PseudoSABR

You know you're in crazy-land when Ted Cruz seems sane, inclusive, and aspirational.

The big deal isn't Melania Trump; it's the failure of Trump's campaign to vet her speech to avoid paving the way for such an accusation. That said, that people on the left take the opportunity to criticize Melania Trump as a person is shameful. The issue isn't whether she cribbed some passages from Michelle Obama, but that someone further up the food chain didn't catch, well, the obvious plagiarism. Melania Trump was never charged with a duty to be responsible for the sourcing of her speech. (That Melania volunteered writing the speech in a prominent interview didn't help the inevitable mysoginic turn; another forced error by the Trump campaign, because if you watch the clip she looks coached to me.) Just to be clear, the reason it's an issue is its indicative of organizational ineptitude, which should stigmatize that organization's leader, Trump, and not the specific (yet another) example.

I think the ethics of intellectual property and plagiarism are, to be fair, complicated. There are honest brokers (I think none in politics), where ones own ideas are inextricably formed with or informed by another's words. Then there's just sloppiness. There's no intent to cheat, really; though I'd offer that part of Trump's success is if you're not pushing the threshold of cheating/breaking the law, you're not winning.

This is a different case, and maybe doesn't have the same culpability as last night's incidents, but Donald Jr. copied some lines from an American Conservative article, whose author went to twitter claiming it wasn't stealing. Still why use near the exact same lines?

What is the Trump campaign even doing? Plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech? I can't believe I have pity for Melania Trump, or I guess I can believe it...

I hated the admission that Molitor would unequivocally return, at first. But his contract runs out next year, a year that any GM would probably acknowledge they won't compete. The new GM's sail wont be hitched to Molitor, but I'd I still prefer the Twins never come out of Spring Training like they did this year. It's hard for me to believe that Molitor isn't part of the problem. If it takes another year for him to get canned, so be it.

Giuliani is nothing but redmeat, Jesus. But the Republicans sure eat it up.

I wonder if the Twins HOF induction had more to do with the timing than the trade deadline. If Pohlad had made the decision to fire TR sometime prior to yesterday, he may have been advised to wait until after the Twins HOF induction ceremony, as to avoid the inevitable distraction, gloomy cloud it would have cast over the ceremony had TR been fired not long beforehand.

I wonder if a GM search has been going on for some time, and as the process necessarily needs to go through more public avenues, the time to dismiss TR was now. If that's the case, perhaps we could see a new GM sooner rather than later; certainly an incoming GM would rather have control of the organization prior to the trade deadline. In any case, really glad to see the Twins made this move sooner rather than later; I was worried they would be too gun shy to pull the trigger at all. This also probably suggests that Molitor might not be safe, as the new GM I bet will want the authority to make the final decision on a manager.

Look, it's hard to know what you're vehemently arguing at this point that somehow myself and others disagree with. The notion that 5 to 10 percent support radical elements doesn't seem particularly controversial; the push back has always been about the rhetoric that Islam is the real/inherent/root of the problem. Part my point is that you've been arguing against some politically-correct liberal straw man; and you haven't exactly made a good faith effort to find where you actually agree with those who you claim are somehow on the other side.

LOL. My favorite fact: "I know I am right because I value human decency." The blog you cite, totally bastardizes a 2013 Pew research study, extrapolating out to total population instead of using those actual surveyed. You're not working with facts, you're working with supposition, and if you think you've been sanitized of emotion in making your arguments, well your just not being honest with yourself. I did find this http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/11/FT_15.11.17_isis_views.png Which, does suggest millions support ISIS/terror, but it better frames it in terms of the BILLIONS who do not favor such acts. Again, the issue is framing, you've been doing it dishonestly throughout the thread. I'll repeat, that I have no doubt millions latently support ISIS, the basis of some of that obviously Islam, but the vast majority of Muslims, evidently do not. If we are looking for way to reform Islam, it looks like the solution might already be found within Islam. (I know this isn't comprehensive. I don't offer this 'evidence' to suggest I am right; just that you should back off your certitude and acknowledge the reason of those who resist your blanket rhetoric.) I also found this interesting. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/07/2011-Muslim-West-16.png Just food for thought. I agree with North here, that we're all coming from a place of imperfect information. And, I for one, don't know enough about the practices of Islam to really weigh in with any kind of certitude about how those practices necessarily lead to terror. (The Muslims I actually know, I don't see it, but that's admittedly non-representative).

I'd worry about alienating Christians by blaming Christianity for the emergence of West Baptist's propaganda (whatever truth there might be to it). The analogy you seem to be making is west-baptist:Christians::more-than-just-radical-Islam:moderate-Islam. No ones worried about alienating the radicals...

That's fair and sensible. I found myself akin to thinking that religions don't kill people, people kill people. Ugh. I think if we can acknowledge that religion (Islam) can become a tool of terrorism, just as a gun can be come be tool of terrorism/murder. And so deserves scrutiny beyond just those who are implicated in any actual scheme. The big difference is of course Islam is an idea, a belief, and an AR-15 is a tangible good. Nonetheless, we should endeavor to help Islam to reform. If we're serious about (along with some of the things you mention) we should look for institutions and practices within Islam to serve as models for such reform. And we need to be very smart about throwing our support behind any parties, and not be so damn self-serving.

Yeah, and the problem is not exclusively Islam either. There's a host of factors that contribute to the groundswell of terrorism: non-radical Muslims, history of the region, recent wars, Israel policy, the global economy, immigration policies, etc. etc. etc. So much of the thread was spent trying to get Levi to back of his exclusive, only-real-root-of-the-problem rhetoric, which is far more unhelpful than resisting such rhetoric.

But there's good reason to try to keep the conversation limited to those people we have real evidence that are involved in terror regimes. I think we're already on the slippery slope of roping in far more people than actually have credible acts of blame. We agree that there's more than just radical Muslims who foster Islamic terror, but how wide need we cast that net in order for you or Levi not to decry liberal blindness (or whatever). You guys act as if there's no danger of the slippery slope or actually alienating the very people who might be able to bring about the reform you wish.

I don't think any one doubts that there is latent support among millions of Muslims; but active support? In what form? Twitter? I don't know if that's something to base policy on... As much as this conversation has been about what the left wishes to deny; for great swath of this thread people had trouble acknowledging any kind of moderate element of Islam. So there's a problem of framing on both sides.

Honestly, Bark, I hope that we don't champion the kind of rhetoric that took place in this thread; it got personal, judgmental, and righteous. I think you're too influenced by your agreement on the issue, and you're not holding someone whom you agree with to a very high standard of civility (or human decency), which honestly is pretty disappointing. There was nothing groundbreaking being said here; the premise that Islam is the root/source of the problem is something those on the right have said for decades. Would it have been helpful to try to couch you or Levi in right-wing box? No. We eventually arrived at some nuance between criticizing Islamic practice, that inherently Islamic isn't necessarily violent, and that people are really the problem, but the way we got there was pretty ugly -- and which was basically the argument of some all along. (Why not say, "I see what you're saying with radicalism Islam, but I think the problem is broader than that. And Islam has much to contribute to the solution." As opposed to: "The problem is Islam! And I'm right about it, because I care about human decency and you don't") For my part, it's obvious that Islamic regimes repress their populace, and that we should endeavor to help the innocent and the weak of those countries. No one was debating that. There's been something of strawman being railed against, here. On the issue of terrorism, as long as our economy and our country benefits from the injustice that we help ensure around the world, it will exist. We can ignore what motivates humans to use Islam as tool of terror; or we can probe that question, without the need to reemphasize how problematic Islam is (something we all get). We were not our better selves today.

So do I. So does everyone here. Adhering to such value doesn't automatically make you right dude. In fact, from your posture in this thread, I'd say you value righteousness far more than decency.

What do you think, I'm going to my liberal masters to check in with them on my posts? That I've got Rachel Maddow sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear? When I push against your argument that Islam is the real source/root of the problem--which sounds a lot like Islam is inherently the problem--I can do so as an individual. I keep saying Islam is the vehicle, which allows for your arguments about the Islam's practice to co-exist, but you insist on framing my argument in a way where you create unnecessary divisions. And if the practice of Islam is broken/the problem, and Islam isn't inherently the problem, what is the source/root of why the practice of Islam is broken? That's what I've been advocating to analyze and think about. And there's nothing tribally liberal about that.

This is more or less what many of been trying to say, and you've just bulled them over. If you can concede that not all Muslim practice Islam in a way that leads to violence, you acknowledge that only part of the practice of Islam must be fixed. Whether we call that radical or devout or whatever hardly matters, but its that nuance that I've at least been trying to get you to acknowledge. I think you see me and others within that tribalistic lens that you avoid looking for where we have a lot to agree on. You're insistence on being right, and sides, and tribalism, well, I think is the real impass here.

So Islam isn't inherently the problem but is inherently the problem? Whatever dude. (And please don't bother clarifying; I just don't care how you'll try to thread that needle.) Frankly, I'm more than a little bit insulted by your questioning my motivations and values, and putting me in some tribe box of liberalism. Stop it. I can disagree with you without you questioning my value of human decency. I mean, how dare you. It's you who have been advocating mutual exclusiveness, if anyone so much as suggests that Islam isn't inherently the problem, you bludgeon them into silence. It's happened over and over and over in this thread. Who needs religion or tribalism, when one can muster that kind of sanctimony. There's a reason no one's chiming in with their takes...

Quoted for posterity.

You go change that religion, Levi. Because everyone clearly agrees with you on this.

The real central factor? That kind of language is a lot like All lives matters, it just shuts down the conversations about something complex. Especially when the only thing you offer to fix is a damn worldwide religion. Converting to Islam wouldn't change the reality on the ground either (I know this was just extreme rhetoric), just as changing the rules of Islam wouldn't stay the violence. There's a real depravity, war, and despotism over a stretch of decades that generations of these people have had to deal with. (And this does not even begin to address the violence at the hand of Muslim immigrants/western-citizens.) What will change things is wealth. Borders that allow discreet cultures to govern themselves. American money and policy that stops funding the regime and militarization in Israel. The promotion of Palestinian State. Allowing the profits from the oil resources to be propagated to the population and not to foreign companies or corrupt governments. Christianity didn't change itself, society changed, people changed. Our wealth allowed us to stray from the comforts of religion. Our economy took advantage of the advances of science. (And really it was secularism that shunned the KKK, racism, etc.; Christianity hardly led that fight.) That said, the current Pope is a revelation (I know he doesn't speak for all religions, but more dudes like him could make me invest in my ethnic Catholic roots. (And as an aside, did the Pope's suggestion that Christianity owes homosexuals an apology stay the myriad "religious freedom" laws that allow discrimination; of course not, the advocates of such laws simply further distanced themselves from the dope-ass-Pope). As the world becomes smaller through technology and social media, the distinctions between our disparate cultures become more pronounced, not lesser so. There's a reason terrorism is burgeoning in the new millennium and didn't occur in the decades before that, or did so at far less frequency. Islam didn't become a religion on 9-11. Individuals need hope in order to be motivated change. You can say Islam should change until your blue in the face--reminds me of the old conservative adage, well people should just work hard--your normative truth, doesn't make achieving it any more possible. The people that reside in whats left of Syria and Iraq have little incentive to not fall prey to ISIS, and decrying Islam doesn't make that more possible. I agree with pressuring all regimes who deny human rights. I'd start not with the regimes themselves, but by holding accountable American interests and corporations who profit from such regimes. Take away the incentive to work with those who make oppression. That Western-born Muslims, with citizenship in their host country, continue to carry out such acts, suggests to me that such people carry out atrocities not because they have been bred to do so by their religion, but that along the way of their life they became "radicalized" not because Islam is so compelling, but the hole the need to fill is so monstrously great. I think such people are looking for any reason, religion or otherwise, to fill that hole with murder. It's in part, demonstrated, why the Orlando and San Bernadino killings were rather personal as opposed to religiously symbolic. At first blush, this Nice killer, while ethnically Muslim, looks to have used jihad/ISIS/Islam as an excuse to murder nearly a 100 people. My point is the issue is complex. We need to examine every possible source, and we should never claim, AHA!, it is I who know that what the REAL SOURCE IS! Sure, we should encourage Islam to change (really on its own merit outside of terrorism), but we also must acknowledge that our capacity to influence such (beyond Trump-like ideas) is severally limited. Again, we must take every angle, and any avenue left unexplored is an abdication of our cause. There's plenty to be done on multiple fronts. Personally, I think sourcing Islam as the cause will only make things worse in the short term, and without addressing the economic and political reality of how such Islamic regimes gained power and influence will ultimately fail in the long term.

Why work so hard and do so much creative mental gymnastics to deny that Western Imperialism has a central role in creating murderous extremists? I'll say it again, Islam is the vehicle, the source of the hate, the reason for their targeting the West is something that is found outside of Islam. You take away the vehicle of that hate, you still have the hate, which will inevitably find another vehicle, a different banner to rally under...