Subscribe to Rational Outrage  Subscribe in a reader

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

User Login

We have a great community planned for Rational Outrage. Register now so that you won't miss any of our up and coming features.



Featured Blog

Outside Outrage

We're not the only ones who are outraged - here are some outside outrages that caught our eye!

Recent Outrage

Political Outrage
Free Nepal? Print E-mail
User Rating: / 8
PoorBest 
Written by Shan-ul-Hai   
Thursday, 15 May 2008 02:26

From the author of Globally Rational

free NepalIt seems that President Bush’s top security advisor, the man responsible for his trip to China for the Olympics, doesn’t know the difference between Tibet and Nepal. During a recent appearance with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, he repeatedly used the word “Nepal” to describe the country whose 58-year-long rule by China has been a major international concern in the few months before the Olympics. The President, meanwhile, has ignored calls for him to boycott the Olympic opening ceremony, despite the fact that many other world leaders have publicly clarified that they have no intention of supporting Beijing on that day. These two facts, especially when coupled together, can only lead us to believe that the administration is far from concerned about the innocent victims of the injustices in Tibet. For the benefit of the security advisor (whose name, by the way, is Stephen Hadley), I thought I’d outline the difference between Tibet and its neighbors:

TIBET: Victim of an unprovoked Chinese invasion in 1950. Ever since then, the rights of Buddhist majority have been suppressed by the Chinese government, which openly expects atheism from its citizens. Tibet is home to most of the Buddhist monks that we often see on TV wearing orange robes.

NEPAL: An independent kingdom in the Himalayas, only 10% of whose population is Buddhist. Most people in Nepal are Hindu, many of them speak Hindi (the primary language of India), and their traditions are far more Indian than they are Chinese or Tibetan. The Dalai Lama, the leader of the Buddhist people, has never lived here and Tibet is in no way affiliated with Nepal (aside from their proximity). Nepal is known mostly for Mount Everest, but definitely not for Buddhism.

BHUTAN: Unlike Nepal, Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom that neighbors Tibet. This would have been a better comparison because, although Tibet is not a kingdom, Bhutan does have a strong tradition of Buddhist principles.

MYANMAR: Again, this would have been a better comparison. This is another Buddhist state and it did change political hands around the same time as Tibet (Myanmar, then known as Burma, became independent from Britain about the same time as China invaded Tibet). Furthermore, Myanmar is about the same size as Tibet.

So why did Mr. Hadley confuse Tibet with Nepal? There were three countries that are much more similar to Tibet than Nepal is… but my guess is that he doesn’t know that. Confusing Tibet and Myanmar is understandable to some extent; it’s analogous to confusing Syria and Jordan (similar cultures, different political systems). But confusing Tibet and Nepal is more analogous to confusing China and India (shared border, but very different in terms of culture/ethnicity/religion/government).

Apparently, he doesn’t care enough to learn the difference… and America’s relative apathy in the matter is a testament to how isolated our society is becoming in this increasingly globalizing economy. I wonder what percentage of Americans could successfully find Tibet (or Nepal) on a world map.

Add Comment (1)
 
Invisible Executive Order Deserves a Closer Look Print E-mail
User Rating: / 5
PoorBest 
Written by Tiffany Sanders   
Monday, 10 March 2008 20:08
On July 17, 2007, President Bush signed an Executive Order allowing the government to freeze the property of any person “threatening the stabilization effort in Iraq”. The order received a fair amount of international news coverage, but here at home it seems that no one noticed—and that’s too bad, because you might be surprised who’s at risk.

At the same day’s White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow assured the press that the measure was aimed at “insurgents and those who come across the border” and referenced prior executive orders, summing up, “So anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the borders, who may be -- who may not fit neatly into those other two categories, this provides ways of going after those who provide financial, logistical or other support for them.”

And life went on. That all sounds perfectly reasonable--except, of course, that the Executive Order itself wasn’t nearly so narrowly tailored as Mr. Snow’s remarks; the true intent and extent of its possible application can’t be known. And the real possible applications of this executive order are terrifying.

A bit of historical perspective might be helpful. During the Vietnam era, those deemed by the White House to be possible destabilizing forces included not only anti-war protestors of varying stature (including Martin Luther King, Jr. and later his widow, Coretta Scott King), but also certain Democratic Congressmen who opposed the war.

The Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Person’s Who Threaten Stabilization in Iraq might not be used for any such purpose. It might be applied exactly as Tony Snow would have us believe. But it’s not limited to that application by its own terms, and that’s something we should all be aware of. It’s something that should have been much more widely reported.

Here’s the listing, directly from the Executive Order itself, of people and entities to whom it applies (emphasis added):

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Let’s consider a hypothetical. Your brother makes a donation to a political organization that, among other things, protests the war in Iraq. One day, during a protest, certain members of that organization get a little out of control and damage some property. When the police come to break up the rally, tempers flare and a couple of members resist arrest. The organization’s assets are frozen. After the government has reviewed the organization’s list of contributors, your brother’s assets are frozen. Your brother comes to you for help, and you give him $500 in cash to tide him over while he straightens out what you think is surely a mistake. Your assets are frozen.

Outrageous? You bet.

Unlikely? Reasonable people may disagree.

Legal under the terms of the Executive Order? Absolutely.

Would our government go that far? I don’t know. I’m not here to argue that point. I’m just wondering why, if this is as far-fetched as it sounds, the White House felt it necessary to include terms that would make it all possible.

Add Comment (1)
 


One Minute Outrage - Cultural

Issue: Parents keep griping about the sleazy clothing lines for kids, but someone is buying all those sheer blouses, half-shirts and short-short skirts made special for grade-schoolers.


Impact: As long as there's money to be made, companies will keep manufacturing--and pushing--the clothes we wish our kids weren't wearing...and they'll continue to see them on television, in store windows and on their friends and set their sights on a look we'd rather they didn't even know about.


Read More: When Tweens Dress Like Tramps...

One Minute Outrage - Political

Issue: President Bush signs Executive Order allowing the federal government to freeze without notice the assets of various classes of people and organizations “destabilizing” the effort in Iraq—and no one notices.


Impact: Unknown; the possibly impact under the terms of the order is much more far-reaching than the quick description at the press briefing would indicate.



Read More: Invisible Executive Order Deserves A Closer Look

One Minute Outrage - Legal

Issue: Police departments in major cities across the country aren't content to arrest self-made criminals, but have decided to hit the streets and see whether they can create some more.

Impact: Time and tax dollars poured into sting operations designed to test ordinary people and create crimes that would never have been; meanwhile, who's minding the store?  Hundreds of thousands of unserved felony warrants lie inactive across the country while police experiment in subways, department stores and on streetcorners.

Read More:  Make Your Own Criminal – It's So Much Easier than Chasing the Real Ones

One Minute Outrage - Cultural

Issue: Easy access to media in the Internet age has exaggerated the drive for the proverbial "15 minutes of fame"--and what ordinary people are willing to do in order to achieve that fame spirals further out of control every day.

Impact: As what we're willing to do for attention and a little slice of fame edges further and further beyond the bounds of sanity and safety, what it takes to achieve even fleeting notoriety expands as well, creating a spiral of ever-increasing risk-taking, violence, and life-altering choices in the quest for a moment in the sun.

Read More: Attention Whores: A Social Epidemic

What's Real About Reality TV?


Reality TVReality television survives, ironically, through a carefully maintained web of lies. Some of those lies are simple and wouldn’t surprise most people: spontaneous events are shot multiple times, scenes are filmed out of season, time sequences are misrepresented. But the larger lies are the ones sold to the participants—lies that are absolutely acceptable because the contract says so. When you step into reality television, you must agree—explicitly—to be deceived, and that you have no recourse if the outcome of that deception is harmful. All well and good, perhaps, for adults who understand what they’re getting into. But what about an etiquette-school teacher who thinks she’s part of a documentary and ends up in Borat’s movie? A child rented out to Kid Nation?

Read More: What Does “Reality” Really Mean, Anyway?
Most Popular Outrages
Back to the top
About Rational Outrage | Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions | Submission Guidelines | Comment Policy | Image Credits

Joomla Template Design