Quoting Nate: Unfortunately they talk about the possible UN resolution to make speech against religion illegal. A shame; I was interested in what they would have to say.

Presumably, you meant "they don't," right? I sent both of them an email early Saturday, asking them to consider it, even though I figured it would be too late.* Maybe next week. M&M: If you're reading this, I could only find a general email address for Mark (@undisp) and Matthew's (@innercity) email bounced. If you care. ===========
* [Added] They say near the start that they recorded on Wednesday.

I posted about it in the other thread but I'm pretty sure that UN resolution isn't news. Here's the US response to it when it was passed last year, which IIRC was the fourth year in a row it passed in the General Assembly (prior to that it was passed in the HRC). Not 100% positive on this but I suspect there's a reason why only cranks seem to be making noise about this (I mean like bloggers and Dobbs not you guys)
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press200...Religions.html I liked listening to Goldberg give Lee a little bit of grief over the Sri Lanka non-icide. Not that I would have predicted any better - it seemed like everyone thought the army had the Tigers dead to rights in a populous area - but it might make Lee slow down a little next time. I like him and everything but man is it annoying having someone always trying to put things in context

Quoting bjkeefe: Presumably, you meant "they don't," right?

Aah, yes. My copyediting skills leave much to be desired. *fixed*

Quoting bjkeefe: I sent both of them an email early Saturday, asking them to consider it, even though I figured it would be too late.* Maybe next week.

M&M: If you're reading this, I could only find a general email address for Mark (@undisp) and Matthew's (@innercity) email bounced. If you care.

===========
* [Added] They say near the start that they recorded on Wednesday.

Always on top of things; Nice job. Actually, upon further reflection the story likely did not start getting much play until later in the week after they recorded this episode.

Quoting pampl: I posted about it in the other thread but I'm pretty sure that UN resolution isn't news. Here's the US response to it when it was passed last year, which IIRC was the fourth year in a row it passed in the General Assembly (prior to that it was passed in the HRC). Not 100% positive on this but I suspect there's a reason why only cranks seem to be making noise about this (I mean like bloggers and Dobbs not you guys)
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press200...Religions.html

Thanks for that, pampl. I'll have to look into it some more to be sure -- it seemed more pressing when I first heard about it, but you (and Twin) have made me less certain. I'll also say that that response is amazingly well-written for an official government document. And, no, it's okay to call me a crank, especially on the issue of theocracy on the march.

Quoting pampl: I posted about it in the other thread but I'm pretty sure that UN resolution isn't news. Here's the US response to it when it was passed last year, which IIRC was the fourth year in a row it passed in the General Assembly (prior to that it was passed in the HRC). Not 100% positive on this but I suspect there's a reason why only cranks seem to be making noise about this (I mean like bloggers and Dobbs not you guys)
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press200...Religions.html

I liked listening to Goldberg give Lee a little bit of grief over the Sri Lanka non-icide. Not that I would have predicted any better - it seemed like everyone thought the army had the Tigers dead to rights in a populous area - but it might make Lee slow down a little next time. I like him and everything but man is it annoying having someone always trying to put things in context

Hey, I can be very cranky, sometimes!

Quoting pampl: I posted about it in the other thread but I'm pretty sure that UN resolution isn't news. Here's the US response to it when it was passed last year ...

The one thing I'd say, in further reflections, is that according to the document I linked to in the other thread, it looks like we have a new version of the resolution, dated 12 November 2008. So, we need to look into this some more.

Pampl,
Thank you for weighing in on this topic and adding some perspective. I was ready to dismiss it out of hand as so much foam collecting on the mouths of wingnuts, but I guess, as AEMJeff and Brendan have said, we should never take (possible) threats to free speech lightly. On the other hand, I hate to contribute my energies to the obsessions of far-right extremists. The reason they are spazzing uncontrollably is because it gives them an excuse to attack two of their favorite targets: The United Nations, and Muslims.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll also say that that response is amazingly well-written for an official government document.

Coming from you, that's a high compliment. But you're right: It does an excellent job of explaining the flaws with this resolution. This passage nails it:

While appearing in name to promote tolerance, implementation of this concept actually fosters intolerance and has served to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms such as the freedoms of religion and expression for all persons, including those who may or may not belong to a particular faith. Accordingly, the United States considers this concept to be inherently flawed.

At the same time, the Unites States reiterates that it does not support statements intended to insult religious traditions and works to promote a climate of tolerance, respect, and understanding. The Unites States condemns discrimination based on such grounds as race, ethnicity, religion or gender and supports international efforts to combat such discrimination. The United States understands that religion is a central organizing principle for many societies. We sympathize with those who seek to promote tolerance and take a strong stand against offensive speech. Restricting the rights of individuals, however, is not

Quoting TwinSwords: Pampl,
Thank you for weighing in on this topic and adding some perspective. I was ready to dismiss it out of hand as so much foam collecting on the mouths of wingnuts, but I guess, as AEMJeff and Brendan have said, we should never take (possible) threats to free speech lightly.

On the other hand, I hate to contribute my energies to the obsessions of far-right extremists. The reason they are spazzing uncontrollably is because it gives them an excuse to attack two of their favorite targets: The United Nations, and Muslims.

You're absolutely right that people who fear teh Muslin, and those who want to use this fear in their audiences to whip them up, are leaping on this with glee, and for all the wrong reasons. At risk of being a repetitious drone, I'll say again that this is why it's so important for people like us to speak up about this -- so we don't let a distasteful, and more to the point, easily dismissed contingent represent the entirety of the opposition. There isn't anything hateful to demanding that religion be denied a claim of immunity from criticism or even mockery, unless we let only the hate-filled represent us.

Quoting TwinSwords: A little surprised something so enlightened came out of the Bush administration. ;-)

Heh. Just goes to show that sometimes the civil service bureaucracy does a fine job.

Comparing the violence in present day Somalia to early 90's Rwanda is ill-fitting to say the least. The situation in Somalia better fits with the history of Afghanistan. There was a weak central government that collapsed and what emerged was the much more older system of clan based allegiances directed by militarally powerful warlords and elders. Mark is 100% right in saying that they is no "peace to keep" in Somalia. Setting up a peacekeeping force would be tantamount to invading and occupying the place; this was already tried with the setting up of the weak puppet regime that was the TFG. If one wants to stabilize Somalia you must allow all politically and millitary important forces to be fully represented. So in the end this must include the Islamists (both the hardliners and the reformists). The first plan to help the Ethiopians invade Somalia, topple the UIC and install the TFG was a bloodly disaster. If peace is achievable in Somalia it will be only through a sustained joint effort by these clan leaders and religious groups. Not through any overt foreign involvement.

The answer as to why Sri Lanka doesn't get any attention from the UN and the European Press is simple. If they can't demoinize Israel they don't care. It's a classic example of how the world has one standard for Israel and another for everyone else.

Quoting Nate: [...]

Update on this resolution here, if you missed it.

Sri Lankan Genocide does not get any attention purely it is a failed state with not many resources. Who cares if the Tamils live or die!! It is all about politics. The UN has become too much of a poltical organization, with muted leaders like Ban Ki-Moon, who seem to be ones selected by the member nation to run. It is easier to have puppet than someone who will question the governments. There are more countries who commit atrocities have a stronger say in the UN than Israel. I sympatize with Israel as they will never get the support from UN.

A great dialogue on freedom of speech in regards to offending religious types was done between Christopher Hitchens and Shashi Tharoor of the UN at the Hay Festival a couple years back. I paid a buck for it back in the day but it's now available and a great listen, as relevant regarding race as it is religion. Tharoor-Hitchens Hay Festival - The Freedoms Of Speech