Say What You Mean, and Mean What You Say...

I have these little sayings that I have made up during the course of my life. I developed most of these sayings from my years of raising kids.

And, uh no, I haven't finished raising my kids. I have two still left at home.

I don't know why I made these kinds of things up other than it was some coherent way to hold on to my sanity during insane times. Or maybe I am such a self-amusing sort of person that it's just something that I did...

Out of survival.


One of my sayings is:

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

I have found this particular saying to stand me in good stead many a time. It helps me to keep from saying things that I might find myself regretting later. It also keeps me from making promises that I may not be able to keep.

By holding myself to this standard, it helps a great deal in my effort to think before I speak.

But the biggest benefit by far is that it keeps me an honest person.

A person of my word.

So in light of this, I tend to judge people's words in conjunction with their actions. If your actions don't match your words, then I will probably view you as an insincere and dishonest person.

Simply put, a liar.

So the New York Times published an Op/Ed article which is quite baffling to me. If you remember, this paper refused to publish the Mohammed Cartoons.

Well, the article reads well and tends to reflect my viewpoints. But it really just rings hollow coming from the New York Times.

February 25, 2006

Editorial

Silenced by Islamist Rage

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. The demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as blasphemy. But radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response.

It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced. Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed. According to a report by Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah in The New York Times, 11 journalists in five Islamic countries face prosecution for printing some of the Danish cartoons, even when their purpose was to condemn them.

In most of these cases, the legal action represents attempts by cowed authorities to appease the Islamists. But the effect — in Yemen, Jordan and other countries — has only been to give extremists a dollop of legitimacy, and to encourage them to turn up the heat. That, in turn, increases the perception of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.

It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence. It is they who must explain to their people that the cartoons were an isolated incident, and not the face of hostile crusaders. It is they who must make it clear to their people that blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant paper. They must do so because their future is at stake — not Denmark's.



This editorial really seems cheap to me since none of the NYT's guys stuck any of their necks out for fear of Islamic retaliation.

Didn't the New York Times refusal to publish the cartoons give some form of legitimacy to the rioting Muslims?

Or am I confusing 'legitimacy' with 'cowed' behavior?

Sometimes I get confused with things like this...

It's kind of like talking about having 'the guts' to do something when it's not *your guts* that are likely to get spilled.



The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard is certainly standing up, as well as his Treasurer, Peter Costello.

Mr Howard told the Herald, "when you come to this country, you become Australian". Similarly, Mr Costello had said: "Before becoming an Australian, you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."

In the interview, Mr Howard said multiculturalism had become distorted and too often stupidly meant "a federation of cultures". And he said Muslims must work at avoiding their alienation. Mr Costello condemned "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism".

Initially, the Costello comments - including stripping citizenship from people who advocate Islamic law over Australian law - were judged to be at odds with Mr Howard. On the same day, Mr Howard had spoken of the contribution of "all of those who weren't born in this country" and extolled Australia as the least discriminatory country. In the interview, however, Mr Howard said integration was underdone, even though Australia was "very socially cohesive". Yesterday Mr Howard said Australia's core set of values flowed from its Anglo-Saxon identity and the Treasurer's essential point - that people should not migrate to countries they do not appreciate - was unexceptional.



Sounds like the political powers in Australia aren't very politically correct.

Reading that article kind of refreshed me there for a bit.

I even love its title:

Live Here and Be Australian, Howard Declares

I don't know these two guys...

so we'll have to see if they "mean what they say".


Or better yet...

See if their idea *catches on*.

later...