have an incentive to turn to sharia

edit-- I am done with this for today. I'll check back, too.

165. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268091 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Hungarian Elephant:

I lost my post addressing the fact that I posted the photograph of the man silly wig officially sanctioning Sharia and then am met with your amused dismissal that my photo was from the Daily Mail, and that he was just a judge speaking outside of court. Do you think the fact that he is the senior most judge in England and that he was speaking to one of the largest mosques in Britain serving the UK's largest Muslim population might give the appearance of official sanction, which would lead Muslims to believe that seeking legal redress outside of their own communities is futile? Could you at least acknowledge that that is what I am arguing here and not the fact that the Arbitration law already exists? I think we established that awhile ago. It's the effect not only of their discovering they could use Sharia through it, but also this public acknowledgement from legal and religious authority that it is okay? That is political and it has a political effect.

Do I really need to post additional photos of him in the BBC or Telegraphy to show that it was not some imaginary image of official sanctioning?

Can I prove that such a thing would send a psychological message? We'll see.

In the process of my research, I found the following interesting tidbit on the reaction of UK Muslims to the highest religious official in the land giving the thumbs up to Sharia.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_/ai_n27919614

Soon after Archbishop Williams's gaffe the Centre for Islamic Pluralism conducted a field survey of attitudes towards sharia in the main Muslim communities in Britain. We visited Birmingham, Manchester, Bolton, Bradford, Sheffield and Leicester, in addition to ongoing and extensive investigations in London's East End. Interviewees included imams, muftis (legal authorities), spiritual shaykhs, British Muslim barristers and solicitors, social workers and rank-and-file mosque attendees. The full results will be published, with similar data from Germany, Holland, France and Spain, next year.

Our survey was made easier by Muslim debate over the Williams affair. The overwhelming majority of our sample -- we estimate a minimum of 65 per cent -- brusquely repudiated the imposition of sharia in Britain and even expressed resentment at the interference of individuals like the Archbishop in British Muslim affairs.

Unfortunately, the real beliefs of British Muslims are unlikely to get sufficient attention either from non-Muslim leaders or from most of the British media. For the elite, multiculturalism is the order of the day, and sharia must be offered, notwithstanding the utter ignorance of it among the non-Muslims who advocate it. In the tabloids, sharia is identified with such punishments as the stoning of adulterers -- an issue Lord Phillips ineptly tried to address. Little sensible commentary may be expected from the public prints.

At the Madina Mosque in Bolton it was pointed out to us that tens of thousands of British Muslims practise as solicitors and barristers, and have no interest in surrendering their positions to sharia advocates.

Now I haven't had a chance to research the nature of the above quoted Center, but I thought this was a remarkable and encouraging reaction if it is true.

166. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268056 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 am

Hungarian Elephant,

What good is banning sharia courts if the exploited can't get access to justice anyway?

If you have the Sharia option, it will be sought first and the women will get half what the men get every time. If they don't have access to Sharia, certain things simply must be handled through a regular court of law. Do you think you can get the title to a house or store just by "agreeing" to it? There are a host of issues which require legal process.

But for the sake of argument, to satisfy yours and Peace's concerns, let's agree hypothetically that sharia courts are not banned, but are not allowed to settle family law and inheritance disputes, areas where women's rights are clearly violated.

I think it was in an article I already posted in this thread that said that after Sharia arbitration women were encouraged to drop their domestic violence complaints to the police and the men were encouraged to get anger counseling and mentoring. What this shows is that Muslim women do seek outside help from British legal authority and under Sharia pressures they are encouraged to withdraw their petition for that support. If it isn't in that article, let me know and I'll try to find that again and repost it.

As for the other point to your post:
Just to clarify, you are requesting evidence that there will be a psychological effect created by the appearance of Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips encouraging use of Sharia law at an East London mosque, as well as his widely-reported statements in the press, which may create the impression that there is not much point in a Muslim seeking a higher court than the Sharia tribunal arbitration, since those decisions can be enforced by the higher court?

I'll see what I can find that may convince you.

167. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268022 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:53 am

Hungarian Elephant,

Still need to read the rest of your last post, but this is answer your question from post 180.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

edit -- luckily, the amputating of hands is "out of the question" per Lord Whatsits.

168. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #268005 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:41 am

Peace -

This though, I find a scandalous accusation. As though I spent all this time just to be a contrary arsehole, for the pathetic pleasure of coming out on top of an internet forum discussion.

Seriously, I have argued long about this only because I really do care about personal freedom (including freedom from oppression).

I found your comment that I'd turned into a fascist a bit scandalous as well. That was a bit harsh and, if it was a joke, it missed the mark.

I take back my rat's ass comment and apologize. That was a "kitchen sink" argument in the heat of righteous outrage. I am rather sick of watching people attack Steve Zara, I can tell you, and I just automatically nibble the brimstone when it happens. Some homohater freak was just harassing him yesterday so maybe I overreacted to your comment.

I am afraid that your argument for personal freedom for people to continue to oppress Muslim women has been distasteful to me.

One of my close friends is an attorney practising family law and she mediates divorces. It is a less expensive and usually more amicable route than the typical divorce route, so I am not for abolishing arbitration or mediation. However, if the arbitrators or mediators are from the outset known to practice discrimination against particular individuals then that harm must be stopped cold. No one has the "freedom" to violate the rights of other citizens. It is the foundation of our constitutions.

Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology for my flare-up. :)

169. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267982 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:19 am

Peace - weren't you arguing that if a black man wanted to stay enslaved he should be free to do that? Are you telling me that you really believe that? Then didn't you mockingly (or maybe jokingly) accuse Steve of wanting everyone to comply to HIS ideas of what is good and rational?

170. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267980 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:16 am

Hungarian Elephant:
I apologize if I sounded abusive. I certainly don't want to be post in an abusive manner. You're right that it is probably not helpful to the discussion. Do keep in mind that you escalated with your disrespectful tone and denial that these courts are in anyway "officially sanctioned". You don't seem read or process evidence into your view. You also one time say we agree there is coercion and the next complain no one's provided you evidence. I find this infuriatingly intellectually dishonest.

You claim that you are the calm one and others are hysterical over Sharia. It's absurd to pretend that men of intelligence don't see the psychological effects of newspaper clippings with the photos of men in silly wigs giving the thumbs up to Sharia tribunals! Really. This is quite cleverly designed to keep a tighter guard on the Muslim community and to shut British law out. The effects of Sharia-based decisions are very real and you don't seem to have acknowledged that those are thing to get upset about, precisely because now that "it's official", the chances of going to higher courts to overturn the decisions has slimmed down considerably. Why can't you acknowledge the psychological, political and real-life ramifications of this instead of dismissing people who are genuinely concerned about it as "hysterical"?

171. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267973 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:01 am

No, please, take responsibility please. Here is Hungarian Elephant claiming that there's been no evidence for coercion as if he hasn't looked at what Decius just provided yesterday or opportunity to view posts I made about Muslim women's protests on the Condell thread or all of the many, many posts the coercion Muslim women face under Islam and under Sharia Law. He acts like he's never read a newspaper article about it -- all to win an argument! Give me a break. You're complaining on one hand that all inheritance money should go to the state, but that if a person wants to be a slave they should have the "freedom" to do that and neither of you appear to support laws which are designed to protect people as I said all to win an argument, since it is hardly plausible that either of you really believe your own positions.

I'm sorry to seem mean about it, I have respect for you, Peace, but not necessarily for some of these arguments.

Besides which I wouldn't classify myself as a socialist and I hardly qualify for a fascist if I am insisting on standard law and equality for women and arguing against a system which will further persecute them and entrench a dogmatically oppressive religious subculture in a free country.

But seriously, I find a reprehensible lack of respect for the society and laws we already have gone to great lengths to develop, which my forefathers literally fought to obtain and maintain, in the libertarian viewpoint that seems dangerously juvenile, anti-empirical, selfish and silly.

172. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267953 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 9:40 am

I'm sorry, but Peace and H.E. seemed to have not studied the development of ideas regarding representative democracies and law for the common good. They are not STEVE's standards, but the standards of the entirety of Western civilization!! Many people have for the last several hundred years given a great deal of thought and responded to empirical reality to create civilized society. It's truly laughable, this childish libertarian nonsense. Go start your own country, because we're quite happy to maintain this largely rational system. The fact is you who are arguing against Steve don't really give a rat's ass about Muslim women or Western values. So it seems. I've yet to see a shred of evidence for it. Laws get changed all the time when it appears they are being used to the wrong ends. There is no reason why alterations to the law such as the application of Sharia laws which are discriminatory toward women should not go through Parliament where they can be debated on a case-by-case basis to be sure they don't conflict with British values. There is no reason why any arbitration courts not applying the standards of English Law should not be outright banned. That doesn't mean you have to do away with arbitration altogether or mediation, but in order to be licensed (presuming there is a necessary licensing process) as an arbitrator or mediator, you should show that your decisions would always be based on the letter and intent of English law. It is a really really simple staring-you-right-in-the-face solution. Presumably, it will be worked toward by those who actually care about it in society as opposed to those who believe individual rights (even to be enslaved) will trump law.

173. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267932 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 9:22 am

Well, since you've gone and been flippant, what is your point exactly then?

You agree coercion is an issue, yet your answer is a shrug of the shoulders since "arbitration exists". How does that add anything to a conversation aimed a resolving a situation which has serious consequences to the lives of individual people ad the society at large?

I don't agree with you about Judge Judy. That's an absurd comparison and meant to be so, I assume, but the difference is these are officially sanctioned religious courts and have, to the people involved, all that weight. They are nothing like Judge Judy people who are happy to be on TV and know that it's "entertainment."

If the "judgments" of sharia courts are to be recognized under the Arbitration Act 1996, then enforcement will take place, properly, under Rule 62.18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. (Application must first be made to a proper court however.) This is not just for people who wish to protest a decision that was made but for others to legally enforce the decisions.

So is your point that "we can't get rid of arbitration?" So this is just an unhappy circumstance?

174. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267910 by hawt4dawk on October 21, 2008 at 8:55 am

Hungarian Elephant --

And arbitral bodies don't give legal judgments in any meaningful sense. They have no formal recognition. They just state how a particular body of rules applies in a particular case.

This is incorrect. Please read below for a better understanding. Regardless of whether or not the judgments made by any given Sharia tribunal judge can change precedent or affect other laws, the legally binding judgments they make do, have and will impact people's lives in a legal and financial way, very much so. Further, this is a little system which is perfectly set up to and meant to exploit uninformed, religiously and culturally-oppressed people.

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. "All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases," said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "I think it's appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state."

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

175. A 'values' voter speaks her mind on Obama

Comment #267591 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Bonzai, Madame Zora -- Hear! Hear! I completely agree. The test could even be part of final exams in high school or when you take the GED. MZ's ideas would be great for getting people who are already out of college ready for the test.

There might be complaints at first at the introduction of a voting license requirement, but ultimately increasing civic literacy could reinvigorate a sense of virtuous duty and pride in participating in public life.

When the economy suffers, we can't maintain a strong defense, we can't be of service to our allies and we suffer, too. The elections are important. Lives are at stake.

176. A 'values' voter speaks her mind on Obama

Comment #267572 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I can't stay on, 'cause I have to study.

I was repulsed by this woman and I laughed at all the people's comments here, even the mean ones. I know it's not nice, but I don't care. People like this are putting our country in danger. They are like spoiled brats who get to live in a fantasy while real world consequences, including huge international security issues, hang in the balance.

My thoughts were that I felt really sympathetic for her husband, because she doesn't seem to get he is the one who takes care of her and the family, not God. She should be more supportive of him and less self-righteous. In truth, the evangelical Christian wife is supposed to look to her husband to lead. She's not a good wife by my book or her own, in my opinion.

Back when I was still marginally God-minded and confronted with Christians like this, I would always think of that Jesus quote where he says, "You will knock and cry out 'Lord, Lord we served you,' but I will not answer. I will say 'I know you not.'"

Also, I justed wanted to share this scary bit of Christian madness. Check the link! Apparently, the nutjobs think that Kenyan witches are getting up at 3am to curse McCain and Palin. It's totally totally the craziest thing I have ever heard of in this modern age. It's like the 1600s for these people.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2110513/posts

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, PLEASE PRAY TODAY AND CONTINUALLY THAT ALL SUCH CURSES BE BROKEN AND SATAN'S PLAN FOR AMERICA BE DEFEATED, IN JESUS' NAME. PRAY AND COVER MCCAIN AND PALIN WITH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, IT IS TIME YOU LEARN!!!

177. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267558 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Thanks guys, once again its been illuminating, but I'm knackered, and have yet again spent more time on RD.net than my job, which doesn't help me for tomorrow, so I'm turning in!

Poor Peace! Have a good night. RD net may single-handledly lower all of our countries Gross National Product!

178. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267480 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 3:27 pm

MaxD:

Glass ceiling indeed.

No point in making it out of glass if they have to lower their gaze anyway, poor dears.

179. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267420 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I don't think informed choice should be the condition of allowing Sharia arbitrage. The fact that Sharia is inherently and grossly gender-biased is incompatible with the rest of the legal standard. Getting people to agree to it by "informed choice" is a sickening lowering of standards.

Peace -

However, why (and excuse me for using your individual case, its just as an example) doesn't your granny just pay for the caring services now? If there is an expected surplus, why make you struggle along until she dies?

There was no expected surplus. That is the key problem at the beginning of one's retirement, or when one first starts to become frail. It is difficult to estimate how long you'll live, how much illness you'll experience, how expensive the medical costs will be and how long you can stretch your money.

Given that health care costs (high in the U.S.) could have eaten up my grandmother's estate well before she died, we chose the frugal course and tried to do as much as we could as a family. She did have hired helpers. But this choice also fostered more emotional closeness between us as a family.

So instead of almost all of her money going into the pockets of the health care industry, some of it came back to us.

During the time my grandfather was alive, I moved to a new city and started a temporary job, which was looking like it would become permanent.

Since I was staying with one of my relatives while settling in there, she was able to put a lot of pressure on me to quit my job and go take care of my grandfather while my grandmother was in the hospital for just a few weeks! I think at the time it was framed like it was either her or me who would have to do it and it had to be me, because she had the better job and mine was temporary. It didn't occur to me at the time that they could have hired someone. Coercion of female relatives is alive in the West!

But I did it anyway, because families make sacrifices for one another. Practically speaking, it cost me money, opportunity and I suffered from seeing him in such a bad condition. Yet I really loved my grandfather so much, and though he's gone now for the rest of my life, I had that time with him, and I don't regret it.

This strikes me as being pertinent to life issues Muslim women face. It is quite likely that most Muslim women do the majority of caretaking for the children, the sick and the elderly in their families. They may do that kind of care and even earn income outside the home, yet give all their pay to the family. So it seems particularly unfair then when an inheritance is divided up or a divorce settlement is made, or whatever, they get considerably less-than-equal monies.

To me, it just is astounding that Sharia tribunals are being allowed to administer jurisprudence in estate and family law cases.

edited

180. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267327 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Peace

When you say "the state", I read that as "towards providing benefits to those who need it". If some rich idiot forgot to spend all his money before dying I would rather it go towards that than his well off adult children.

This last sentence is a good point. I dare you to say it on the Palin thread though! ^-^

But seriously, I am not sure I agree unless there is some amount threshold byyond which the money would truly just go to enhancing luxury to the relatives.

For instance, my grandmother just passed away and her estate is split four ways amongst her three adult children and myself. (I take the place of my mother legally, because she is already deceased.) Now, it isn't a big estate and we are all self-sufficient grown ups BUT two of us have children.

I think my grandmother as well as others in the family would find it quite strange if her money went to help strangers when it could still help her own children (grown as they are) either with their own retirement or help fund the education of her grandchildren and great-grandchild, particularly as some of us adults have taken a fair bit of time off work to care for her in her old age -- and one has sacrificed much more than that.

If I lived in a society that guaranteed me a high standard of living on state-funded pension and free or low-cost high-quality education for my son, then I might feel differently about inheritance laws. But p/o the reason we US Americans can be such money grubbers is because of deep financial anxieties. :)

181. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267306 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Hee, hee! Peace, c'mon now.. the hypothetical situation was that he didn't leave a will and it was the law that the estate be divided amongst his kin. I would argue that it does matter, because the discrimination occurs in a legal arena where there should be no such discrimination. The Jewish grandson's ignorance of how he would be discriminated should matter as well. Allowing courts who will unethically discriminate in legal affairs where there would otherwise be none is unacceptable.

If Muslim fathers and mothers want to be sure to discriminate against their female relatives, I suppose you may have a point that they can do that perfectly well through a will and testament, but why turn a blind eye to courts that are based on discriminatory laws and which will arbitrate based on discrimination in cases where it would be avoided otherwise?

edited

182. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267294 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Peace, your views on inheritance are a little, um, fresh for me. Most people work hard to provide for their families and other loved ones. Am I correct in interpreting your comments that it is wrong for the deceased's money to go to them and should go to the state?

183. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267289 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Gender-based discrimination is illegal in many situations though. Is discrimination legal if it is the basis of decision in inheritance law, I wonder?

Let's say an anti-Semitic white man had two grandchildren, one was caucasian (and Christian) and the other was half-Moroccan Jew/half-white. He dies with no will and they are his only heirs and the estate passes to them by law. They go to a tribunal based on ancient Muslim laws that discriminates against Jews. That court decides that the estate shall be decided 80% to the white Christian kid and 20% to the Jewish kid based on the fact that the deceased was horrified that his son married a black Jewess. Let's say the Jewish mulatto kid didn't really know his rights and went along with the proceeding.

Does it matter that he was discriminated against based on his race or he is just lucky to have gotten 20% that he didn't earn?

If the estate was to be divided anyway by law, why is it okay for it to be divided unfairly, based on discrimination, and particularly based on laws not in accordance with the society at large?

Does it matter that he didn't know any better than to go along with it?

edit -- good exampe, Steve.

Steve/Skylark 2008

184. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267275 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

Sorry I deleted the post you just referred to. I'll stop doing that, but I thought you had edited your post and so I deleted mine.

185. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267273 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

I view it as them lucking out. If I ever get money in a will I am lucky. I should not count on it. Men should not have any extra rights though, of course not.

I will take this as my answer then. If they are all lucking out then they should luck out equally. :)

186. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267264 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 11:33 am

Peace - Are you joking?

the article:

the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters,

You:

Why should women get special rights over earnings on death?

It's okay for the estate to be divided unfairly amongst the children if Sharia says that the women get less than the men as far as your concerned, since no one has rights to earnings upon death. Women should not get special rights. If women should not get special rights, should men be allow special rights, especially if the estate is going to be divided up anyway?

187. Free to Think for Themselves

Comment #267232 by hawt4dawk on October 20, 2008 at 11:03 am

Am I misunderstanding or is someone here arguing that it is better to have the formal Sharia tribunal even if women will be coerced into using it, because they can just as easily be coerced into participating in an informal court? This is quite wrong, because some key issues simply must be processed a legally binding court, such as inheritance. Legal transfer of property must take place in order to be recognized the state. Here is yet another area where Muslim women's rights get trampled by formal Sharia arbitration tribunals where they would not otherwise be:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

Isn't this alone a disgraceful subversion of British Law? Please don't say that the women could appeal, because they can't. It's binding and can be enforced by higher courts. In a case where women were forced to agree to something that is non-binding, they would still have legal options open to them later if they were able to find the courage and support to seek it.


Does anybody know if the Arbitration Act of 1996 could be amended to exclude religious-based law or laws that otherwise violate standards of British law?

188. God is not the enemy of reason

Comment #266545 by hawt4dawk on October 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

Interesting info, Roger Stanyard. An ugly bunch, eh? What really disturbs me is this term "scientism". Dangerous, false and propagandistic.

189. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266542 by hawt4dawk on October 19, 2008 at 9:07 am

Yes, really good post, Frankus. Good to see you again, Titania. :)

edit -- I am going to be away from the site for most of this week. I'll see ya when I get back. Take care, friends.

190. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266540 by hawt4dawk on October 19, 2008 at 9:02 am

DP

I find that rather funny. You resent the hypocrisy that if roles were reversed, republicans would be going after her but yet you go after her. So you would find it wrong if roles were reverse and people attacked her for whatever reasons, but you find it ok since they are not reversed? I think the hypocrisy you resent is the hypocrisy going on inside your head.

You seem almost completely unable or unwilling to make distinctions. Either you are really immature, very ignorant of American politics, have some cognitive deficit or you are getting paid to sit here on this thread and support McCain/Palin and attack Obama. Which is it? We'll never know for sure. I have never attacked Palin for choosing her career over a stay-at-home path. I have attacked the fact that she herself and her conservative base and are using her motherhood as some sort of banner for what a great candidate she is when conservatives typically blame feminism and working mothers for "the breakdown of the family." If you can't see why that is hypocrisy, please get yourself tested for brain damage.

edit -- p.s. I am a progressive woman who chose to put my career on hold and stay home to take care of my child. Personally, I don't really approve of Palin's choice, but I would never condemn a woman for making that choice, because it's her life not mine.

191. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266377 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Decius -- I said this in a Twitter message, but I wish you the best of success in your trip to Oxford. I am really excited for you!

twittering, Frankus! :)

Have to say goodnight now. :) 'Night.

192. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266376 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Laurie --

Hawt - I'm currently working on a nice little exegesis of Exodus, Isiah, Judges and 1st Kings. Should have it ready for your edification tonight or tomorrow.

Good. I had a big laugh today from your purse/overnight bag comment. Look forward to the more. :)

193. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266374 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Decius -- I received an email saying I had to accept your follow request, because my posts are not publc. I did. Do you see me yet?

What time will you be at the debate? How exciting!

194. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266368 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 6:33 pm

http://twitter.com/

Sorry my joke about Palin was kinda lame. I am just resenting the hypocrisy of the conservatives who llluuuurrrrve this mom of young children who is running for VP and they would viciously attack a Democratic mom candidate in the same situation.

Decius -- I'm following you now. I suppose you can add me, too.

edit --

195. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266353 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm

**catches by the collar Laurie with long-handled hook**

**lets him go, shrugs**

wait, I just wanted to tell you that I can still all do that and run the country, too!

Oops, sorry, no politics.

196. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266344 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Laurie --

so, no silly talk about American politics, OK?

**breathes deep sigh of relief**
**goes to get snacks**

197. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266340 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm

8teist - Is NZ v. religious or is "radical secularization" ruining your society, too?

198. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266329 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Decius -- really, no. I've always been horrified by the image. As a child I would say, "He was murdered!"

199. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #266325 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Thanks, 2, loved the Russel Peters link. I was trying to watch the other links, including gay indians and beige people, but my son said he was "getting tired of this grown-up thing". So we return to Halloween-themed children's programming, while we make additional Halloween decorations.

200. God is not the enemy of reason

Comment #266312 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I would like to alert you to a connection I noticed:

The fact that secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate, is explored in a timely monograph by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, the influential American think-tank.

This is a little blinking red light some people might not notice as they dismiss this as "Daily Mail" drivel.

The Hudson Institute is actually a very right-wing think-tank. Here is what sourcewatch.org says:

While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."

This guy Herbert London is a bit more respectable than someone like Melanie Phillips and he is the one behind her ideas here.

I think these ideas will be more than "flea" arguments and will continue to inform the backlash against books like The God Delusion, End of Faith, and God is Not Great.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/03/how-secularism-misses-the-mark/

It concerns me because this is more than mere "religiot" defensiveness. The more intense arguments and distortions/disinformation will come from the people who are fighting for political control of the USA and using the Christian right to do it. Heads up.