In a sharp contradiction to what is common among Muslims, Khaled Al Gendy, a famous Islamic cleric and a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, stated that drinking liquor without getting drunk is not sinful.That sounds like a wholly reasonable standard.
“If the same alcoholic drink was consumed by one person without getting drunk, it is not haram, while being consumed by another person to drunkenness makes it haram [for this person],” the sheikh said, highlighting the difference between drinking liquor and getting drunk.
During a talk show on DMC TV channel, Al Gedy said that getting drunk is haram, sinful and forbidden in Islam, and all Islamic sharia laws related to the punishment apply to getting drunk as a consequence of drinking alcoholic beverages.
A drunken person is defined as one who cannot tell the bottom of a valley from its top, Al Gendy added.
Second Look at Moderate Islam?
Secretive Military Unit Offers Conditional Aid
In recent months, ill-informed Leftists who have spent the last 8 years repeatedly telling the public that they do not “need” guns and have no reason to fear the Federal Government (except of course for the police) have discovered that they are totally unprepared to carry out the violent overthrow of the Trump Administration and the revolution that they feel our country so desperately needs.The list of demands confirms that this offer is certainly legitimate.
Those pleas for a military-led coup had gone unanswered (and largely laughed at) by members of the Armed Forces until yesterday, when a little known Army Special Mission Unit responded to left-wing demands for a military removal of the Commander-in-Chief.
This is either never-before-seen footage of the Spec-4 Mafia and their list of demands, or Adobe Stock Art. We’re not sure which.
Known only as the “E4 Mafia..."
Could Frisco ISD Soon Use Students as Janitors?
This is part of the headline on an article about suggestions for the school district to cut costs.
This is normal in Japanese schools. Students finish their morning classes, eat lunch, clean the whole school, and then go to recess. Each class is assigned a particular area of the school to clean on a rotating schedule and the areas are inspected by their teachers before they are released for recess.
I think it might be good to make it normal here, as well, not just to cut costs, but also because it develops a sense of responsibility, work ethic, etc.
This is normal in Japanese schools. Students finish their morning classes, eat lunch, clean the whole school, and then go to recess. Each class is assigned a particular area of the school to clean on a rotating schedule and the areas are inspected by their teachers before they are released for recess.
I think it might be good to make it normal here, as well, not just to cut costs, but also because it develops a sense of responsibility, work ethic, etc.
Georgia Legislature Pondering Gun Rights
There are bills both expanding and contracting gun rights in Georgia before the Legislature right now.
NRA-ILA points to two bills that are restrictions. The more restrictive, HB 10, is an "assault weapons" ban that has very little chance of passage -- but if you're a citizen of Georgia, help kill it anyway.
HB 232 calls for concealed weapons permit holders to file some proof that they have received training in how to use a firearm. "House Bill 232 would require most gun license applicants to first complete a training course that would introduce the features of the handgun and a brief explanation of the loading, firing and unloading of a firearm. However, it would not require the applicant to actually fire a firearm. HB 232 does not provide specifically where the training would come from, nor does it provide a guide on potential costs associated with this training. All that HB 232 provides is that the instructor must be a law enforcement officer, nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety or a licensed firearms dealer."
The NRA is opposed to this, on the grounds that it would add to the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. I'm not actually convinced it's a bad idea, though. The concept of the militia is that it should be a trained fighting force, and I think that in the ideal case we would provide for such training for all able-bodied citizens. In the less-ideal case, it's not outrageous to suggest that you should have had basic training in the operation of a firearm before you carry one around; furthermore, the NRA stands to profit off this deal as the similar law in Virginia accepts NRA-licensed trainers as one of the options.
Finally, it brings the concealed weapons permit in line with Georgia's hunting licenses, which also require a hunter's safety course before issuance of the license. In Georgia, hunting is a right enshrined in the state constitution on the same terms as the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne," says the state constitution. I don't know that it merits an infringement to state that you must have proper training, as such training would not infringe upon your right but rather enhance your capacity to exercise it effectively.
Thus, on the merits I would almost be inclined to support this law. The only concern is that the government can't be trusted to get its nose under the tent wall, so to speak. I will leave the matter to your consciences, those of you who are fellow citizens of the Great State of Georgia.
On the pro-gun side, Campus Carry is back again. You'll remember that it was passed and vetoed last year by our esteemed Governor, who did at least file a reasonably worthy and articulate explanation for his veto. This is HB 280. In my opinion it is sensible; in the opinions of the whole universe of college professor types that I know, it's a horrible invasion of barbarity on their sacred ground. So, again, follow your conscience.
NRA-ILA points to two bills that are restrictions. The more restrictive, HB 10, is an "assault weapons" ban that has very little chance of passage -- but if you're a citizen of Georgia, help kill it anyway.
HB 232 calls for concealed weapons permit holders to file some proof that they have received training in how to use a firearm. "House Bill 232 would require most gun license applicants to first complete a training course that would introduce the features of the handgun and a brief explanation of the loading, firing and unloading of a firearm. However, it would not require the applicant to actually fire a firearm. HB 232 does not provide specifically where the training would come from, nor does it provide a guide on potential costs associated with this training. All that HB 232 provides is that the instructor must be a law enforcement officer, nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety or a licensed firearms dealer."
The NRA is opposed to this, on the grounds that it would add to the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. I'm not actually convinced it's a bad idea, though. The concept of the militia is that it should be a trained fighting force, and I think that in the ideal case we would provide for such training for all able-bodied citizens. In the less-ideal case, it's not outrageous to suggest that you should have had basic training in the operation of a firearm before you carry one around; furthermore, the NRA stands to profit off this deal as the similar law in Virginia accepts NRA-licensed trainers as one of the options.
Finally, it brings the concealed weapons permit in line with Georgia's hunting licenses, which also require a hunter's safety course before issuance of the license. In Georgia, hunting is a right enshrined in the state constitution on the same terms as the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne," says the state constitution. I don't know that it merits an infringement to state that you must have proper training, as such training would not infringe upon your right but rather enhance your capacity to exercise it effectively.
Thus, on the merits I would almost be inclined to support this law. The only concern is that the government can't be trusted to get its nose under the tent wall, so to speak. I will leave the matter to your consciences, those of you who are fellow citizens of the Great State of Georgia.
On the pro-gun side, Campus Carry is back again. You'll remember that it was passed and vetoed last year by our esteemed Governor, who did at least file a reasonably worthy and articulate explanation for his veto. This is HB 280. In my opinion it is sensible; in the opinions of the whole universe of college professor types that I know, it's a horrible invasion of barbarity on their sacred ground. So, again, follow your conscience.
A Record?
Mike Flynn just resigned as National Security Adviser, in what may be a record for shortest term ever in an NSA.
Standards have to apply to the powerful at least as much as to the weak, if things are to be any good at all. Hopefully that lesson is being learned.
UPDATE: Judging from the letter of resignation, Mike Pence is the one who put him down. Don't lie to the Biker in Chief.
Standards have to apply to the powerful at least as much as to the weak, if things are to be any good at all. Hopefully that lesson is being learned.
UPDATE: Judging from the letter of resignation, Mike Pence is the one who put him down. Don't lie to the Biker in Chief.
Meryl Streep on Honor
"Yes, I am the most overrated, over-decorated and currently, I am the most over-berated actress ... of my generation," she said to laughs.Leaving aside the particular political questions -- including whether or not her opponents are properly described as "brownshirts" -- her remarks about honor are themselves interesting. What compels her to speak is honors, she says: in other words, just because so many people have said nice things about her or presented her with awards admiring her work as an actress, her voice in politics is important and needed in the public debate.
She noted that she wished she could simply stay home "and load the dishwasher" rather than take a podium to speak out - but that "the weight of all these honors" she's received in her career compelled her to speak out.
"It's terrifying to put the target on your forehead," she said. "And it sets you up for all sorts of attacks and armies of brownshirts and bots and worse, and the only way you can do it is if you feel you have to. You have to! You don't have an option. You have to."
At first it seems as if this might be a sensible thing to say. After all, one is honored for excellence; she has received many honors; therefore, she must in some sense be excellent. Politics should in theory benefit if it draws excellence. Certainly Aristotle and Plato both argue that political roles are best filled by those with excellence. Our English word "virtue" is from the Latin, but the Greek word is arete, which really does mean "excellence."
Thus, it seems as if a woman of proven excellence really ought to play an outsized role in politics -- just as she says, the honors she has received prove that she has a greater capacity than most, and that implies a duty to exercise that capacity for the common good. Politics needs people like her.
Well... maybe that's not quite right.
The problem is that there are two different things going on, and Streep is conflating them. As an actress, she is highly honored (and has therefore outsized duties, presumably). As a citizen, however, she is properly the equal of any other citizen. It is wrong to claim that she has an outsized role to play in a sphere in which she is properly only the equal of all other American citizens, not their superior.
Her celebrity gives her a louder voice, so to speak, but she is reading her warrant the wrong way. Rather than her honors as an actress making it imperative that she speak publicly, they ought to disincline her to do so -- and this is true for all such celebrities, regardless of their political views. Knowing that the attention they will receive will drown out others to whom they ought only to be equal, they should be circumspect about their political views.
Certainly that does not mean that celebrities should not participate in politics, which they have an equal entitlement to do. They should just take care not to use the honors they have received in the fields of arts, or sports, to 'talk over' their fellow citizens. That is what honor really requires here.
Jim Webb on NBC
American politics needed a jolt, Webb says. Was it this one? What about the Democrats in 2018?
The journalist pins him early on the fact that he refers to Democrats as "they," not "we." Webb thinks about that for a minute and says that, you know, he's not really part of the system at the moment -- he's thinking about this all from the outside, as the journalist is himself, and as are all of us here. It's still an interesting observation.
UPDATE: Another piece on Webb today wonders what might have been.
The journalist pins him early on the fact that he refers to Democrats as "they," not "we." Webb thinks about that for a minute and says that, you know, he's not really part of the system at the moment -- he's thinking about this all from the outside, as the journalist is himself, and as are all of us here. It's still an interesting observation.
UPDATE: Another piece on Webb today wonders what might have been.
Islam, Reformation, the West
Andrew McCarthy proposes that we start asking politicians whether or not they think Islam needs reform. McCarthy's a thoughtful guy, and he has a point, but he hasn't reflected philosophically on the question. What does it even mean to ask "Does Islam need reform"? Islam is a religion. A religion either points to the true ground of the divine or it does not. If it does, then what sense is there to reform it? The structure of right and wrong, whatever it looks like, follows from the divine expression.
If it does not, then of course it ought to be reformed -- which is not to say that "it" needs reform. A religion that does not point to the divine is just a set of conventions, and a set of conventions has no needs. It's just something people do. People have needs. A longing for the divine is one of those needs for many people.
So the question really ought to be, "Do you think Islam is true?"
And, then, only if they answer in the negative, the second question is, "How should Muslims reform their faith so that they do in fact genuinely connect with the divine?"
Now, the proper thing to say about the second question is that anyone who is not a Muslim can only have an advisory opinion. We're not going to be the ones reforming Islam -- we're just going to be giving advice about it. Of course, what I said before holds for these. Even Muslims who want to reform Islam must first reject that it correctly captures the divine expression. They also must first admit, however tacitly, that they do not in fact believe what is taught by their faith.
The first question is the one that matters. It's only even sensible to talk about reform if you deny that Islam is true. Saying that has consequences we should face honestly.
If it does not, then of course it ought to be reformed -- which is not to say that "it" needs reform. A religion that does not point to the divine is just a set of conventions, and a set of conventions has no needs. It's just something people do. People have needs. A longing for the divine is one of those needs for many people.
So the question really ought to be, "Do you think Islam is true?"
And, then, only if they answer in the negative, the second question is, "How should Muslims reform their faith so that they do in fact genuinely connect with the divine?"
Now, the proper thing to say about the second question is that anyone who is not a Muslim can only have an advisory opinion. We're not going to be the ones reforming Islam -- we're just going to be giving advice about it. Of course, what I said before holds for these. Even Muslims who want to reform Islam must first reject that it correctly captures the divine expression. They also must first admit, however tacitly, that they do not in fact believe what is taught by their faith.
The first question is the one that matters. It's only even sensible to talk about reform if you deny that Islam is true. Saying that has consequences we should face honestly.
The Introduction of Beowulf in the Original
Apparently, he performs the whole thing live. He'll be up in the northeast in March and April if you want to catch him.
If, on the other hand, the northeast is a bit far, he sells a DVD on his website as well.
9th Circuit to Consider Reconsidering
Think one of the judges not on the 3 judge panel noticed they had completely forgotten to give an opinion on the relevant law?
Damned if you Do
So just a few days ago, I read in the Nation that Trump's nominee for the #2 spot at State was "an actual American war criminal."
Two different publications, of course, but it's still enough to make one's head spin.
As assistant secretary of state for human rights, Abrams sought to ensure that General EfraÃn RÃos Montt, Guatemala’s then-dictator, could carry out “acts of genocide”—those are the legally binding words of Guatemala’s United Nations–backed Commission for Historical Clarification—against the indigenous people in the Ixil region of the department of Quiché, without any pesky interference from human-rights organizations, much less the US government.So it now looks like the Abrams appointment is off. Is this evidence of Team Trump's good judgment? Of course not. In fact, the allegations against Abrams don't even appear in the piece about Trump shooting down the nomination. Abrams is presented in an unfailingly flattering light now that Trump doesn't want him.
As the mass killings were taking place, Abrams fought in Congress for military aid to RÃos Montt’s bloody regime.... Abrams not only supported the nonsensical official explanation (there was “no evidence indicating other than that the deaths were due to an accident”), he also denounced a spokeswoman for the group who demanded an investigation, insisting that she had “no right to call herself a human rights worker.” When The New York Times published an op-ed challenging the official State Department count of the mass murders under way—by a woman who had witnessed a death-squad-style assassination in broad daylight in Guatemala City without ever seeing it mentioned in the press—Abrams lied outright in a letter to the editor, even citing an imaginary story in a nonexistent newspaper to insist that the man’s murder had, in fact, been reported.
I don’t know about you, but intentionally helping the US government to aid and abet the commission of genocide, while attacking the character and reputation of those trying to expose it, strikes me as securely within the definition of “war criminal.”
Two different publications, of course, but it's still enough to make one's head spin.
Bad carbon math
More on the topic of how not to get bogged down in procedure when we roll back some of the dumber climate regs promulgated by the EPA. Apparently the agency's "social cost of carbon" calculation failed to distinguish between the domestic and foreign costs, in violation of OMB standards. Correcting this part of the procedure may be a quicker fix than others.
Judicial Review Suffers Self-Inflicted Wound
I don't object in the slightest degree to Trump's executive order coming under judicial review for its constitutionality. I do think the 9th circuit should probably have at least mentioned the law he was citing as granting him the legal authority.
Also, its reasoning would have to be that my protected exercise of free speech proved that I was such a bad person that I must be denied what would be legal for anyone else in my position.
Judicial review can be a good thing, but this is a poor example of it.
This would be roughly like me being brought into court for carrying a firearm in Georgia, presenting my license to do so, and citing the sections of the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated, that specifically permit someone with such a license to carry such a firearm -- and then having the court rule against me without acknowledging the law existed.(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by PresidentRemarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Also, its reasoning would have to be that my protected exercise of free speech proved that I was such a bad person that I must be denied what would be legal for anyone else in my position.
Judicial review can be a good thing, but this is a poor example of it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)