Craddick Comeback Depends on Lots of Luck
Paul Burka, on his own blog, asks if former Texas Speaker of the House Tom Craddick can mount a comeback in 2010 and regain the Speakership. To do so, Burka outlines a credulity-stretching series of events that must happen, some of them contradictory. He says Barack Obama must have a failed first two years of his Presidency, so the country turns against Democrats. Likewise, he says that the presumptive Texas Republican Speaker Joe Straus must have a failed term also. The result would be Texans electing a new Republican House in 2010, but with different Republicans. The new Republicans would be the old Republicans who would elect Tom Craddick to the Speakership again. I'd say stranger things have happened in politics, but I'm not sure that's true. This comeback, if it happens, would be the equal of the most unlikely political comebacks of all time.
Of Kirpans and Letter Openers
Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports of a Sikh woman who was fired by the IRS in Houston who is suing because she claims her freedom of religion was violated because the IRS prohibited her from wearing a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger that Sikhs wear as a duty of their religion.
What complicates the case is that the government allows scissors, letter openers, box cutters, and knives in the same building where the kirpan was banned. I don't know if the kirpan should be banned. I don't know if it should be allowed. But I do contend that kirpans, letter openers, and scissors are of similar size and shape and are equally capable of being used to stab, cut or slice. If one is setting security rules, and considering only the safety aspect, all of these should be treated alike. Either allow them all or ban them all. That's not what's happening in the Houston case.
What seemed simple logic to me obviously didn't seem simple logic to others. One reader, "sjjcrand," oblivious to the fact that Sikhs are not Muslims, exclaimed, "The violence associated with Muslims has to stop!"
A second reader, "Peterk," argues that a kirpan should be banned, but not the scissors or letter opener, because those latter objects have non-lethal purposes, but the kirpan doesn't. This reader is oblivious to the fact that security rules are based on the potential threat of objects, not whether the objects have common, everyday uses other than terrorism. Even if you accept this reader's logic, he ignores the fact that kirpans aren't used for stabbing, cutting, or slicing, unlike the objects he's willing to allow. Kirpans are often too dull to be of much practical use. Terrorists would probably prefer to be armed with a pair of scissors than some of the kirpans worn by Sikhs.
Another reader, "Heathen," offered the opinion that what makes the kirpan more dangerous than a letter opener or scissors is that "a religious zealot is attached to the kirpan." I'm not sure how he knows that, unless it's a blanket characterization that anyone who wears religious symbolism is automatically a zealot. Kind of a Catch 22 rule... You can wear a kirpan if you're not a zealot. But wearing a kirpan automatically makes you a zealot. Interesting logic, but difficult to apply in a nation with freedom of religion.
When Snarkiness Sinks to Meanness
Tim Rogers, of Frontburner, unintentionally uncovered an example of what plagues all too many blogs. A regular reader and commenter, "Bethany," has been missing from the comments section for a while, Rogers noted. It turns out that "Bethany" explained why on her own personal blog...
"I’ve been a long-time commenter on D Magazine’s Frontburner. In the halcyon days when I first began commenting, it was fun. There was some good-natured ribbing here and there, but it was a pleasant read, and I was genuinely excited about taking part in some small way in the conversation when the ability to comment was added. But nowadays, it’s turned into a mean-spirited, modern-day Roman arena, where the object is more often than not to tear down and destroy, not engage in civil conversation."Do you think this lament by "Bethany" caused Frontburner readers to reflect and resolve to raise their level of discourse on that blog? Think again. After a flurry of mean-spirited responses directed at "Bethany," Tim Rogers was forced to shut off comments. Ironically, in purging the remaining comments, even Tim Rogers' own announcement that he was shutting off comments was purged. What's left leaves no moral drawn, no lesson learned, no closure to this unhappy episode in the blogosphere. Perhaps that's to be expected from a blog that prides itself on being called "a snarky celebration of ignorance." Or perhaps all the blogosphere is infected with the virus.
No comments:
Post a Comment